Madras High Court
P.Balasubramaniyan vs The Registrar (Judicial) on 9 February, 2018
Author: M.Sathyanarayanan
Bench: M.Sathyanarayanan, R.Hemalatha
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 09.02.2018
RESERVED ON : 11.01.2018
DELIVERED ON : 09.02.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA
W.A(MD)SR.No.30600 of 2017
P.Balasubramaniyan ... Appellant/
Writ Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Registrar (Judicial),
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai - 625 023.
2.Justice P.N.Prakash,
C/o.The Registrar General,
Madras High Court,
Chennai. ... Respondents/
Respondents
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order
dated 06.06.2017 passed in W.P(MD)SR.No.11781 of 2017.
!For Appellant : Mr.P.Balasubramaniyan,
[Party-in-person]
^For Respondent:
:JUDGMENT
M.SATHYANARAYANAN,J.
The appellant is the party-in-person and also an Advocate [Enrollment No.1395/2016] practising here.
2. The appellant/party-in-person filed W.P(MD)SR.No.11781 of 2017 for the following reliefs:
"(1) to call for all the records from the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur, Karur District pertaining to the cause in C.M.P.No.127/2007 and quash the impugned order dated 22.08.2007 and quash the impugned order dated 22.08.2007 of the R4 herein and punish the R4 herein U/Article 20(1) of the Constitutional of India, 1950 r/w Sec. 166, 219 and 220 of IPC 1860;
(2) to call for the records from the court of the Principle District and Sessions Judge, Karur, Karur District pertaining to the Criminal Revision Case No. 29/2007 and 28/2007 and quash the impugned order dated 29.04.2008 in C.R.C. No. 29/2007 and dated 12.12.2007 in C.R.C.No. 28/2007 of the R5 herein and punish the R5 herein U/Articel 20(1) of hte Constitutional of India, 1950 r/w Sec.166, 219 and 220 of IPC 1860;
(3) to call for the records from the Registrar, Madras High Court, Chennai pertaining to the Notification No. 26/89 in R.O.C. No. 92/88. Con.B-
2, dated 09.02.1989 and revise the impugned portion of the notification as to, ?they can exercise the powers of the Judicial Magistrate of the 2nd class and try the IPC offences which are triable by any Magistrate only as shown in the First Schedule of Cr.P.C. 1973 of India? instead of, ?They can exercise all powers of the Judicial Magistrate of first class under the said Code, ?and to direct the Registrar General, Madras High Court, Chennnai to send the revised notification to all the concern and punish the R6 herein U/Article 20(1) of the Constitutional of India, 1950 r/w Sec. 166,167, 197 IPC 1860;
(4) to call for the records from the Madurai Bench of Madras High court pertaining to the cause in W.P.(MD) No. 10170/2008 and in Crl.O.P.No. 11247/2008 and quash the ultra vires proceedings and impugned order dated 12.11.2008 of the R8 herein in W.P.(MD) No. 10170/2008 and the ultra vires proceedings and impugned order dated 24.11.2008 of R9 herein and that dated 03.02.2014 of the R11 and R12 in Crl.O.P(MD) No. 11247/2008 and Crl.M.P.(MD) No. 1/2008 in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 11247/2008 and punish the R8, R9, R10, R11 and R12 herein U/Article 20(1) of the Constitutional of India, 1950 r/w Sec. 166 in common and R8, R9, R10, R11 and R12 u/s 219 of IPC 1860;
(5) to call for the records from the records form the court of JM No. II Kulithalai in Karur District pertaining to the cause in C.C.No. 132/2008 and quash the ultra vires proceedings of the R2 and R3, R7, R12 and R13 herein and punish them U/Article 20(1) of the Constitutional of India, 1950 r/w Sec. 166, 217, 218, 219 and 220 of IPC 1860;
(6) to direct the Registrar Judicial, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, to place the 1 to 10 kinds of cases before the competent bench in compliance of the Judicial order of the division bench dated 10.09.2013 in W,P.(MD) No. 1619/2006 and 8882/2008 viz.,
(i). The Cause in S.C.No. 28/2009 of Karur Sessions Division from the court of Sessions (FTMC), Karur District and in the Court of Principal District and sessions Judge, Karur District and with the Chairman of the Legal Services authority, District Court Building, Karur, Karur District;
(ii). My Complaint Petition da ted 29.10.2007 to the Chief Justice of Madras High Court;
(iii). My Writ Petition W.P.(MD) No. 1619/2006 pending in the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court;
(iv). My Writ Petition W.P.(MD) No. 8882/2008 pending in the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court;
