2020 (12) TMI 1387 - HC - Indian Laws

Prayer for initiating contempt proceedings against respondent No. 1, who is Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chiplun, District Ratnagiri - allegation of disregarding the binding precedents of the Superior Courts - HELD THAT - The respondent No. 1 has already been summoned by this Court on the administrative side and has been properly counseled pursuant to the similar complaint of the petitioner. It appears that respondent No. 1 has been properly and suitably counseled on the administrative side of the High Court. We hope and trust that in future respondent No. 1 will exercise his judicious mind while dealing with judicial work with greater care, caution and circumspection. Contempt Petition stands disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
1. Contempt proceedings against a Civil Judge for disregarding binding precedents of Superior Courts.

Analysis:
The petitioner, an advocate, sought contempt proceedings against respondent No. 1, a Civil Judge, for allegedly ignoring binding precedents of Superior Courts during hearings. The petitioner presented four instances where respondent No. 1 did not follow the cited precedents. Firstly, in a case related to the Consolidation and Fragmentation Act, respondent No. 1 rejected an application without considering relevant judgments. Secondly, in a domestic violence case, respondent No. 1 issued process against accused residents of a different jurisdiction without following procedural requirements. Thirdly, in a different domestic violence matter, respondent No. 1 allowed an application for witness summons without proper pleadings. Lastly, in a case under the Negotiable Instruments Act, respondent No. 1 convicted the accused despite admissions by the complainant, overlooking relevant judgments cited by the petitioner.

Upon review, the Court found merit in the petitioner's contentions. In the first instance, the Court noted that respondent No. 1's order did not reflect consideration of the cited authorities. Despite counseling, the Court acknowledged the oversight in not properly considering the precedents. In the second instance, the Court observed that respondent No. 1 failed to address the procedural requirements under the Cr.P.C. regarding the jurisdiction of the accused. In the third instance, respondent No. 1 allowed an application without adequately distinguishing the cited judgments. In the last instance, the Court noted that respondent No. 1 did not provide reasoning for disregarding the relevant precedent, indicating a lack of proper consideration.

The Court emphasized the importance of judicial diligence and directed the Principal District and Sessions Judge to monitor respondent No. 1's performance for one year. While acknowledging the counseling received by respondent No. 1, the Court highlighted the need for greater care and circumspection in handling judicial duties. The Court concluded the contempt petition with these directions for future oversight and improvement in judicial conduct.