New Delhi, Jan 25 (PTI) The Delhi High Court has observed that a judicial officer by virtue of being a judge does not waive the fundamental rights, which are available to other citizens, and also social and private rights to look after and stand by his or her family.
The high court said even if the complainant of a case is the kin of a judicial officer, it does not mean he or she has lesser rights than others in a criminal case to stand up and fight and seek justice from the courts of law.
“It will be a travesty of justice in case the victim fails to get justice for herself or is denied equal opportunities to seek justice only because one of her biological relatives is a judicial officer and is dispensing justice to others,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.
The high court’s observations came while dismissing bail plea of Mohit Pilania, accused of cheating a woman, who was a sister of a judicial officer, and her family by getting her married to a man who was already married to someone else and whom she met on a matrimonial website.
The woman has also lodged a case against another man, Aarav alias Ravi Gautam, who got married to her without disclosing that he was already married, for the alleged offences of cheating, rape, criminal conspiracy, among others, under the IPC.
The high court took “strong objection” to Pilania’s submission that since the complainant’s brother was a judicial officer, due to his influence the FIR was registered and bail was not being granted to him.
It also expressed “shock” that despite being warned by a trial court, the man’s counsel has again filed documents in the high court disclosing the name of the complainant, her brother and also his designation and posting which amounted to revealing her identity.
“This court is astonished that despite such order being passed categorically, the counsel for the accused had the audacity to file the same annexure before this court also, wherein he has revealed the name of the complainant as well as the brother of the complainant, his designation and the present place of posting,” the high court said.
It said a judicial officer by virtue of being a judicial officer does not waive his fundamental rights which are available to all other citizens of the country as also his social and private rights to look after and stand by his family.
“He (judicial officer) also has a right as the biological sibling of the complainant/ victim to stand by her and his family and take action against any person who brings harm or disrepute to his family. In the present case, even if the judicial officer is the biological kin of the complainant herein, he has a right to stand by his biological sister, though nothing is apparent from the record that he is even personally doing ‘parivi’ in this case on behalf of the complainant or interfering with any judicial proceeding,” it added.
The court said the applicant was the teacher of the main accused. The prosecution alleged that the main accused was already married to another woman, but had shown his marital status as unmarried on his profile and had shown interest in about 1,411 profiles of women of different age groups.
It was alleged that the applicant had visited the house of the complainant, met her parents and affirmed the fact that the main accused had lost his parents.
Denying bail to him, the court said prima facie, that it was the applicant who had convinced the complainant and her parents for marriage by misleading and convincing them that the main accused was unmarried and his parents had passed away.
The high court said judges like most other people of the community care about the reputation to the extent that it was held as an important social and professional asset and by disclosing his identity repeatedly, it was the accused who was trying to take advantage of a judicial system where judicial officers seldom speak openly and publicly for themselves for fear of loss of reputation.
“To suggest that since the person cheated is kin of judicial officer and if bail is not granted, it would amount to taking sides in the judicial system will amount to judging judicial system with a myopic eye and suggest that a judicial system is so fragile that it would take sides and not do justice. To take a contrary view can also be seen to amount to unjustifiably suspecting a person of interference due to his occupation without any evidence and would result in doing injustice to him, in a zeal to appear just,” it said.
Justice Sharma said, “Being a judicial officer should not result in denial of justice to him or his family in his individual capacity and be merely dismissed as occupational hazards. Only because the accused/ applicant has failed to secure the desired order of bail from a court, it cannot authorise him to make a deliberate attempt to scandalize a judicial officer and shake the confidence of the litigating community.” It also directed the high court registry to ensure that henceforth in any petition or applications filed in cases involving sexual offences, a certificate or note be annexed with the petition by the counsel certifying that the name of the complainant or victim or any other name has not been mentioned or divulged either in the plea which could reveal the victim’s identity. PTI SKV SKV KVK KVK
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.