(v). My Writ Petition M.P.(MD) No. 2/2008 in W.P.(MD) No. 1619/2006 rightly allowed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court comprised of Hon'ble Justices, Thiru.P.K.Mishra J and Thiru K.Kannan J on 29.09.2008. But wrongly and improperly disposed of by the Division Bench of Comprised of Hon'ble Justices Thiru K.Ravi Raja Pandian J and Thiru P.P.S.Janathana Raja J, on 13.10.2008;
(vi). My Review Application (Writ) R.A.S.R.No. 44463/24.11.2008 wrongly and wrongfully disposed of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Justice R.Sudhakar J in 2012;
(vii). My Writ Petition dated 17.01.2010 sent though the Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison, Trichirapalli to the Registrar Judicial, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai, But pending with the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, District Court Building, Karur District;
(viii). The impugned Criminal Case against me and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, C.J.M. Court, Karur in Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 11247/2008 wrongly and wrongfully disposed of by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Justice R.Sudhakar J and V.M.Velumani J on 03.02.2014;
(ix). Letter dated 09.04.2012 of Thiru K.Karunanithi M.A., M.L., Chairman (Sub- Judge), Taluk legal Service Committee, Kulithalai to the Registrar General, Madras High Court of Judicature, Chennai ? 600104 (1-2 pages) enclosed with my petition dated 02.03.2012 (1-10 pages in total) to the Registrar (General), Madras High Court of Judicature, Chennai ? 600 104 which I submitted to the court of Asst. Sessions Judge, Kulithalai;
(x) Letter dated 27.08.2012 (1 ? page) of Thiru.K.Murali Sankar B.L., Chairman (Sub -Judge). Taluk Legal Services Committe, Kulithalai, to the officer -in ? charge, High Court Legal Services Committee, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Campus Madurai ? Enclosing my original petition dated 17.08.2012 Under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India r/w Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C. 1973 of India, which I submitted to the Court of Asst. Sessions Judge, Kulithalai, Karur District on 17.08.2012 in S.C.No. 28/2009 of Karur Sessions Division and to decide the totality of the fact of the case as ruled by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Indian oil Corporation ---- Appellant .vs. Municipal Corporation Jullundhar and other ----- Respondents, reported in (1993) 1 SCC 333;
7. For the reasons mentioned in the accompanying affidavit it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to award me all the fine amount so imposed upon R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10, R11, R12, R13 and R14 a compensation towards untold hardship, mental worries and mental agony, monetary loss due to the lawful omission, unlawful act and willful dereliction of duty of the R2-R14 herein in connection with C.C.No. 155/2006 of JM Court No. II, Karur, Karur District in C.C.No. 1020/2006 of JM Court No. I, Karur District, in C.C.No. 113/2007 of JM Court No. II, Karur, Karur District and in C.C.No. 132/2008 of JM Court No. II, Kulithalai in Karur District; and
8. to pass any such further or other orders which deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case under the provision of law under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 1950 and in the interest of fair administration of Law and Justice, principles of natural justice and in the interest of ends of justice and thus protect my legal rights, human rights and constitutional rights."
3. The Registry has put up a Maintainability Note expressing doubts as to the reliefs sought for by the appellant/party-in-person in the writ petition. Therefore, W.P(MD)SR.No.11781 of 2017 was posted before the Open Court for deciding the issue as to the maintainability of the writ petition before the Honourable Mr.Justice P.N.Prakash.
4. The learned Judge, after hearing the submissions of the appellant/party-in-person and also taking note of the earlier order dated 22.04.2016 passed in Crl.O.P(MD)SR.Nos.1363 and 1364 of 2016, in which, the appellant/party-in-person has appeared as a party-in-person, has dismissed the writ petition at the stage of maintainability and also imposed a cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the Legal Services Authority attached to this Court to be paid within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. A further direction has also been given to send a copy of the said order along with the copy of the affidavit and petition filed by the appellant/party-in-person to the Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Bar Council, with a further direction to take suitable disciplinary action against him for drafting and filing such a vexatious petition throwing to wind all judicial decorum.
