2011 (2) TMI 1535 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether application filled before magistrate u/s 156(3) of the Code praying to direct the Officer-in-charge of Police Station to register complaint u/s 156(3) be treated as complaint u/s 200 - In the present case it was alleged by the respondent No. 3 that the police officer in charge of the police station had refused to register her complaint and, therefore, she had made application to the Senior Superintendent of Police as required by Section 154(3) of the Code, but of no avail. Therefore, the respondent No. 3 had approached the appellant, who was then discharging duties as Judicial Magistrate praying to direct the Officer-in-charge of Police Station to register complaint u/s 156(3). Appellant directed to proceed case u/s 200. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent No. 3 invoked jurisdiction of the High Court u/s 482 of the Code to quash the passed by the appellant. The learned Single Judge expressed the view that the appellant had passed the order ignoring all judicial disciplines and had not at all applied her judicial mind. he severely criticized the conduct of the appellant and recorded his serious displeasure against the appellant for passing such type of illegal orders. Therefore, set aside the order passed by the appellant, and directed the appellant to decide the application of the respondent No. 3 within the ambit of her power u/s 156(3) of the Code. while setting aside the order has given rise to the present appeal. HELD THAT - Under the circumstances the appellant had exercised judicial discretion available to a Magistrate and directed that the application, which was submitted by the respondent No. 3 u/s 156(3) of the Code, be registered as complaint and directed the Registry to present the said complaint for recording the statement of the respondent No.3 u/s 200 of the Code. Under the circumstances, the judicial discretion exercised by the appellant, to proceed u/s 200 of the Code could not faulted with nor the appellant could be subject to severe criticism as was done by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the disparaging remarks made by the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, were not justified at all and, therefore, the appeal will have to be accepted.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Expunging of disparaging remarks made by the learned Single Judge of the High Court.
2. Judicial discretion exercised by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) and Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
3. The appropriateness of the High Court's interference with the Magistrate's order.
4. The necessity of judicial restraint and the impact of disparaging remarks on the lower judiciary.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Expunging of Disparaging Remarks:
The appellant, a member of the judicial service of Uttar Pradesh, sought to expunge remarks made by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. These remarks were made while setting aside an order dated August 1, 2009, passed by the appellant, which directed that an application under Section 156(3) of the Code be registered as a complaint and ordered the recording of the complainant's statement under Section 200 of the Code. The Supreme Court found that the disparaging remarks made by the learned Single Judge were not justified and should be set aside and quashed.

2. Judicial Discretion under Section 156(3) and Section 200 of CrPC:
The appellant had exercised judicial discretion by registering the application under Section 156(3) of the Code as a complaint and directing the recording of the complainant's statement under Section 200 of the Code. The Supreme Court noted that the appellant had called for a police report, considered the affidavit and documents submitted by the complainant, and concluded that the complainant could produce all the evidence herself. The appellant's decision was in line with the principles laid down by the Allahabad High Court and was neither arbitrary nor perverse.

3. Appropriateness of High Court's Interference:
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had no occasion to interfere with the judicial discretion exercised by the appellant. The High Court's criticism of the appellant's order, including remarks about non-application of mind and ignoring judicial disciplines, was unwarranted. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellant's order was a judicial decision made after assessing the material placed before her and should not have been substituted merely because another view was possible.

4. Judicial Restraint and Impact of Disparaging Remarks:
The Supreme Court reiterated the need for higher courts to observe restraint and avoid making disparaging remarks against members of the lower judiciary. It emphasized that such remarks can have a demoralizing effect on judicial officers and undermine public confidence in the judiciary. The Court cited several precedents, including Ishwari Prasad Mishra vs. Mohd. Isa and K.P. Tiwari vs. State of M.P., which highlighted the importance of judicial restraint and the potential harm caused by intemperate language and unjustified criticism.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside and quashing the disparaging remarks made by the learned Single Judge of the High Court. The Court upheld the judicial discretion exercised by the appellant and emphasized the importance of judicial restraint in higher courts. The other directions issued by the High Court were not challenged in the appeal and, therefore, were not interfered with. The appeal was accordingly disposed of.