Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
CRWP.3611.2014
C
ou
rt
Petitioner
ig
h
versus
1. State of Maharashtra through
Public Prosecutor, High Court, Bombay.
ba
y
om
Respondents
2 of 29
CRWP.3611.2014
C
ou
rt
ig
h
2.
ba
y
defendant no.1 in Suit no.175 of 2014. The suit is filed by the owner
of a 7,000 sq. ft. flat at Marine Drive, Mumbai, alleging that
defendant no.1 trespassed into the suit flat and fabricated documents
om
claiming title of the entire building of which the suit flat is one of the
flats.
3 of 29
CRWP.3611.2014
rt
2013 for rest. Defendant no.1 Sanjay Punamiya claims to have been
inducted as a tenant into the suit flat on the fifth floor of a building on
C
ou
Marine Drive admeasuring about 7,000 sq.ft. from Faizal on the basis
no.313 of 2014 for interim orders. The Notice of Motion was listed
ig
h
for hearing before the Court of Mrs. Justice Roshan Dalvi on 7 May
2014. Justice Dalvi passed an order dated 7 May 2014 granting adinterim injunction against Sanjay Punamiya (defendant no.1) and
om
ba
y
read as under:
43.
The acts of defendant No.1 and his Advocate
Nilesh Ojha (who has yet not filed his Vakalatnama)
detailed above is seen to be both scandalous and
defamatory. It constitutes contempt in the face of the
Court. This is a fit case where action for having
committed criminal contempt under the Contempt of
Courts Act should be initiated against them. However,
both defendant No.1 and Advocate Nilesh Ojha be first
allowed to show course against the action in contempt.
44. Issue notice upon both defendant No.1, Sanjay
Mishrimal Punamiya and Advocate Nilesh Ojha to
show cause, if any, why action under the Law of
Contempt of Court should not be initiated against
them.
4 of 29
CRWP.3611.2014
rt
Justice Dalvi also noted in the order that Defendant no.1 (Sanjay
Punamiya) was trying to avoid her Court as, in a similar case of
C
ou
ig
h
Ojha, to show cause why proceedings for contempt in the face of the
Court should not be initiated against them. On the basis thereof, the
Prothonotary & Senior Master of this Court (respondent no.4), issued
show cause notice no.787 of 2014 against Sanjay Punamiya and the
petitioner on 22 May 2014. Further, after considering the affidavits
of Sanjay Punamiya and the petitioner, Justice Roshan Dalvi passed
ba
y
order dated 23 June 2014 setting out the facts of the case as per the
requirements of section 14(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act. In view
of the prayer of the petitioner to transfer the case to another Court, by
om
the said order dated 23 June 2014, Justice Roshan Dalvi passed the
order for placing the matter before the Chief Justice for passing
directions as per section 14(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act for
placing the matter before another Judge.
6.
the Division Bench of this Court challenging the aforesaid order dated
7 May 2014. On 9 July 2014, when Sanjay Punamiya sought to
tender an affidavit tendering unconditional apology and withdrawing
the allegations made in his complaint dated 5 May 2014 against
5 of 29
CRWP.3611.2014
rt
C
ou
ig
h
ba
y
In the said order, this Court has also noted that in the suit
om
6 of 29
rt
8.
CRWP.3611.2014
C
ou
proceedings appeared, the present petitioner did not appear and the
ig
h
om
ba
y
consider the prayers made in the present Criminal Writ Petition which
may broadly be classified in the following categories :-
7 of 29
rt
(A)
CRWP.3611.2014
C
ou
1971 on the basis of the order dated 7 May 2014 of Mrs. Justice
Roshan Dalvi (Respondent no.2) and for stay of the said show
cause notice no.787 of 2014;
ig
h
To
direct
(B)
initiation
of
prosecution
against
ba
y
om
8 of 29
rt
10.
CRWP.3611.2014
concerned, they are all directed against the judicial order dated 7 May
C
ou
ig
h
be dismissed insofar as prayers (i), (ii) and (vii) to (ix) in this criminal
writ petition are concerned.
ba
y
11.
om
Judge of this Court. Section 3(1) of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985
grants protection to a Judge in following terms:
"3.
9 of 29
rt
CRWP.3611.2014
C
ou
ig
h
protection to Judges :
ba
y
12.
om
10 of 29
rt
CRWP.3611.2014
13.
