9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ited 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 returna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spect 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. - Civil Revision Application No.26 OF 2016 - - - Dated:- 6-6-2016 - R.K. Deshpande, J. Shri S.M. Uke, Advocate in person. ORDER : R.K. Deshpande 1. This revision application has been filed to seek copies of the record of C.A. No.U3733/ E122 R.No.122 dated 442016, which, according to the applicant, was filed in Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015 by the office of the Government Pleader. Normally, the application would either be allowed or dismissed for the reasons to be stated in the order to be passed. There would also not be any objection for the Court if the applicant wanted to withdraw the revision application. This could h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n No.45 of 2015, claiming the reliefs as under : 1. Take cognizance of this application to conduct enquiry u/s 195 and 340 of Cr.P.C. And suo motu criminal contempt of court action. OR if Hon'ble Court thinks, this instant application may be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Bombay High Court for appropriate orders. 2. Recall the common order dated 23.12.2014 passed in Original Criminal Application (APL) 824/2014 (Hruday Kumar and others vs. State of Maharashtra). 3. Recall the common order dated 23.12.2014 passed in Original Criminal Application (APL) 825/2014 (Deepak Hiranwar and others vs. State of Maharashtra). 4. Examine legality, propriety and illegality of the order and the conduct of the parties in obtaining order including office objections. 5. Suitable action under Section 195 read with 340 of Criminal Procedure Code be proceeded against the concerned parties and concerned Advocates therein including Government Pleaders. 6. Initiate suo motu criminal contempt action under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India against the concerned parties and concerned Advocates including Government ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith the signature of Government Pleader on it available in Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081/2015, on receipt of fresh application from the petitioner. 4] Direct the respondent to keep same original record handwritten notes with the signature of Government Pleader on it available in Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081/2015 as it is till further orders of this Hon'ble court. The Registrar of the High Court, Bench at Nagpur was the only partyrespondent. The petition was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court consisting of M/s. B.P. Dharmadhikari and V.M. Deshpande, JJ. on 23.11.2015, and the order is reproduced below : Shri Uke, petitioner in person, submits that due to subsequent events, challenge as raised is rendered infructuous. He, therefore, seeks leave to withdraw with liberty to make further grievance, if any, before appropriate forum. This Court has not still issued notice to the respondent. As such, we dispose of the writ petition as having become infructuous. Needless to mention that if any grievance is open in future for making, it is always open for the petitioner to make the same in accordance with law. 9. On 1.11.2016, the appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , and had argued Criminal Review Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015. He submits that the judgment, which is placed on record on page 40 of this civil revision application, consisting of 18 pages, was not delivered in the open Court, but some other order was passed in his presence. He, therefore, seeks time to file an affidavit stating the following two things : (i) that the judgment dated 14.10.2015 in Criminal Review Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015 was not passed in his presence in the open Court, and (ii) that th exact order, which, according to him, was passed in the aforesaid matter by the Division Bench. Hence, put up this matter on 25.04.2016. 13. The applicant sought time to file an affidavit on the aforestated two points. Thereafter, this civil revision application was listed before this Court on 25.04.2016. Instead of filing affidavit, the applicant at that time invited my attention to the pursis stamp No.5462 of 2016, which he had filed on 22.04.2016 seeking withdrawal of the revision application on the ground that he had made a representation/complaint to the Hon'ble President of India, Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, Hon'ble Governor of Maharash ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ke, therefore, seeks time in this matter till 04.05.2016. Put up this matter on 04.05.2016. The matter was accordingly listed before this Court on 452016. The applicant, appearing in person, remained absent, but placed on record the pursis stamp No.5811 of 2016. 15. In the pursis stamp No.5811 of 2016 filed on 3042016, the applicant states that the orders dated 2042016 and 2542016, reproduced earlier, are passed beyond the subjectmatter of the revision and the application has already been moved before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India and the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Bombay High Court with a request for appropriate action and placing the matters of the applicant before another Bench. After perusal of the pursis, the matter was kept at 2.30 p.m. yesterday, as the applicant was absent. Again at 2.30 p.m. yesterday, the applicant remained absent, and, therefore, the matter was kept on 552016. The applicant remained absent. Hence, the matter was closed for orders. 