Indian Association of Lawyers and Another vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Others

1 These cases bring to light yet another instance where a Judge is sought to be maligned by the Police. Several Lawyers Associations and Judicial Officers Association swung into action by moving this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution and u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ''the Code'') and secured an order, though temporarily, staying such an attempt.

The Indian Association of Lawyers, Nellore District Unit and the Nellore District Bar Federation, Nellore, sought Mandamus to declare the First Information Report dated 23-12-1992 lodged by a Police Constable, R-4, under various offences, against Mr. Imthiyaz Ahmed, the then II Addl. Judicial Ist Class Magistrate, Nellore, as illegal and without jurisdiction. This Court by an order dt. 31-12-1992 in W.P.M.P. No. 22153 of 1992 in W.P. No. 17484 of 1992 stayed all further proceedings pursuant to the registration of F.I.R. pending further order. The All India Judges'' Association, Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Officers'' Association, Indian Association of Lawyers, Nellore District Unit, Nellore, Nellore Bar Association, Nellore District Bar Federation and Mr. Imtiyaz Ahmed, the Judicial Officer, filed Crl.P. No. 75 of 1993 u/s 482 of the Code, against the Superintendent of Police, Nellore and other Police Officers including a Police Constable, to quash the offending F.I.R. It was prayed, as an interim measure, in Crl.M.P. No. 145 of 93, for the appointment of a Judicial Commission to enquire into the facts that led to the filing of the F.I.R. This Court while admitting the Criminal Petition on 21-1-1993, ordered the appointment of a Committee of Advocates to inquire into the genuiness or otherwise of the complaint and directed the Committee to submit a report to this Court. Questioning the order of appointment of the Committee of Advocates, the respondent-Police Officers filed Special Leave to Appeal No. 1735 of 1994 before the Supreme Court. While dismissing the Special Leave to Appeal, the Supreme Court requested this Court to dispose of the main Crl. Petition along with other petitions that may have been filed by the Nellore Lawyers'' Association and other Associations of the Judicial Officers. It was made clear by the Supreme Court that the delay in submitting the report by the Lawyers Committee shall be no ground to dispose of the Matter. The Registry posted for hearing the Crl.P. No. 75 of 1993 along with W.P. No. 17484 of 1992 which was filed by the Indian Association of Lawyers and Nellore District Bar Association, for disposal on merits. Since in both the cases the same First Information Report is impugned, and, on almost the same grounds, they are disposed of by a common order.

It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitioner that Mr. Imthiaz Ahmed, the II Addl. Judicial Ist Class Magistrate has been discharging his duties without fear or favour, maintaining very high stands of administration of justice. He was quite stringent with the Police and used to criticise them openly whenever they were at fault. It was alleged that R-4, the Police Constable went to the residence of the Magistrate for the purpose of handing over certain F.I.R. copies while the Magistrate was on leave. The Magistrate asked him to approach the concerned in-charge Magistrate since he was on leave and was about to leave the station. Thereupon the Police Constable behaved in an objectionable and rude manner with the Magistrate and also abused him. The Magistrate has complained about his action to the Addl. District Judge, who, in turn, addressed a letter to the Hon''ble Chief Justice. But, strangely, R-4 lodged a complaint in Town Police Station, Nellore, falsely alleging that the Magistrate assaulted and abused R-4 referring to his caste (Scheduled Caste) when R-4 went to his residence to hand over FIR in a case and that the Magistrate also kicked him in the stomach. The complaint was registered under various offences of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and I.P.C. An express F.I.R. was submitted to the Inspector of Police for investigation and a copy of the F.I.R. was also forwarded to the Special Judge constituted under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It was alleged that the above false complaint was the result of a conspiracy hatched by the Police in Nellore District, to foist a false case against the Magistrate, since he has been taking severe action against the Police whenever they indulged in excesses with the citizens or failed to comply with the orders of the Court. It was also alleged that one Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the same Police Station was imposed a fine of Rs. 100/- when he failed to attend the Court. Several instances have been enumerated in the affidavit where the Magistrate found fault with the investigation of the police and his observations in that regard were widely published in the local newspapers. It is therefore stated that the 4th respondent was set up by the Police to file a false case against the Magistrate to malign him.

