Mumbai: A special court in Mumbai on Monday rejected a plea seeking registration of a “zero FIR” against a sitting district and sessions judge in adjoining Thane for allegedly passing an unlawful order, ruling the allegations against him were “vague and legally untenable”.
The anti-corruption court noted that a judge is protected from criminal proceedings in respect of any order passed by him during course of his judicial function.
A Thane resident has accused a district and sessions judge of passing “judicial orders contrary to law by using his position and taking bribes”.
He filed a plea before the special court for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, seeking registration of a zero FIR against the judge at the Anti-Corruption Bureau (Mumbai) under relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The complainant alleged the judge unlawfully dismissed his criminal revision application in July 2024.
He claimed the dismissal was due to “corrupt motive and external influence.” The complainant argued he “reliably learnt and reasonably believed” that the judge has taken an undue advantage in the form of illegal gratification, specifically a bribe of approximately Rs 1.54 lakh.
Special judge Shayna Patil, in her order, noted the complaint was regarding grievances relating to an order passed in neighbouring Thane district and as such it was beyond the jurisdiction of a Mumbai court.
She pointed out that the allegations in the plea were based on “hearsay” without specifying the source or any particulars of the claim. The court underlined that having “heard or understood or believed” cannot take place of the substantive contention about any such allegation.
The court stressed that the allegations levelled against the district and sessions judge were of “extreme serious nature, being of corruption” and thus they require to be “specific”. But content of the complaint does not make out any substantive averment on such points.
“Under the circumstances, it needs to be observed that the allegations were quiet vague and do not make out any prima facie case of disclosure of information of any cognizable offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act,” the court emphasised.