Frivolous Litigation Cannot Undermine Judicial Integrity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Advocate’s Plea with ₹25,000 Cost

"Attempt to Malign Judicial Officers Will Not Be Tolerated" – The Punjab & Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Suresh Kumar, an advocate, who sought the registration of an FIR against judicial officers and lawyers, alleging their involvement in public property grab through misuse of official positions.

The court, while rejecting the plea, imposed ₹25,000 as costs, emphasizing that: "No litigant can be given a license to browbeat the court. The judiciary’s integrity cannot be compromised by baseless and scandalous allegations."

The verdict was delivered by Justice N.S. Shekhawat, who not only dismissed the petition but also warned the petitioner against filing similar frivolous cases in the future.

Background: Advocate Alleges Judicial Corruption and Seeks CBI Probe
The petitioner, Suresh Kumar, appearing in person, claimed that two lawyers (Respondents No. 3 & 4) and four judicial officers (Respondents No. 5 to 8) conspired to illegally register a fake society to grab public property.

He alleged that these judicial officers accepted bribes and decided cases within six months in favor of the private respondents, while cases against them remained pending for years. He further claimed that his complaints against these individuals were ignored at every level, including by the Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana.

Kumar sought a CBI investigation, arguing that local police would not act because the relatives of the accused held high-ranking positions. He also alleged that evidence in a POCSO case involving the respondents was tampered with, and that judicial officers were influenced to ensure favorable outcomes for the accused.

“Petition is Completely Misconceived and Malicious” – Court Slams Baseless Allegations
The High Court found that the petition lacked any substantial evidence and contained vague, scandalous, and contemptuous allegations.

"The petitioner has failed to provide even a single property detail regarding the alleged illegal grab," the court observed.

It further noted that accusations against judicial officers and Bar Council members were made without any factual backing. The court expressed serious concern over the growing trend of disgruntled litigants making reckless allegations against judges, stating:

"The tendency to malign judicial officers merely because a party does not secure a favorable order is increasing. The judiciary cannot be subjected to such scurrilous and indecent attacks."

The court ruled that the petitioner was attempting to misuse the legal process for personal vendetta, emphasizing that allegations against the judiciary must be backed by concrete evidence, not vague insinuations.

Supreme Court Precedent: FIR Cannot Be Ordered Without Exhausting Alternative Remedies
Referring to Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008) AIR SC 907, the High Court reaffirmed that: "A person aggrieved by non-registration of an FIR must first approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) CrPC, then the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC, and finally file a complaint under Section 200 CrPC. Directly invoking the High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is improper."

Since the petitioner had not followed this legal recourse, his demand for an FIR was deemed premature and not maintainable.

“Judiciary Cannot Be Intimidated” – Court Warns Against Threatening Judges
The High Court also referred to Ajay Kumar Pandey v. Unknown (1998) AIR SC 3299, stating: "Threatening to file complaints against judges for unfavorable rulings amounts to interference in the administration of justice and must be dealt with sternly."

Rejecting Kumar’s claims, the court remarked: "A judicial officer is expected to act without fear or favor. Making scandalous allegations without proof is an attempt to pressurize the judiciary and will not be tolerated."

The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed the petition with costs of ₹25,000 to be deposited with the PGI Poor Patient Welfare Fund, Chandigarh, within two months. The court also warned the petitioner against filing further frivolous cases, failing which, contempt of court proceedings may be initiated against him.

"The dignity of the court is not so brittle as to shatter by a stone thrown by a mad man. However, the petitioner must conduct himself as a disciplined member of the legal fraternity."
Date of Decision : January 27, 2025