16. Perusal of the pursis Stamp No.5811 of 2016 shows that the applicant claims recusal by me to hear and decide this revision application containing the allegations, which are in substance extracted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m to take the matter relating to the Registry. [Paras 4(e) and 4(h)]. (vii) It is seen that Senior Advocate Shri K.H. Deshpande, Advocate Shri Mohan Sudame and Advocate Shri A.M. Sudame have appeared for Shri Devendra Gangadhar Fadnavis and have relations with Shri Fadnavis in any manner, and it is, therefore, improper for Shri R.K. Deshpande, J. to take up any matter relating to Shri Fadnavis and it was improper for Shri R.K. Deshpande, J. to hear and decide Election Petition No.1 of 2014 challenging the election of Shri Fadnavis. [Para 4(f)]. (viii) As per the record, Shri R.K. Deshpande, J. has worked in the Division Bench with Shri B.R. Gavai, J., and it is, therefore, improper for him to take up any matter in which Shri B.R. Gavai, J. is involved. [Para 4(g)]. (ix) The orders dated 20.04.2016 and 25.04.2016 seem to have been passed to put the applicant in a difficult situation with intention to take harsh action, which may involve the action for contempt of Court, that too without the authority of the investigation in the issues relating to manipulation of record that amount to criminal offences. However, Shri R.K. Deshpande, J. cannot do this because for the reasons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the record of Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015. Even during the course of hearing of this civil revision application on 2 3 occasions, the applicant did not raise any such objection of my personal relations with the Registrar of this Court Shri Rajandekar. In fact, I may state here that there is not even a single order placed on record which is passed or signed by Shri Rajandekar in his capacity as a Registrar of this Court. The orders are passed by his subordinate officers and the Registrar being head of the administration in the Bench at Nagpur, the applicant has joined him in his official capacity and not by his personal name. The question of recusal on my part to make an exception of dealing with such assignment on this count does not at all arise. 19. In the orders dated 20.04.2016 and 25.04.2016 passed in this civil revision application (reproduced in paras 12 and 14 above), the arguments advanced by the applicant before this Court are reproduced. In the pursis Stamp No.5811 of 2016, a statement is made by the applicant in para 6 that the applicant does not agree with the observations made by this Court in the said orders. This is prima facie a false stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the applicant infructuous i.e. made for authenticated/certified copies as per AnnexureA which has rendered this application infructuous. So, the applicant wants to withdraw this application. It is apparent that the applicant himself under his own signature has made allegations contained in the orders. Therefore, he has to be given an opportunity to file an affidavit taking responsibility of such allegations. It is, therefore, false to claim that the applicant did not make any such statements before this Court, as are recorded in the orders dated 2042016 and 25.04.2016. 20. It is a fact that the applicant has filed Writ Petition Stamp No.20322 of 2015 before this Court (transferred to the Principal Bench at Bombay and registered as Writ Petition No.11825 of 2015), in which Shri Bhushan Raosaheb Gavai, J. (It should have been Shri Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai) is a party respondent No.4 for his transfer to some other High Court, and this fact is apparent from the pursis dated 12.10.2015, which is annexed by the applicant himself in this revision application on page No.59D. The applicant sought exemption from filing an affidavit in terms of the orders dated 20.04.2016 and 25.04 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion Petition No.1 of 2014 filed by the applicant challenging the election of Shri Devendra Fadnavis. (vi) Shri Devendra Fadnavis and Smt. Bharti Dangre, Government Pleader, have practised fraud upon the Court by acting in collusion. (vii) The court record of Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015 has been manipulated by Shri Rajandekar, acting as the Registrar of the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Nagpur. (viii) If Shri R.K. Deshpande, J. was so much interested in the investigation, he ought to have ordered to seize the concerned record of Criminal Application No.1081 of 2015 from the Registry and direct for placing the record for investigation before the appropriate legal forum. However, Shri R.K. Deshpande, J. cannot do this because of the above reasons and also if Senior Registrar Shri Rajandekar is his relative. 