5. The appellant/writ petitioner/party-in-person, aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition at the stage of maintainability, imposition of costs and a direction issued to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu to take appropriate disciplinary action, has filed this writ appeal in W.A(MD)SR.No.30600 of 2017.
6. The Registry has raised the following objections and it is relevant to extract the same as under:
"1. It may be stated as to how the Hon'ble Judge of Madras High Court, is arrayed as Respondent.
2. The orders in the Crl Ops and Crl. Wps mentioned in the WA have been disposed of by the Hon''ble High Court by exercising the Criminal Jurisdiction. As per Clause 15 of Letters Patent, no intra Court Appeal will lie in this Court.
3. The prayer in the W.P.sr.No.11781/2017 is totally unconnected with the other Crl. OP. SR. Nos. mentioned in the WA.
4. How a single WA will lie against all the Crl.Ops and Wps mentioned in the WA may be stated.
5. Prayer in the WA is not connected with the prayer in the Writ Petition.
14. Prayer portion is not proper."
7. The appellant/writ petitioner/party-in-person, in response to the objections raised by the Registry, made the following endorsement and it is relevant to extract hereunder the same:
"For remarks No.1 of the Registry:
1.The law under Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India, 1950, ?No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the Commission of the act charged as an offence, not be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.
2. The law under Section 166 of IPC, 1860, ?Whoever, being a Public Servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such Public Servant, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will by such disobedience, cause injury to any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
3.The law under Section 219 of IPC, 1860, ?Whoever, being a Public Servant, corruptly or maliciously makes or pronounces in any stage of a judicial proceedings, any reports, order, verdict, or decision which he knows to be contrary to law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to seven years or with fine, or with both.
4.The legal maxim, ?Ignorantia facti excusat; ignorantia legis neminem excusat?, Ignorance of fact is an excuse; Ignorance of law is no excuse.?
5.The law under section 21 of IPC, 1860 every Judge including any person empowered by law to discharge, whether by himself or as a member of anybody of persons, any adjudicatory function is a public servant.
6.Thus, P.N. Prakash is a Judge of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court who adjudicated the petitions not only in W.P.(MD)SR.No.11781/2017 & W.M.P.(MD)SR.No.11783/2017, wrongly, wrongfully and improperly without applying his mind either judicial or common sense into the fact of the Affidavit and its accompaniments, through his order dated 06.06.2017. But also other nine kinds of petition specifically mentioned in the Writ Appeal.
Therefore all the said impugned orders are under challenge in this Writ Appeal in W.A.(MD)SR.No.30600/2017. Hence, P.N. Prakash J is arrayed as a Respondent in the Writ Appeal in W.A.(MD)SR.No.30600/2017.
7.The Dicey's Rule of law under Constitution of India, 1950, the Government and the Public Officials are not above the law. The maxim, ?The King can do no wrong? does not apply in India. There is equality before the law and equal protection of laws. The Government and Public Authorities are also subject to the jurisdiction of ordinary Courts of law and for similar wrongs they are to be tried and punished similarly. They are not immune from ordinary legal process nor is any provision made regarding separate administrative Courts and Tribunals.
For remarks No.2 of the Registry : The classification and competency of Judicial Magistrate mentioned in Section 29 of Cr. P.C., 1973 of India and in Notification No.26/89 for the return of the petition and its accompaniments in Writ Appeal in WA(MD) SR.No.30600/2017 dated 7.8.2017 runs, ?The orders in the Crl. Ops and Crl. W.PS mentioned in the Writ Appeal have been disposed of by the Honourable High Court by exercising original Criminal Jurisdiction. As per clause 15 Letters Patent Appeal. No intro Court Appeal will lie in this Court.?
It is submitted that (I) No doubt that the orders in the Crl.O.Ps and Crl.W.Ps mentioned in the Writ Appeal have been disposed of by the dishonest Judges P.N. Prakash.J. And G. Chokalingam.J without applying their mind (either judicial or common sense) into the fact of the Affidavit and its accompanying typed set of papers. They did not even knowing about the classification of Judicial Magistrate Courts and their competency in Cr.P.C., 1898 of India and in Cr.P.C., 1973 of India. In all of the Crl.O.Ps and Crl.W.Ps I disputed about the inconsistent of the law under Section 29 of Cr.P.C., 1973 of India and the Notification No.26/89 dated 9.2.1989 with Roc.No.92188, Con B2 of Madras High Court with that of the law under Section 6, 12, 190 and first schedule of Cr.P.C., 1973 of India.