Only the 4th respondent appeared through counsel but none of the respondents filed their counter-affidavits.

P. Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, contended that Police officials developed confrontational attitude against the Magistrate since he was upright and stringent in discharging his duties, without, in any way, condoning their excesses or lapses and the Police have therefore conspired to foist a false case and malign him and the offending F.I.R. was the result of such conspiracy and it should therefore be held as mala fide and illegal. It was also prayed that to uphold the rule of law and to protect the independence of the Judiciary, this Court in the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction, may issue guidelines to be observed by the Police whenever any complaint u/s 154 of the Code has been filed against a Judicial Officer, complaining commission of any offence, whatever the nature of allegations. It was also contended that the allegations of F.I.R. do not constitute the offences for which the F.I.R. was registered and the F.I.R. and the proceedings taken pursuant thereto be quashed.

The counsel for the petitioners in Criminal Petition adopted the arguments advanced by Sri Sridhar Reddy. It is to be noticed that none of the respondents have filed the counters in this case also.

Several decisions have been cited across the bar in support of their contentions. Sri Y. Rama Rao, learned counsel appearing for R-4 in the writ petition and the learned public prosecutor, for the State in both the cases, fairly placed all the relevant decisions before me and assisted the Court, since this cannot be an adversorial litigation. However, I do not propose to got deep into the merits of the case or to deal with the authorities relied upon touching various aspects of the case, in view of the views expressed by the learned Judge of apex Court while dealing with cases involving, similar and grim incidents.

It is well to remind ourselves, that the Subordinate Judiciary which forms the base in the heirarchy of judicial set up, is not properly taken care of. The millions of have-nots in the country shall have to remain contended for the resolution of their disputes at the district level only. They do not have the leisure or wherewithal even to venture to the doors of the High Court. The Subordinate Judiciary has therefore, to be protected from interference or attack by any other agency, and maintain its independent authority and to inspire confidence in the people at large. This situation was highlighted by the apex Court in the classic case of Delhi Judicial Service Association, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi Vs. State of Gujarat and others, , dealing with a ''horrendous'' incident in the State of Gujarat of the Police assaulting and arresting a Judicial Magistrate, thus :

"The subordinate Courts at the District level cater to the need of the masses in administering the justice at the base level. By and large the majority of the people get their disputes adjudicated in the Subordinate Courts, it is in the general interest of the community that the authority of the Subordinate Courts is protected ........ It the Police harass Judicial Officers it would be "distructive of basic structure of an ordered society. If this is permitted Rule of Law shall be supplanted by Police Raj ......... The incident is a clear interference with the administration of justicee, lowering its judicial authority ......... The incident highlights a dangerous trend that if the Police is annoyed with the orders of a Presiding Officer of a Court, he would be arrested on flimsy manufactured charges, to humiliate him publicly as has been done in the instant case ......."

The above observations are apposite in the instant case. To continue the observations :

"...... The incident undermined the dignity of Courts in the country, Judicial Officers, Judges and Magistrates all over the country were in a State of shock, they felt insecure and humiliated and it appeared that instead of Rule of Law there was Police Raj in Gujarat. A number of Bar Associations passed Resolutions and went on strike ...... Since this Court has power of judicial superintendence and control over all the Courts and Tribunals functioning in the entire territory of the country, it has a corresponding duty to protect and safeguard the interest of inferior Courts to ensure the flow of the stream of justice in the Courts without any interference or attack from any quarter. The subordinate and inferior Courts do not have adequate power under the law to protect themselves, therefore, it is necessary that this Court should protect them. Under the constitutional scheme this Court has a special role, in the administration of justice and the powers conferred on it under Articles 32, 136, 141 and 142 form part of basic structure of the Constitution. The amplitude of the power of this Court under these articles of the constitution cannot be curtailed by law made by Central or State legislature."

The Supreme Court in its deep concern to the subordinate judiciary, observed in Samsher Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, , that

"It was indeed strange that the High Court which had control over the subordinate judiciary asked the Government to hold an enquiry through the Vigilance Department. The members of the subordinate judiciary are not only under the control of the High Court but are also under the care and custody of the High Court. The High Court failed to discharge the duty of preserving its control. The request by the High Court to have the enquiry through the Director of Vigilance was an act of self-abnegation."