22. If this Court is required to consider the question of investigation into the manipulation of the record of Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015, the first step, which this Court will be required to do is to require the applicant to file an affidavit in support of such allegations to carry the responsibility and the consequences flowing there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny advocates to argue the matter for their clients. In the absence of details, including case number and the year of the alleged case, it is not possible to respond to such allegations. It is not possible to maintain a list of such clients to find out in each matter whether I can take up such matter, unless parties to the lis before me bring it to the notice during the hearing that either I had appeared for such party or that he is the client of my father or the relative. Many times, it happens that the cases of the distant relatives or the clients during practice of law are also dealt with unknowingly or subconsciously and the orders are passed either in their favour or against them. 25. A Judge may recuse at his own choice from a case entrusted to him by the Chief Justice and it would be a matter of his own choosing. But recusal at the asking of the litigating party, unless justified, must never be acceded to. This is what the Apex Court has held recently in NJAC case instituted by the Supreme Court AdvocatesonRecord Association and another v. Union of India, reported in 2015 (11) SCALE 1. The question of recusal is normally decided by a Judge on the basis of his personal or p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as dismissed by the Division Bench, consisting of M/s. B.R. Gavai and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ., on 14102015. The reliefs claimed by the applicant in the present Civil Revision Application No.26 of 2016 were also claimed in substance by the applicant by filing earlier Writ Petition No.6195 of 2015, and when the applicant found that the petition was liable to be dismissed, he made a statement before the Court that the petition has become infructuous, and accordingly it was disposed of by the Division Bench, consisting of M/s. B.P. Dharmadhikari and V.M. Deshpande, JJ. on 23112015. Once the said writ petition was dismissed as infructuous, it follows that the grievance of the applicant for supply of copy of the record, said to have been filed by the Government Pleader in Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015, did not survive. In spite of this, the present civil revision application has been filed, which, in substance, claims the same reliefs based upon the same allegations, which is apparent from the reading of writ petition and this revision application. On earlier occasion, this Court seems to have shown some leniency in accepting a plea of petition becoming infructuous. Now ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the office of Government Pleader in Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015. According to the applicant, such record is returned. As such, it was not a part and parcel of the record of Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015. The judgment dated 14102015 in the said application does not refer to any such record. Even para 6 in Writ Petition No.11825 of 2015, reproduced earlier, does not refer to Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015. Thus, this is another attempt to make false statement before this Court, recorded in the order dated 2542016 passed in this revision application, with a view avoid this Bench. 29. The applicant filed the Transfer Petition (Civil) No.672 of 2016 before the Apex Court. The applicant wanted transfer of Writ Petition No.11825 of 2015 filed by him seeking transfer of Shri B.R. Gavai, J. to some other High Court. On 252016, the Apex Court passed an order in the said petition, which is reproduced below : Heard. We do not see any merit in this transfer petition, which is hereby dismissed. At this stage, Mr. Mathews J. Nedumpara, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits, on instructions of the petitioner who is also present inpers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inal cases pending against him in the Criminal Courts. The said Election Petition came to be allotted to Shri R.K. Deshpande, J (who is a son of Adv. K.H. Deshpande, father in law of Adv. Akshay Sudame, father in law of son's of Adv. Mohan Sudame). Devendra Fadnavis knowingly not disclose the said relations before the High Court and the opponent therein and filed the application for rejection of plaint got relief from the said judge of High Court. 4. It was a duty of Devendra Fadnavis to bring on the record of High Court and in the knowledge of the opponent about his relations with the family members of the above judges. Devendra not disclosed the above facts and took disadvantage as a outcome of such relations and committed Criminal Conspiracy, Misleading Fraud on CourtInstitution of Justice, the opponent including Adv. Satish Uke, Nagpur and Public at large by showing his image clean clearn. Devendra is showing and posing his image clean and clear and committed cheating with public at large. 5. The copies if attached documents with Hindu version of the above facts are showing the factual position of nature and act of Mr. Devendra Fadnavis and others involved there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 34. Para 11 of the said decision being relevant, is reproduced below : 11. The tendency of maligning the reputation of judicial officers by disgruntled elements who fail to secure an order which they desire is on the increase and it is high time that serious note is taken of the same. No latitude can be given to a litigant to browbeat the court. Merely because a party chooses to appear in person, it does not give him a licence to indulge in making such aspersions as have the tendency to scandalise the court in relation to judicial matters. 