C
ou
ig
h
om
ba
y
May 2014 :
11 of 29
CRWP.3611.2014
C
ou
rt
ig
h
7.
The complaint/application shows two enclosures one is copy of the plaint in this Court, the other is copy
of "the cell details amongst the applicant and some of
the non applicants". The Court called upon Advocate
Kakde to show Enclosure-2 to the complaint. He sought
to search for the record. He stated that the copy of that
enclosure is not with him and took instructions from
defendant no.1 to state that it would be brought from his
residence.
om
ba
y
8.
The Advocate has not filed any Vakalatnama. He
has not obtained the NOC of the previous Advocates.
He has made inappropriate allegations. The Court,
therefore, directed a Police Officer to accompany the
Advocate and/or defendant no.1 whilst they sought to
obtain Enclosure-2 to the complaint and to report back
to Court. They were directed not to leave the court
without the police officer. The Court detained them
until
they
obtained
Enclosure-2
to
the
complaint/application, which would be the only
evidence, if any, to corroborate the allegations therein.
The Court thus detained defendant no.1 and his
Advocate under the provisions of the initial part of
Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
9.
Counsel on behalf of the plaintiff made the
necessary application which shall be considered
presently. Whilst that was being made, Advocate
Kakade on behalf of defendant no.1 tendered to Court a
token of Vodafone being Token No.94 dated today - 7th
May 2014 showing the time 12:32:21 p.m. being an
application for obtaining a transcript of certain calls.
12 of 29
CRWP.3611.2014
C
ou
rt
ig
h
ba
y
om
indicate that the Single Judge believed, in good faith, that she had the
power given to her by law under the first part of Section 345 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to detain Defendant no.1 and his
Advocate (present Petitioner) until they obtained the documents upon
whom Defendant no.1 had relied in his complaint dated 5 May 2014
by showing it as enclosure-2.
14.
13 of 29
CRWP.3611.2014
(1)
...
...
C
ou
...
rt
"3.
ig
h
It is obvious that the Petitioner himself does not hold any office or
position referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 3 of
15.
Judges
ba
y
om
14 of 29
CRWP.3611.2014
rt
and if such complaint had been filed, the officer could not have asked
C
ou
for protection under Section 3(1) of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985.
16.
ig
h
In case of
K.Veeraswami Vs. Union of India2, the Supreme Court has held that
President of India shall not grant sanction to prosecute a Judge of the
High Court, Chief Justice of High Court or Judge of the Supreme
ba
y
Court, if the Chief Justice of India is of the opinion that it is not a fit
case for grant of sanction for prosecution of the Judge concerned. It
would, of course, be obvious that if President of India is not inclined
om
to grant any such sanction in the first place, there would be no need
for the President of India to consult the Chief Justice of India in the
matter.
The Supreme Court observed as under :
Any complaint against a Judge and its investigation
by the CBI, if given publicity will have a far reaching
impact on the Judge and the litigant public. The need
therefor, is a judicious use of taking action under the
Act. Care should be taken that honest and fearless
2 (1991)3-scc-665
15 of 29
CRWP.3611.2014
ig
h
C
ou
rt
om
ba
y
16 of 29
CRWP.3611.2014
17.
ig
h
C
ou
rt
ba
y
om
17 of 29
rt
CRWP.3611.2014
C
ou
ig
h
ba
y
om
18.
down the law for grant of deemed sanction and that since the
Petitioner had submitted an application to the President of India on 21
4 (2009)6-SCC-372
5 (2012)3-SCC-64
18 of 29
rt
CRWP.3611.2014
C
ou
The Petitioner's
ig
h
writ petition. All those alleged offences are punishable under Indian
Penal Code. Section 6 of IPC lays down that through out the IPC,
every definition of an offence shall be understood subject to the
In
ba
y
om
19 of 29
rt
20.
CRWP.3611.2014
C
ou
others - AIR-1965-SC-1651 :-
The
Plaintiff sued the officer for damages for false imprisonment. The
ig
h
Supreme Court held that in view of his admission that he had not
taken cognizance as a Magistrate of the offence alleged against the
Plaintiff before ordering his arrest, and his main defence that he had
ba
y
under Judicial Officers' Protection Act, 1850. The case is, therefore,
clearly distinguishable as in the present case, Respondent no.2 was
acting only as a Judge of this Court and not in any executive capacity.
om
Moreover, the judgment clearly lays down that the Act grants large
protection to Judges and Magistrates acting in the discharge of their
judicial duties.
