2016 (6) TMI 1252 - HC - Indian Laws

Proceedings for criminal contempt - Satish Mahadeorao Uke, have instituted various civil and criminal proceedings in this Court, against the sitting Judges of this Court, the officers of this Court, including lawyers and the Registrar - Held that - The applicant has shown the tendency of continuing with such acts of contempt, as are reflected in the draft charges. The applicant has overstepped the limits of being the officer of this Court and as a lawyer appearing in person, he does not hold any wider protection while committing an act of contempt. This Court cannot remain a silent spectator and a stern action prohibiting such acts will have to be taken during the pendency of the proceedings for contempt. The applicant either will have to be taken into judicial custody pending the decision of this proceeding or can be put to terms of giving an undertaking that he shall not, during the pendency of this proceeding, institute or publish any act covered by the draft charges framed either by himself personally or through anyone else. In the decision of the Apex Court in R.K. Anand s case, cited supra, it has been held that the Court has power to disallow advocate convicted in criminal contempt from appearing in Court. The Apex Court added in para 239 of the said decision that the Court does not only have the right but it also has the obligation cast upon it to protect itself and save the purity of its proceedings from being polluted in any way and to that end bar the malefactor from appearing before the Courts for an appropriate period of time. In terms of Rule 5 in Part II of the Rules to regulate proceedings for contempt under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, this order can constitute an information for taking suo motu action for contempt of Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, and it will have to be accordingly placed before Hon ble the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court for appropriate orders in terms of clauses 5(f) and 5(g) of the said Rules. Hence, pass the following order (1) Issue notice to the applicant Satish Mahadeorao Uke to show cause as to why the proceedings for criminal contempt should not be instituted against him for the draft charges framed in this order? Notice is made returnable on 182016. (2) This order be placed before Hon ble the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court in terms of clauses 5(f) and 5(g) of the Rules under Chapter XXXIV of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules to constitute the appropriate Division Bench, as required by Section 18 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to take cognizance of the act of contempt of Court by treating this order itself as a petition for contempt of Court, in accordance with law and Satish Mahadeorao Uke be shown as the contemnor. (3) The Division Bench assigned with the matter may consider the question of taking Satish Mahadeorao Uke in judicial custody pending the decision of the contempt proceedings to prevent him from instituting such proceedings and/or publicizing the allegations against sitting Judges, officers of this Court, including lawyers practising in this Court, so as to cause an embarrassment and interference in the course of justice. (4) During the pendency of the proceedings before Hon ble the Chief Justice and/or before the Division Bench of this Court for taking decision on the cognizance of contempt of Court, the applicantSatish Mahadeorao Uke, who shall be the contemnor, is restrained from instituting any proceeding either himself or through anyone else to perpetuate the act of contempt of Court alleged in the draft charges framed in this order, and/or to approach any public communication system, including the newspaper and the media for publication of the allegations covered by the draft charges framed in this order. (5) The Registry of this Court in the Principal Bench and the other Benches of this Court is directed not to entertain any litigation at the instance of the Satish Mahadeorao Uke involving the Registry of this Court, the sitting Judges of this Court, and other officers of this Court, including any lawyers practising in this Court, without an application for leave to institute such proceedings filed in this proceeding for contempt of Court. If such application is made, the office shall place the matter either before Hon ble the Chief Justice if the matter is pending with him or before the appropriate Division Bench seized of the matter of contempt for passing appropriate orders. (6) It is made clear that the Registry of this Court is not prevented from entertaining any petition, application, etc., at the instance of Satish Mahadeorao Uke in respect of the matters not related to the draft charges levelled in this order. (7) The ad interim orders in terms of clauses (4) and (5) above, shall operate from today, i.e. 662016, and the same shall continue to operate till the decision on it by the Division Bench. All the aforesaid ad interim orders are subject to further orders to be passed by the Division Bench, which shall be assigned this matter by Hon ble the Chief Justice. Unless the orders are varied, the same shall continue to operate pending these proceedings.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Allegations of scurrilous attacks on sitting Judges and court officers.
2. Legality of quashing criminal proceedings by consent.
3. Applicant's locus standi in seeking review of court orders.
4. Allegations of manipulation and fraud in court records.
5. Request for recusal of the judge.
6. Abuse of court process and contempt of court.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Allegations of Scurrilous Attacks on Sitting Judges and Court Officers:
The applicant filed a revision application containing wild and scurrilous allegations against sitting Judges, court officers, and the Government Pleader. These allegations were noted in orders dated 20.04.2016 and 25.04.2016. The court emphasized that such allegations require the applicant to take responsibility by stating them on oath, which the applicant was unwilling to do.

2. Legality of Quashing Criminal Proceedings by Consent:
The Division Bench had allowed Criminal Applications (APL) No. 824 of 2015 and 825 of 2015, quashing proceedings by consent based on the law laid down by the Apex Court in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab. The applicant, not being a party to these applications, sought to challenge the orders by filing Criminal Application No. 45 of 2015, which was dismissed on merits and for lack of locus standi.

3. Applicant's Locus Standi in Seeking Review of Court Orders:
The applicant approached the Apex Court against the dismissal of his application, which was subsequently dismissed. He then filed Criminal Review Application No. 1081 of 2015, which was also dismissed. The applicant's subsequent attempts to obtain certified copies of related documents were rejected by the court's registry, leading to further litigation.

4. Allegations of Manipulation and Fraud in Court Records:
The applicant alleged manipulation of court records in Criminal Application No. 1081 of 2015, claiming that the judgment was not delivered in open court. He sought copies of various documents, which were denied by the registry. The court noted that the applicant's allegations were serious and required substantiation through an affidavit, which the applicant failed to provide.

5. Request for Recusal of the Judge:
The applicant sought the judge's recusal, alleging personal and professional relationships between the judge and parties involved, including the Chief Minister of Maharashtra. The court rejected these claims, stating that the applicant had not raised such objections during previous proceedings and that the allegations were unfounded and aimed at browbeating the court.

6. Abuse of Court Process and Contempt of Court:
The court observed that the applicant had a history of filing frivolous and vexatious litigations, making unfounded allegations against judges and court officers. The court proposed to invoke its jurisdiction under Article 215 of the Constitution to frame charges of contempt against the applicant. The applicant's actions were seen as an attempt to undermine the judiciary's authority and interfere with the administration of justice.

Conclusion:
The court issued a notice to the applicant to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him. The court also directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate action and restrained the applicant from filing further proceedings related to the allegations without prior leave. The court emphasized the need to maintain the dignity and authority of the judiciary against such scurrilous attacks.