(ii)Accordingly to the Dicey's Rule of Law under Constitution of India, 1950, all rules, regulations, ordinances, bye-laws, notifications, customs and usages are ?laws?within the meaning of Article 13 of the Constitution of India, 1950 and if they are inconsistent with or contrary to any of the provisions thereof, they can be declared as ultra vires by the Supreme Court and by High Courts.
(iii) According to the precedent reported in (1993) SCC 561 the Supreme Court Division Bench rightly held as to, Xt is not for a Court to keep track of an investigation and watch its day to day progress. But, when an investigation culminates into a final report as contemplated under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., then the Competent Court enjoins a duty within its authority sanctioned by law to scrupulously scrutinize the final reports and the accompaniments by applying its judicial mind and take a decision either to accept or reject the final report. In case of non-application of mind interference by Higher Court called for.
(iv) As far as the orders in the Crl.O.Ps and Crl.W.Ps mentioned in the Writ Appeal, the adjudicating Judges, though competent, had not applied their mind into the affidavit and its accompaniments and not scrupulously scrutinizes them before passing the orders. Hence this Writ Appeal to the Higher Court interference.
A Division Bench High Court is Higher Court to a Single Bench High Court. A Full Bench High Court is Higher Court to a Division Bench High Court. A Constitution Bench High Court is Higher Court to Full Bench High Court. A Seven Judges Bench High Court is Higher Court to a Constitutional Bench High Court. Therefore the Writ Appeal in WA(MD)SR.No.30600/2017 is maintainable in this Hon'ble High Court Bench to declare the inconsistent law under Section 29 of Cr.P.C., and notification No.26/89 dated 9.2.1989 of Madras High Court is ultra vires and to declare all Judicial Magistrate are Judicial Magistrate of the Second Class and all Chief Judicial Magistrate are Judiciaal Magistrate of the First Class wherever Cr.P.C., 1973 of India is applicable.
Remarks No.3 of the Registry for the return of the petition and its accompaniments in WA(MD) SR.No.30600/2017 dated 7.8.2017 runs, ? The prayer in the W.P(MD) SR.No.11781/2017 is totally unconnected with the other Crl. O.P.SR.Nos. Mentioned in Writ Appeal?.
It is submitted that though the prayer in the WP(MD)SR.11781/2017 seems different with the other Crl.O).P.SR.Nos mentioned in Writ Appeal, they were all connected with a common grounds of lawful omission, unlawful act and willful dereliction of duty of the Respondents herein during the course of their employment as Public Servant in the individual Crl.O.Ps and Cr.W.Ps including WP(MD)Sr.No.11781/2017.
Remarks No.4 of the Registry: for the return of the petition and its accompaniments in WA(MD) SR.No.30600/2017 dated 7.8.2017 runs, ?How a Single Writ Appeal will lie against all the Crl. Ops and Crl.W.Ps. Mentioned in the Writ Appeal may be stated?.
It is submitted that the classification and competency of Judicial Magistrate mentioned in Section 29 of Cr.P.C., 1973 of India and in Notification No.26/89, dated 9.2.1989 of Madras High Court are inconsistent with the law under Section 6, 12 & 1st Schedule of Cr.P.C., 1973 of India and also competency of the Court to try certain IPC offences is wrongly mentioned in the IPC as well as in the first schedule of Cr.P.C. 1973 of India.
Eg.1- The offence under Section 306 of IPC attracts punishment upto 10 years and as per the IPC and 1st schedule of Cr.P.C., 1973 of India, the said offence is to be triable by a Court of Sessions. Whereas the offence under Section 392 of IPC attracts punishment upto 10 years or 14 years. But as per the IPC and 1st schedule of Cr.P.C., 1973 of India, the said offence is to be triable by a Court of Magistrate of First Class.
Eg.2- The offence under Section 413 of IPC attracts imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 10 years and fine and as per the IPC and 1st schedule of Cr.P.C 1973 of India, the said offence is to be triable by a Court of Sessions.
