In a rare instance, the High Court of Karnataka on Tuesday initiated suo motu criminal proceedings for quashing criminal proceedings initiated against a civil judge in the district court, Ballari, last year even though judicial officers are protected from prosecution under provisions of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice M. Nagaprasanna started the proceedings for quashing the criminal case, initiated against judicial officer Vijay Kumar S. Jatla who was serving as a civil judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) in Ballari district.
“In view of absolute protection granted under Section 3(1) of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, the complaint should not have been entertained and registered against the judicial officer,” the Bench said, noting that the court in Ballari had gone ahead with the complaint by fixing a date for recording the sworn statement of the complainant.
“If the complaint is allowed to proceed further, it will set at naught the protection given to the judicial officer under the Act,” the Bench observed while directing the Registrar-General of the High Court to put up the suo motu petition for hearing on July 27.
Prohibition on courts
Section 3(1) of the Act states that no court shall entertain or continue any civil or criminal proceedings against any person who is or was a judge for any act committed/word spoken by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official or judicial duty.
A person named Manjunath had lodged the private criminal complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the civil judge and JMFC for making certain statements during the remand proceedings in a criminal case and for rejecting the protest petition filed by the complainant last year.
Background
The complainant, on May 25, 2019, wrote a complaint to the Chief Justice against the civil judge. To this complaint, the Secretary to the Chief Justice, in a letter dated June 13, 2019, advised the complainant to pursue the grievance on the judicial side as the grievance was made on a judicial order passed by a civil court.
Interestingly, the complainant initiated criminal proceedings against the civil judge by treating this letter as permission to do so. He invoked offences under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including those related to legally making false charges, a public servant maliciously making a report or verdict in a judicial proceeding, and defamation.
However, the gist of the letter from the Secretary of the Chief Justice was that the complainant had to question the order on remand and protest petition passed by the civil judge and JMFC before the appropriate legal forum as per the law.
