No Litigant Can Be Allowed to Browbeat the Judiciary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Advocate’s Petition Alleging Corruption by Judicial Officers

Baseless and Scandalous Allegations Against Judges Amount to Contempt of Court: P&H High Court Imposes ₹25,000 Costs on Petitioner. Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered a strong message against attempts to undermine the judiciary by dismissing a petition that sought the registration of an FIR against judicial officers and advocates on allegations of corruption, land grabbing, and judicial misconduct.
Justice N.S. Shekhawat, while rejecting the plea, condemned the scandalous and reckless allegations made by the petitioner, stating, “No litigant can be allowed to browbeat the judiciary. The tendency of disgruntled elements maligning judicial officers when they fail to secure a favorable order is on the rise, and it must be sternly dealt with.”
The Court not only dismissed the petition as frivolous, contemptuous, and an abuse of the judicial process but also imposed costs of ₹25,000 on the petitioner, to be deposited in the PGI Poor Patient Welfare Fund, Chandigarh. It further warned that failure to deposit the amount within two months would result in recovery as arrears of land revenue.

A Conspiracy Theory Without Evidence
The case arose from a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) by Suresh Kumar, an advocate, seeking directions to register an FIR against judicial officers and advocates on allegations of corruption.
The petitioner claimed that certain judicial officers and advocates had formed a fake society to grab public property and that judicial officers had received bribes to decide cases in favor of the accused. He further alleged that complaints to the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana and the police authorities were ignored due to the influence of the accused.
Raising concerns about judicial integrity, the petitioner even sought a CBI investigation into the alleged misconduct. However, as the Court observed,
“The petitioner has failed to provide even a single piece of evidence to substantiate his wild allegations. His claims are nothing but an attempt to scandalize the judiciary and malign judicial officers without any basis.”
Due to the petitioner’s repeated requests for adjournments and refusal to argue his case, the Court appointed Advocate Jasdev Singh Mehndiratta as Amicus Curiae to assist in the matter.

Invocation of Section 482 Cr.P.C. for FIR Registration Is Impermissible
The High Court unequivocally rejected the maintainability of the petition, ruling that a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained for seeking FIR registration when the law provides clear alternative remedies.
Citing the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) AIR SC 907, the Court reiterated,
“The High Court should not encourage this practice of rushing to invoke Section 482 Cr.P.C. for FIR registration when the remedy under Sections 154(3), 36, and 156(3) Cr.P.C. is available. A person aggrieved by non-registration of FIR must first approach the Superintendent of Police, and if that fails, approach a Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Instead of following due process, the petitioner has abused the jurisdiction of this Court.”
The Court emphasized that direct intervention by the High Court is unwarranted unless exceptional circumstances exist, which were absent in the present case.
“Why should the High Court entertain such petitions when the law provides a clear procedure? Alternative remedies exist, and the petitioner’s attempt to bypass them amounts to an abuse of process.”

"Threats Against Judges Are an Attack on Judicial Independence": High Court Warns Against Contemptuous Conduct
The judgment took serious note of the scandalous and unsubstantiated allegations made against judicial officers, observing that the petition was filled with reckless accusations against multiple judges, including vague claims that they were bribed and pressured by senior lawyers to deliver favorable orders.
Expressing deep concern over such conduct, the Court warned that: “The tendency of filing petitions with sweeping allegations against judicial officers and bar members without any substantiation is dangerous. The petitioner has attempted to browbeat the judiciary, and such actions cannot be tolerated.”
Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Ajay Kumar Pandey v. Unknown, (1998) AIR SC 3299, the Court observed that:
“Any threat of filing complaints against a judge in response to unfavorable judicial orders amounts to interference with the administration of justice and constitutes contempt of court. Such conduct undermines public confidence in the judiciary and will not be permitted.”
The Court further noted, “The dignity of the Court is not so brittle as to be shattered by baseless accusations. However, the growing trend of litigants trying to intimidate judicial officers cannot be ignored.”
Despite finding that the petitioner's conduct warranted contempt of court proceedings, the Court, exercising judicial restraint, refrained from initiating contempt action. However, it issued a stern warning to the petitioner against filing such frivolous petitions in the future.
"Judiciary Cannot Be Polluted by Disgruntled Litigants": Court Imposes ₹25,000 Costs to Deter Abuse of Process
Recognizing the need to curb misuse of the judicial system, the High Court imposed a cost of ₹25,000 on the petitioner, directing him to deposit the amount with the PGI Poor Patient Welfare Fund, Chandigarh.
“This Court has no hesitation in concluding that the present petition was not only misconceived but a deliberate attempt to scandalize the judiciary. To prevent such abuse of process in the future, the petitioner is directed to pay ₹25,000 as costs.”
It further directed that, “If the amount is not deposited within two months, it shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue.”
In conclusion, the Court reiterated its deep appreciation for Advocate Jasdev Singh Mehndiratta, who had ably assisted the Court as Amicus Curiae in this case.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s ruling in Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana & Others is a landmark decision reinforcing judicial integrity and deterring frivolous litigation.
The Court’s strong stance against scandalous allegations and misuse of legal provisions sends a clear message that:
“Judicial forums cannot be used to settle personal scores or malign judicial officers. The rule of law must be upheld, and frivolous petitions aimed at scandalizing the judiciary will be met with strict consequences.”
By imposing costs and warning the petitioner, the judgment protects the judiciary’s credibility while discouraging baseless and malicious litigation.

Date of Judgment: January 27, 2025