35. In para 12 of the said decision, the Apex Court has observed as under : 12. However, when from the criticism a deliberate, motivated and calculated attempt is discernible to bring down the image of the judiciary in the estimation of the public or to impair the administration of justice or tend to bring the administration of justice into disrepute the courts must bester themselves to uphold their dignity and the majesty of law. No litigant can be permitted to overstep the limits of fair, bona fide and reasonable criticism of a judgment and bring the courts generally in disrepute or attribute motives to the Judges rendering the j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... im and does little credit to the noble profession to which he belongs. An advocate has no wider protection than a layman when he commits an act which amounts to contempt of court. It is most unbefitting for an advocate to make imputations against the Judge only because he does not get the expected result, which according to him is the fair and reasonable result available to him. Judges cannot be intimidated to seek favourable orders. Only because a lawyer appears as a party in person, he does not get a licence thereby to commit contempt of the court by intimidating the Judges or scandalising the courts. He cannot use language, either in the pleadings or during arguments, which is either intemperate or unparliamentary. These safeguards are not for the protection of any Judge individually but are essential for maintaining the dignity and decorum of the courts and for upholding the majesty of law. Judges and courts are not unduly sensitive or touchy to fair and reasonable criticism of their judgments. Fair comments, even if, outspoken, but made without any malice or attempting to impair the administration of justice and made in good faith, in proper language, do not attract any punish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d; or where an advocate is found actively taking part in faking court orders (fake bail orders are not unknown in several High Courts!); or where an advocate has made it into a practice to browbeat and abuse judges and on that basis has earned the reputation to get a case transferred from an inconvnient court; or where an advocate is found to be in the habit of sending unfounded and unsubstantiated allegation petitions against judicial officers and judges to the superior courts. Unfortunately these examples are not from imagination. These things are happening more frequently than we care to acknowledge. 239. We may also add that these illustrations are not exhaustive but there may be other ways in which a malefactor's conduct and actions may pose a real and imminent threat to the purity of court proceedings, cardinal to any court's functioning, apart from constituting a substantive offence and contempt of court and professional misconduct. In such a situation 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Criminal Application No.1952/2010 Criminal Application No.1950/2010 Criminal Writ Petition No.294/2011 Criminal Writ Petition No.441/2010 Criminal Writ Petition No.618/2005 (Decided) Criminal Contempt Petition No.2/2015 in APL No.491/2013 Criminal Application (APPP) No.955/2014 in Criminal Application (APL) No.258/2013 (Decided) with Criminal Application (APL) No.491/2013. Criminal Application (APPP) No.40/2015 in Cri. Application (APPP) No.1081/2015 (D) in Criminal Application No.45/2015 (D) in Criminal Application (APL) No.824/2014 (Decided) Cri. Contempt Petition No.2/2013 Civil Writ PetitionNo.2760/2015 Criminal Application No.1192/2008 Criminal Writ Petition No.23/2002 Criminal Writ Petition No.110/2015 Criminal APL No.157/2014 Criminal Writ Petition No.1078/2014 Criminal Writ Petition No.166/2006 Criminal Writ Petition No.411/2010 Criminal Writ Petition No.419/2010 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts of this case, and the law laid down by the Apex Court, I propose to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India to frame the following draft charges against the applicantSatish Mahadeorao Uke for the act of the contempt of Court : (1) You, 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, as are pointed out in this order, which are frivolous and vexatious and thereby you have committed an act of abuse of process of the Court, amounting to contempt of Court. (2) You, Satish Mahadeorao Uke, have made statements of facts before this Court recorded in the orders dated 2042016 and 2542016 and contained in Civil Revision Application No.26 of 2016 and the pursis Stamp Nos.5462 of 2016 and 5811 of 2016, which you knew and believed to be false, so as to browbeat this Court on the basis of a false case of recusal and indulging in the activity of benchhunting. (3) In various litigations as are instituted and the publications, which are referred to in this order, you, Satish Mahadeorao Uke, hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1) Issue notice to the applicantSatish 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 proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
