PRADEEPAN K. P. Vs. JESSY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A serving judicial officer is compelled to beseech this Court for justice against the warped machinations of a lady member of the Court staff alleging lascivious and prurient overtures at her. The only prayer in her private complaint lodged before the Magistrate was to forward the same to the police under S.156(3) CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973). Apart from the fact that, (as held by this Court in Arul V. Nair v. State of Kerala, 2007 (4) KHC 597 : 2007 (4) KLT 921 : 2007 (2) KLD 571 : ILR 2007 (4) Ker. 550 ) a petition for merely forwarding the complaint to the police is not maintainable, the request made in that behalf had a sinister motive of managing things from the police station where her own husband is a police constable. The allegation made in this regard has not been controverted in the statement filed by her before this Court. She has come out with more instances of erotic impropriety on the part of the judicial officer in the statement filed before this Court. There is no explanation as to why she concealed these additional instances in her private complaint. I have no hesitation to conclude that the private complaint is part of a wicked ploy calculated to cast a slur on the reputation of the judicial officer who had been instrumental in initiating disciplinary action against her as evidenced by Annexures 1 to 3. It is not for the police to decide whether a judicial officer has been guilty of lustful overtures. As a matter of fact, after the decision of the Apex Court in the Nadiad Chief Judicial Magistrate's case, 1991 KHC 1033 : 1991 (4) SCC 406 : 1991 (4) SCC 406 : AIR 1991 SC 2176 : JT 1991 (3) SC 617 : 1991 CriLJ 3086 : 1991 AIR SCW 2419 : 1991 (3) CRIMES 232 there is an in house mechanism in place in the High Court for considering complaints against judicial officers. This lady having not resorted to the said remedy by submitting a complaint before the Registrar (Judicial) in this regard was acting mischievously by lodging this complaint before the Magistrate and getting the same forwarded to the police station from where her husband could engineer things as he decides. The saddest part of this episode is the most reprehensible conduct of the Magistrate in forwarding the private complaint against a judicial officer to the police for investigation. Since in the light of the decision in Sabir v. Jaswant and Others, 2002 CriLJ 4563 an order under S.156(3) CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) is revisable, the impugned order dated 03/06/2008 passed by the Magistrate forwarding the private complaint to the police for investigation is set aside.

(2.) The aforesaid private complaint appears to be part of an inspired action against the particular judicial officer at the instance of certain vested interests. Annexures 1 to 3 produced along with this revision give some insight into the conduct of the particular member of the lady staff. The judiciary can ill afford to have such undesirable elements among its staff. The Registrar, Subordinate Judiciary shall cause an inquiry to be conducted through the Registrar (Vigilance) into the antecedents of the particular lady member of the staff. The enquiry shall also comprehend the circumstances culminating in her lodging the private complaint against the revision petitioner / judicial officer. Appropriate action as deem fit, shall be taken after such enquiry. The question of transferring her out of the District may also be considered at the earliest.