BENGALURU: Perusal of a video being circulated on social media clearly indicates that a judicial officer behaved in a manner totally unbecoming of the office she holds, the Karnataka High Court said. It stayed investigation into the FIR registered against three persons for allegedly overtaking the private car of a judicial officer, Gayathri, Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Malur, on a public road recently. The court directed the registry to place the order before the Chief Justice.
Justice M Nagaprasanna made these observations while passing the interim order after hearing the petition filed by Vinay KM (24), his mother V Kavitha (48) and his grandfather P Venkatesh (70) of Malur, challenging the legality of the crime registered against them.
The court said the complaint narrates an incident where the petitioners -- accused 1, 2 and 3 -- overtake the vehicle of the complainant, a judicial officer travelling in her private car with her husband. Two petitioners overtake them on their two-wheeler, which hurts the ego of the officer or her husband. They chase the two-wheeler, stop it and get down to quarrel, which is captured on CCTV. The court viewed CCTV footage which involves the officer and her husband indulging in a quarrel.
State Public Prosecutor B N Jagadeesha submitted that those travelling on the two wheeler were petitioners 1 and 2, but at the behest of the judicial officer, accused 3 P Venkatesh was also dragged into the crime.
For this, the court observed that it is surprising how offences were laid against the petitioners, they were taken into custody merely because the complainant was a judicial officer. It would not mean that citizens are treated in this manner, the judicial officer said.
The court further said that the office of the judge or judicial officer is not one that can be drawn within the precincts of the courtroom; the judicial office is a continuing public trust. It is behaviour outside the courtroom, not inside, that erodes or sustains the confidence of the public.
It is wholly unbecoming of a judicial officer to get down from the car and indulge in a quarrel with a common person whose only “crime” was overtaking the car. There shall be an interim order of stay of further investigation, while the act of this judicial officer must be placed before the Chief Justice for further action, the court said.
