Partha Sarathy Sarkar vs Registrar District And Sessions ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5444 Bom

1/3                                                              928 wp 1068.22.odt



               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
                    CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1068 OF 2022
                                     Partha Sarathy Sarkar
                                              VS.
                   Registrar District & Sessions Court Nagpur and another
Office     Notes,    Office                     Court's or Judge's orders
Memoranda of Coram,
Appearances, court's orders
or      directions     and
Registrar's orders
                      Ms Pratiksha De, Advocate for the petitioner.
                      Mr. Firdos Mirza, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2

CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND G.A. SANAP, J.J.

DATE : 15.06.2022

1. Ms Pratiksha De, Advocate for the petitioner states that the petitioner is in Mumbai and is not available in Nagpur today and therefore, she seeks time in the matter.

2. It seems that the petitioner is aggrieved by Circular dated 30.10.2021 issued by the Registrar General bringing to the notice of all Principal District and Sessions Judges and other Judges, the protection enjoyed by the Judges from criminal prosecution as well as civil proceedings against them in respect of any judicial act or any act purported to be committed by them in discharge of their judicial functions, in view of the provisions made in Section 3(1) of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 and Section 77 of the Indian Penal Code, 1861.

2/3 928 wp 1068.22.odt

3. In fact this position of law has already been clarified by the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment in the case of Nilesh C. Ojha Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2015 ALL MR (Cri) 326 decided on 11.11.2014, when directions were issued to all the Courts in the State of Maharashtra to not entertain any cases against the Judges. These directions are contained in para 29 of the said judgment and they are reproduced for the sake of convenience as follows:-

"For the reasons aforesaid, it is directed that in view of the protection granted by Section 3(1) of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 and Section 77 of the Indian Penal Code, 1861, no Court in the States of Maharashtra and Goa, Union Territories of Daman, Diu, Dadra and Nagar Haveli shall entertain any prosecution or any complaint under any provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, including under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation against a Judge of this Court or any judicial officer in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed in the discharge or purported discharge of official duty or judicial function by passing a judicial order or by committing any act or omission or by doing anything or by speaking any words in the Court precincts."

4. Mr. Mirza, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that based on the afore-stated law, the concerned Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur has rejected Criminal Revision No.6164/2021 filed by the petitioner against the order of Judicial Magistrate First Class Court No.6, Nagpur in Criminal M.A.No.3583/2021 on 09.11.2021 rejecting the criminal 3/3 928 wp 1068.22.odt

complaint filed by the petitioner against judicial officer on the ground of maintainability. He, therefore, submits that this petition is not maintainable in any case.

5. The petitioner would have to answer the above referred objections.

6. Apart from what is stated here-in-above, we find that this petition has not been properly drafted nor any proper prayer clause has been made about which an appropriate consideration would have to be accorded by the petitioner.

7. Stand over after four weeks.

                                     JUDGE                                       JUDGE
            Manisha




Signed By:MANISHA ALOK
SHEWALE


Signing Date:16.06.2022 17:38