Biggest abuse of office: Supreme Court on judge who filed case against his brother

The Supreme Court on Friday slammed a West Bengal judicial officer for filing a criminal case of forgery against his own brother through a magistrate instead of filing a police complaint. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta took serious exception to the judge’s way of applying criminal law. “This is the biggest misuse of legal office. The judge should be sent home,” the court said.

The court refused to interfere with the decision of the Calcutta High Court to quash the criminal case and also refused to hear the judge’s appeal. Ultimately the judge decided to withdraw the appeal. The case pertains to a private complaint filed by the Judicial Officer before the Magistrate on January 6, 2022.

The judge alleged that his brother forged his signature on the LLM dissertation submitted to Annamalai University and created a fake court seal. Based on the complaint, the magistrate took cognizance and issued process under sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The brother then approached the Calcutta High Court to quash the action.

The High Court completely quashed the criminal case including the cognizance order and summons. In doing so, he held that the judicial officer had misused his official position in what he considered a personal dispute. He said that a judge involved in a personal matter should file a police complaint like any other citizen and should not use his position in a way that prejudices the process.

The High Court further directed that a copy of its judgment be placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate administrative action against the judge. Angered by this, the judicial officer approached the Supreme Court. Before the Supreme Court, he stated that he had filed the complaint in his personal capacity as a victim of fraud and there is no legal bar to prevent a judge from filing a private complaint before a magistrate. However, When the matter came before the Supreme Court, it expressed strong displeasure at the judge’s behavior and refused to grant any relief.

Comments are closed.