21.
Additional Judge of Gujarat High Court was that the Additional Judge
along with a Police Officer and others was alleged to have hatched a
conspiracy to falsely implicate a shop owner in Rajasthan and when
the shop owner submitted to their demands, he was discharged. The
Court held that there was no connection between the official duty and
20 of 29
CRWP.3611.2014
rt
C
ou
law. The act attributed to the Judge had nothing to do with the
discharge of his official duty as a Judge.
22.
ig
h
ba
y
element. The letter was read out by the District Judge in open Court.
The Respondent filed a complaint against the Appellant-Magistrate
alleging defamation under Section 499 of IPC. The question raised
om
was whether the Court could take cognizance of the offence alleged
against Appellant-Magistrate in absence of proper sanction as
contemplated in Section 197 of Cr.P.C.
hearing the complaint negatived the contention of the AppellantMagistrate that the sanction was necessary.
21 of 29
rt
CRWP.3611.2014
C
ou
ig
h
production in the Court. On seeing that the under trial prisoners were
brought before him hand-cuffed, the Respondent-Magistrate lost his
temper and abused the Appellant by uttering words non-sense and
ba
y
om
Judge
held
that
taken
22 of 29
CRWP.3611.2014
rt
the High Court declined to interfere with the order passed by the
Sessions Court and dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition on
C
ou
the ground that the action complained of had become stale by lapse of
time and also because in respect of the same incident, the
Respondent-Magistrate had made a reference to the High Court for
ig
h
ba
y
om
....
...
the
action
23 of 29
CRWP.3611.2014
rt
C
ou
words are attributed to the learned Judge. Hence, the authority relied
ig
h
The following
paragraph in the judgement would indicate that the High Court took
strong exception to the Respondent Magistrate using highly
om
ba
y
24 of 29
CRWP.3611.2014
C
ou
rt
25.
ig
h
offences punishable under Sections 148, 323, 324, 325 and 307 of IPC
in the Sessions Court. While one of the accused was acquitted by the
One of
ba
y
them came to be acquitted by the High Court. The High Court's order,
therefore, authorized the arrest of remaining three convicts whose
appeals were dismissed. The certified orders were sent to the Sessions
om
so, in spite of the fact that the Magistrate's order itself authorized
issuance
of
warrants
The above
resulted into two Plaintiffs being arrested by the Police and being
25 of 29
CRWP.3611.2014
rt
hand-cuffed and taken from their village to the Police Station six
miles away and detained in the lock-up and released one hour
C
ou
the presence of their relations, friends and fellow villagers. The two
Plaintiffs, therefore, filed a suit for damages against the Magistrate.
ig
h
warrants for those who had been acquitted. Hence, the Magistrate
was not protected by the Judicial Officers' Protection Act for signing
the warrants negligently. The High Court, therefore, passed a decree
ba
y
of damages against the Magistrate and set aside the decree for
damages against the State Government.
om
four days was passed against the Magistrate. The Plaintiff's case was
that Defendant no.1, who was a certificate officer of Baghmara, in
order to coerce and put undue pressure upon the Plaintiff to pay the
certificate dues, sent him to hazat. This fact was not disputed in the
26 of 29
CRWP.3611.2014
rt
written statement but was tacitly admitted. The High Court found that
no reason was recorded in the order as to why this extaordinary and
under arrest.
C
ou
over zealous step was taken by the Magistrate to put the Plaintiff
ig
h
om
ba
y
27 of 29
rt
27.
CRWP.3611.2014
C
ou
no.2 as a Judge of this Court. The acts in question were very much
performed when Respondent no.2 was acting as a Judge of this Court.
In this view of the matter, in the facts of the present case, Respondent
No.2 would get protection under section 3(1) of the Judges
(Protection) Act, 1985 read with section 77 of the IPC, and no Court
ig
h
That leaves only one prayer, being prayer (x) which reads
om
ba
y
as under :
28 of 29
CRWP.3611.2014
rt
and for thwarting the proceedings which the Petitioner is facing under
Sections 14 and 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. These
C
ou
ig
h
29.
ba
y
om
29 of 29
CRWP.3611.2014
rt
C
ou
section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 even for the
31.
ig
h
32.
is dismissed.
judgment to all the Sessions Judges and all the Magistrates in States
ba
y
om
Nagar Haveli.
(CHIEF JUSTICE)
(B.P.COLABAWALLA, J.)
MST