Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Division Bench of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Hirdesh held that the present writ petition, seeking judicial review of a civil court decree and alleging misconduct by judicial officers and professionals, was not maintainable. The Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that it was misconceived and directed the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies under law.

The petitioner-initiated proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He sought various declaratory and injunctive reliefs in connection with a civil dispute regarding the title and possession of agricultural land situated at village Bandholi, Tahsil Gwalior. The dispute centered on two wills: one dated 06.08.1983 allegedly executed by the deceased Tulsadevi in favor of the petitioner, and another will dated 07.08.1998 allegedly executed in favor of the respondent.

Also Read: Preventive Detention Must Not Circumvent Ordinary Criminal Law | Order Set Aside As State Failed To Show Threat To Public Order : Supreme Court

According to the petitioner's claims, after the death of Tulsadevi in 2005, he became the owner of the suit land based on the earlier will and was therefore entitled to mutation of his name in the revenue records. The petitioner alleged that the later will was forged by the defendant in collusion with others, including a handwriting expert.

The petitioner sought a judicial declaration that he was in rightful possession and ownership of the land and that the forged will dated 07.08.1998 was null and void. The suit also sought to restrain the defendants from dispossessing him based on the allegedly forged will.

The defendant denied the allegations and stated that the later will revoked the earlier one. Based on this will, the defendant applied for mutation in the revenue records. The civil suit was dismissed by the trial court on 06.07.2024.

Following this, the petitioner filed a writ petition alleging that the civil court judgment was rendered based on forged evidence and in collusion between the judicial officer, an advocate, and the handwriting expert. He further alleged non-compliance with procedural orders dated 04.01.2022 (under Section 45 of the Evidence Act) and 24.02.2022 (under Order 26 Rule 10 of the CPC).

The petitioner claimed that these individuals, acting in concert, manipulated the evidence and proceedings to cause him financial loss and legal prejudice. He alleged bias, pre-determined conduct, and conspiracy in the decision-making process.

In response, the State opposed the petition on grounds of maintainability. It submitted that the allegations were unsubstantiated and amounted to casting aspersions on judicial officers without any evidence. The counsel stated that proper legal remedies were available through civil appellate channels and not through writ jurisdiction. The respondents also contended that the judicial officers and professionals were acting within their official capacities.

The Division Bench stated in clear terms that "the reliefs sought by the petitioner pertain to serious allegations against judicial officers, practicing advocate and handwriting expert, who have performed their official and professional duties in judicial proceedings."

It recorded that "judicial officers while acting in their judicial capacity, are protected under law and cannot be subjected to prosecution or personal allegations in collateral proceedings." The Court referenced the judgment in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 655, stating that judicial officers can only be proceeded against in exceptional circumstances and with prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C.

The Court added, "Even then, the bar under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution remains against interference in judicial decision-making unless there is malafide apparent on record or cogent evidence available on record."

Addressing the allegations against the advocate, the Court noted, "grievances relating to professional misconduct or unethical behaviour of the advocate are to be addressed before the State Bar Council or the Bar Council of India under the Advocates Act, 1961."

Regarding the handwriting expert, the Court stated that "acceptance/rejection of the expert evidence is the judicial discretion of the trial court and such assessment cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction."

The Court recorded that "the entire grievance of the petitioner stems from the adverse findings recorded by the civil court in the judgment and decree dated 06.07.2024." It further observed that "if the petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, he has a remedy of filing an appeal or review before the competent forum."

In conclusion, the Bench stated, "Instead of availing such remedy, petitioner filed the present petition seeking criminal prosecution against the respondents. Such demand is wholly untenable and therefore, present writ petition is not maintainable."

Also Read: Kerala High Court Declares Earlier Arbitration Void Ab Initio | New Arbitrator Must Start Proceedings From Scratch

The Court held that the writ petition lacked merit and was misconceived. Accordingly, it stated, "present writ petition is misconceived and accordingly the same is dismissed."

However, the Court extended liberty to the petitioner by stating, "liberty is granted to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies, if any available to him under the law."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Respondents: Shri Ankur Mody – Additional Advocate General for the State.

Case Title: Kamlesh Chaturvedi v. Saksham Adhikari Dwitiya Vyavhar Nyayadheesh and Others

Case Number: Writ Petition No. 8155 of 2025

Bench: Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Hirdesh

[Read/Download order]