Chhattisgarh High Court Quashes Complaint Against Former Chief Justice and Judges

The Chhattisgarh High Court recently quashed a criminal complaint filed against former Chief Justice Navin Sinha, former judge Justice P. Diwaker, and several members of the State’s higher judicial service. The complaint had been filed in 2016 by Pratibha Gwal, wife of former Chief Judicial Magistrate Prabhakar Gwal.

The complaint alleged that a criminal case relating to an incident at a toll plaza in October 2015 was deliberately not pursued due to a conspiracy involving police officers, judicial officers, and senior judges of the High Court.

Pratibha Gwal claimed that certain individuals had abused her husband, who was then serving as Chief Judicial Magistrate. According to her complaint, the police did not file a chargesheet because of a larger conspiracy involving officials and members of the judiciary.

After the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Raipur took cognisance of the complaint and fixed the matter for recording preliminary evidence, the High Court approached itself through its Registrar General by filing a writ petition seeking quashing of the proceedings.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru examined the allegations and concluded that the complaint lacked specific details and failed to disclose the commission of any cognisable offence by the judges or judicial officers named in it.

The Bench observed, “The continuance of the impugned complaint proceedings against the Respondent Nos. 11 to 19 before the learned trial Court would amount to a gross abuse of the process of law. The allegations contained in the complaint, even if taken at their face value and accepted in entirety, fail to disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged.”

The Court further stated that allowing such prosecution to continue would expose the concerned persons to unnecessary harassment without any legal basis. It therefore allowed the writ petition and quashed the complaint insofar as it related to the judges and certain judicial officers.

“Accordingly, the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned criminal complaint… is quashed and set aside,” the Court ordered.

However, the Bench clarified that the proceedings could continue against any other proposed accused persons named in the complaint. The Court also set aside the Raipur magistrate’s order fixing the case for recording preliminary evidence against the judges.

The judgment noted that although the complaint was filed by Pratibha Gwal, the allegations primarily related to official matters involving her husband’s judicial service. The Court emphasised that the affidavit supporting the complaint was based on information that was within the exclusive knowledge of her husband.

Senior Advocate N.K. Shukla, appearing for the High Court Registrar General, argued that the complaint contained sweeping allegations without material facts. The State, represented by Additional Advocate General Praveen Das, stated that it would abide by the Court’s decision.

The Bench emphasised that summoning constitutional authorities and members of the judiciary carries serious institutional implications. It stated that criminal law cannot be used as a means of harassment or to pursue administrative grievances.

The Court also held that allegations relating to transfers, disciplinary actions, or termination from service fall within service law and cannot be converted into criminal conspiracy without concrete evidence.

The judgment further noted that Prabhakar Gwal had earlier faced disciplinary proceedings and was dismissed from judicial service in 2016. The Supreme Court later upheld the High Court’s decision to terminate him.

Ultimately, the Court cautioned that permitting vague allegations against judges and public servants could damage the institutional integrity of the judiciary and encourage reckless accusations.