An identical question arose before the Supreme Court in U.P. Judicial Officers Association v. Union of India, (1994) 4 SCC 687 , under the Prevention of Corruption Act, where their Lordships issued general guidelines to be observed by the Police, in all cases where a complaint was made against a Judicial Officer, for any offence. It will do well to extract their Lordships observations and general guidelines :

"...... This writ petition raises certain serious and important issues as to the meaning of judicial independence in relation to the judicial services and the means by which it should be ensured and protected. Incidental to the requirement of maintaining such independence of the judiciary, it is of importance that members of the judicial services should not work under apprehensions of retaliatory action by the Police and Executive whatever form such action might assume. We make an interim order that no crime or criminal case shall be registered against a judicial officer in respect of anything allegedly done or purported to be done in the discharge of his duty or in his capacity as holder of such judicial office without the prior permission of the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned ..... ..... ....

In Delhi Judicial Service Association, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi Vs. State of Gujarat and others, this Court issued the following guidelines :

"(A) A judicial Officer should be arrested for any offence under intimation to District Judge or the High Court as the case may be.

(B) In case of necessity for immediate arrest of a Judicial Officer only a technical or formal arrest may be effected.

(C) The fact of such arrest should be immediately communicated to the District and Sessions Judge of the concerned District and the Chief Justice of the High Court.

(D) The Judicial Officer so arrrested shall not be taken to a police station, without the prior order or directions of the District and Sessions Judge of the concerned District, if available.

(E) Immediate facilities shall be provided to the Judicial Officer for communication with his family members, legal advisers and Judicial Officers, including the District and Sessions Judge.

(F) No statement of a Judicial Officer who is under arrest be recorded nor any panchanama be drawn up nor any medical test be conducted except in the presence of the Legal Adviser of the Judicial Officer concerned or another Judicial Officer of equal or higher rank, if available.

(G) Ordinarily there should be no handcuffing of a Judicial Officer.

The above guidelines are not exhaustive but these are minimum safeguards which must be observed in case of arrest of a Judicial Officer. These guidelines should be implemented by the State Government as well as by the High Court."

The aforesaid guidelines were in regard to all offences generally; but when any criminal conduct is attributed to a Judicial Officer in discharge of his duties or in purported exercise or discharge of his duties, we direct that, in addition, no crime for investigation should be registered pursuant to any FIR without the permission of the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned."

The case on hand is squarely covered by the above pronouncement. Their Lordships specifically mandated the Police that no crime for investigation should be registered against any Judicial Officer, without the prior permission of the Hon''ble Chief Justice of the High Court. These directions apply to all cases, in all situations and are mandatory. All the Police Officers in the State should strictly follow the above guidelines, with regard to the arrest or registration of a crime against any Judicial Officer in the State. The Director General of Police and Superintendent of Police of each district shall take note of the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court and shall circulate them to all the Police Stations within his jurisdiction, directing to comply with them, strictly. Any Police Officer violating the same would be committing contempt of Court. In the instant case, it was stated that the 3rd respondent has registered the F.I.R. No. 213 dated 23-12-1992 and that express F.I.R. was submitted to the Circle Inspector of Police of Law and Order, Nellore, for investigation and a copy of F.I.R. was also forwarded to the Special Judge of the Court of the 2nd respondent. This action of the 3rd respondent is impermissible, as violative of the mandatory directions issued by the Supreme Court.

I, therefore, declare that all the proceedings taken by the 3rd respondent and other Police Officers and the 2nd respondent pursuant to the complaint of the 4th respondent, dated 23-12-1992 including the F.I.R. No. 213 dated 23-12-1992 against Sri Imthiaz Ahmed, the then IInd Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nellore, in I Town Police Station, Nellore, are illegal and void and are quashed. A writ of mandamus is accordingly issued. The writ petition is allowed with costs.

The Criminal Petition No. 75 of 1993.

In view of the order passed in the writ petition and since the relief prayed for in the case has already been granted in the writ petition, no further orders need be passed in this case. The criminal petition accordingly stands disposed of.

Petition allowed.