News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 185 | 2026:CGHC:10455-DB
February 28, 2026 : The Chhattisgarh High Court has quashed a criminal complaint that accused the then Chief Justice of the High Court, a sitting judge, and several members of the State’s higher judicial service of being part of an alleged conspiracy to prevent filing of a chargesheet in a criminal case. The Court held that the complaint was based on suspicion and lacked any material particulars to establish the commission of a criminal offence.
The decision was delivered on February 28, 2026, by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru in a writ petition filed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh through its Registrar General seeking quashing of the complaint and related proceedings before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Raipur.
The complaint had been filed in March 2016 by Pratibha Gwal, wife of judicial officer Prabhakar Gwal, who at the relevant time was serving as Chief Judicial Magistrate in Sukma district. In the complaint, serious allegations were levelled against the then Chief Justice Navin Sinha, Justice P. Diwaker, and several other members of the higher judicial service. The complainant alleged that the police had deliberately failed to file a chargesheet in an FIR registered following an incident at the Arang Toll Plaza on October 31, 2015, due to a conspiracy involving police officials and senior members of the judiciary.
According to the complaint, Prabhakar Gwal was abused and misbehaved with by certain persons at the toll plaza while he and his wife were travelling to their native village. An FIR was subsequently registered at Arang Police Station under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 294, 323, 506, 186, 353 and 511 read with Section 34. However, the complainant alleged that the investigation was deliberately stalled and the chargesheet was not filed because of alleged influence exerted by senior judicial officers and other authorities.
The ACJM, Raipur, had entertained the complaint and fixed the matter for recording preliminary evidence. Challenging this, the High Court administration approached the High Court seeking quashing of the complaint as well as the order passed by the Magistrate.
After examining the complaint and the material placed on record, the Division Bench observed that the allegations against the judges and judicial officers were vague and unsupported by any factual basis. The Court noted that the complainant herself described the alleged conspiracy only as an “apprehension” that the chargesheet had not been filed due to some influence or intervention.
The Bench held that the complaint did not contain any specific allegation of a meeting of minds, agreement, overt act or other circumstances that could establish the ingredients of criminal conspiracy. Even if the allegations were taken at face value, they failed to disclose the commission of any cognizable offence against the judges or the judicial officers named in the complaint.
The Court also observed that the offences cited in the complaint related to the alleged toll plaza incident and had no connection with the judges or judicial officers who had been made accused. The FIR regarding the toll plaza incident had already been registered at the instance of the judicial officer concerned, and the attempt to link members of the judiciary to the alleged non-filing of the chargesheet was found to be without factual foundation.
Emphasising the seriousness of initiating criminal proceedings against constitutional functionaries and members of the higher judicial service, the Court said such actions carry significant consequences not only for individuals but also for the institutional integrity of the judiciary. It cautioned that criminal law cannot be used as a tool to harass or intimidate judicial officers or to ventilate administrative or service-related grievances.
The Bench further observed that allegations relating to administrative actions such as transfer, stoppage of increment or termination of service fall within the domain of service jurisprudence and cannot be converted into criminal conspiracy in the absence of tangible and cogent material. Allowing such accusations to proceed without foundational facts, the Court noted, would risk encouraging reckless allegations against members of the judiciary.
Senior Advocate N.K. Shukla, appearing for the High Court Registrar General, argued that the complaint was based entirely on conjecture and did not disclose the essential ingredients of any offence. He submitted that the mere non-filing of a chargesheet, even if assumed to be true, does not constitute a criminal conspiracy involving High Court judges.
Additional Advocate General Praveen Das represented the State and submitted that the State had no independent objection and would abide by the order of the Court.
On the other hand, counsel for the complainant argued that the writ petition had been filed to shield certain constitutional authorities from scrutiny and that the complaint had been filed to bring a larger alleged conspiracy to light. It was also contended that Prabhakar Gwal had faced adverse administrative actions including transfer to a Naxal-affected area, stoppage of increment and eventual termination from service.
However, the Court held that continuation of the complaint proceedings against the judges and judicial officers would amount to a gross abuse of the process of law. It therefore allowed the writ petition and quashed the criminal complaint insofar as it related to the Chief Justice, the sitting judge and other judicial officers named as respondents in the trial court proceedings.
The Bench also set aside the Magistrate’s order dated March 26, 2016, which had fixed the complaint for recording of preliminary evidence against them. At the same time, the Court clarified that the complaint proceedings may continue with respect to any other accused persons not covered by the quashing order.
Case Reference : WPCR No. 88 of 2016, High Court of Chhattisgarh through the Registrar General vs State of Chhattisgarh & Others; Counsels: For Petitioner: Dr. N.K. Shukla, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate; For Respondent No.1/State: Mr. Praveen Das, Additional Advocate General; For Respondent No.2: Ms. Sareena Khan, Advocate; For Respondent No.3: None, though served.
