9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 1387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve 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. - Hon'ble Judges Sambhaji Shiwaji Shinde and V.G. Bisht, JJ. For the Appellant : Murlidhar L. Patil For the Respondents : S.R. Nargolkar and Tanaya Goswami, AGP JUDGMENT V.G. BISHT, J. 1. The petitioner, by way of filing the present petition prays for initiating contempt proceedings against respondent No. 1, who is Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chiplun, District Ratnagiri, for allegedly disregarding the binding precedents of the Superior Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... V Application No. 28 of 2017 (Smt. Seemeen Mohseen Alli Sayyed Versus Shri Mohseen Mohamad Alli Sayyed Ors.) under D.V. Act, the petitioner has caused appearance for respondent-husband. The wife again filed a private complaint No. 105 of 2017 against his client and family members under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC ). It is the contention of the petitioner that, in Rajesh Sharma Vs. State of U.P. 2017 Law Suit (SC) 734, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued directions that every complaint/FIR registered under Section 498A of the IPC received by the Magistrate be referred to the Family Welfare Committee and after the report of such committee is received, the same shall be considered by the Magistrate. Moreover, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t clearly and unequivocally admitted the receipt of payments in lieu of the blank signed cheques given to him. However, disregarding the said admission given by the complainant and judgment cited by the petitioner in the case of John Versus Returning Officer 1997 Law Suit SC 181, respondent No. 1 convicted the accused. 3. Lastly, the petitioner contended that the above instances clearly demonstrate that respondent No. 1 willfully disregarded the binding precedents on irrelevant and flimsy grounds. The said act of respondent No. 1 not only amounts to misconduct in discharge of duties but also contumacious act. Therefore, the petitioner prays for invoking Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with provisions of Contempt of Courts A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nexed, by the petitioner requesting therein that the said issue be referred to the competent authority under the provisions of the said Act, and in support thereof so also placed reliance in Tukaram Motiram Shinde (supra) and Jagmittar Sain Bhagat Others Versus Director Health Services, Haryana and Others. (2013) 10 SCC 136 which is apparent from the record. 8. Respondent No. 1, on his part, passed order below Exh. 120 after hearing both the parties and rejected the application of petitioner. 9. We have carefully gone through the order so passed below Exh. 120 in R.C.S. No. 209 of 2012. 10. It is true that the entire order is tellingly silent on the above noted authorities. There is absolutely no whisper as to whether those autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order of issuance of process as to why there was no mention of requirement of Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. or its non-applicability having regard to the fact that accused are admittedly the resident of place which was beyond territorial jurisdiction of respondent No. 1. Such approach of respondent No. 1 was not proper. 13. This takes us to the third instance wherein the petitioner had closed his evidence in D.V. Application No. 39 of 2015. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite there being no pleadings, respondent therein filed an application (Exh. 79 and 80) soliciting the issuance of witness summons which came to be eventually allowed by respondent No. 1 without adhering to the ratio laid down in National Textile Corporatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts. A common sense would prompt the conclusion that respondent No. 1 ought to have carefully gone through the decisions and the ratio laid down therein and then would have formed opinion about applicability or otherwise of the same. Unfortunately, it is clear that exercise was not properly undertaken and orders came to be passed in oblivion of the pronouncements/provisions. 16. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, firstly, placed reliance in Shri Baradkanta Mishra, Ex Commissioner of Endowments Versus Shri Bhimsen Dixit 1 SCC 446 wherein the remarks of the petitioner were found objectionable by the High Court of Orissa and therefore, the appellant was found guilty of contempt. This was challenged by the appellant before the Hon'b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
