Case of extortion, false vehicle theft insurance claim: Court sets aside order for FIR against Judicial officer

A local court here has quashed an order directing registration of an FIR against a serving judicial officer. The court set aside the order passed by a magistrate in May last year ordering registration of FIR against serving Judge Ajay Goel and a businessman in a case of alleged extortion and false vehicle theft insurance claim.

Setting aside the order last week, the court, referring to a leading judgement of the Supreme Court, said that the magistrate "is not expected to mechanically direct investigation by the police without first examining whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, investigation by the state machinery is actually required or not".

The order further reads, "If the allegations made in the complaint are simple, where the court can straightaway proceed to conduct the trial, the magistrate is expected to record evidence and proceed further in the matter, instead of passing the buck to the police."


Advocate Vijay Aggarwal, representing the judicial officer, argued that there were several "flaws" in the order, especially the fact that no prosecution sanction was obtained before proceeding against Goel.

Aggarwal added that the said order (directing FIR) was a complete abuse of law. He also argued that the magistrate did not factor in the probe findings by the police which had found nothing incriminating against the judicial officer.

Setting aside the order, the court further said: "Of course, if the allegations made in the complaint require complex and complicated investigation which cannot be undertaken without active assistance and expertise of the state machinery, it would only be appropriate for the magistrate to direct investigation by the police authorities. The magistrate is, therefore, not supposed to act merely as a post office and needs to adopt a judicial approach while considering an application seeking investigation by the police".

The court also recorded that prior permission from the chief justice before registering an FIR against a judicial officer was "lacking in this case". The court clarified that the complainants in the case are at liberty to lead pre-summoning evidence in the matter before the trial court. The court also refrained from "delving into the issue as to whether the alleged offence was done" by the judicial officer "under the colour duty or not and the consequential requirement of sanction".