Whereas the offence under Section 326 of IPC attracts the same punishment of imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for 10 years and fine, but as per the IPC and 1st schedule of Cr.P.C. 1973 of India the above said offence is to be triable by Magistrate of the First Class.
Eg.3- The office under Section 397 of IPC attracts rigorous imprisonment for not less than 7 years and as per the IPC and First Schedule of Cr.P.C. 1973 of India, the above said offence is to be triable by a Court of Sessions. Whereas the offence u/s 393 of IPC attracts rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine. But, as per the IPC and First schedule of Cr.P.C 1973 of India, the above said offence is triable by a Court of Magistrate of the First Class.
Therefore, appropriate correction has to be made in IPC and Cr.P.C 1973 of India and with respect to competency of the Court to try the said IPC and other IPC offences. Such changes/Amendment could be made only by the High Courts and the Supreme Court of India, as per the Dicey's Rule of law under Constitution of India and declare as to, ll the Judicial Magistrate/Metropolitan Magistrate across the Indian Nation, wherever the Cr.P.C 1973 of India is applicable are classified as Judicial Magistrate of the Second Class and are competent to try the IPC offences which are triable by any Magistrate only as shown in the 1st schedule of Cr.P.C 1973 of India.
All Chief Judicial Magistrates/Chief Metropolitan Magistrates across the Indian Nation wherever Cr.P.C 1973 of India is applicable are classified as Judicial Magistrate of the First Class and are competent to try the offence which are triable by any Magistrate and Magistrate of the First Class as shown in the 1st schedule of Cr.P.C 1973 of India.
Classification of Judicial Magistrate Court and their competency to try the IPC and other offences is the major disputes in all the Crl.O.Ps and Crl.W.Ps mentioned in the Writ Appeal. Therefore, this Single Writ Appeal would lie against all Crl.O.Ps and Crl.W.Ps mentioned in the Writ Appeal.
Remarks No.5 of the Registry- for the return of the petition and its accompaniments in WA(MD)SR.No.30600/2017 dated 7.8.2017 runs, ?prayer in the Writ Appeal is not connected with the prayer in the Writ Petition.
It is submitted that the explanation to the Remark No.3 of the Registry is hold good for the 5th Remarks of the Registry.
Remarks No.14 of the Registry: ? For the return of the petition and its accompaniments in WA(MD)SR.No.30600/2017 dated 7.8.2017 runs, ?Prayer portion is not proper?.
Complied with."
[extracted as such]
8. The Registry after taking into consideration the reply to the queries sought for by it, still entertains a doubt as to the maintainability of the writ appeal and therefore, it is directed to be listed before the Open Court so as to enable the appellant/writ petitioner/party-in-person to convince the Court as to the maintainability of the writ appeal.
9. When the matter was listed on 23.01.2018 under the caption "For Maintainability", the appellant/writ petitioner/party-in-person has invited the attention of this Court to the typed set of documents containing the following documents:
1.Sujatha Law Series - Answers to Important Questions - [According to New Syllabus] - Subject - The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 & Correctional Administration ... by Gade Veera Reddy, Advocate, High Court, Kothi, Hyderabad - 500 095.
2.The judgment dated 12.12.2007 in Criminal Revision Case No.28 of 2007 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Karur, in which, the appellant/writ petitioner/party-in-person was the revision petitioner.
10. The primordial submission made by the appellant/writ petitioner/party-in-person is that as per Chapter II - Section 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the classes of criminal Courts are given, namely, Courts of Session, Judicial Magistrates of the First Class and in any metropolitan area, Metropolitan Magistrate; Judicial Magistrates of the Second Class and according to him, the Chief Judicial Magistrate alone can be designated as a Magistrate of First Class and the Magistrates of Second Classes still exist in the State and therefore, finds fault with the order passed in Criminal Revision Case No.28 of 2007 (cited supra).
11. When this Court specifically put a question as to the maintainability of the prayers sought for by the appellant/writ petitioner/party-in-person in the writ petition, more particularly, with regard to the language used, the appellant/writ petitioner/party-in-person avoided that issue and tried to advance the arguments on the merits of the writ petition.
12. This Court has considered the submissions made by the appellant/writ petitioner/party-in-person and also perused the materials placed before it.
13. The appellant/writ petitioner/party-in-person, on an earlier occasion filed Crl.O.P(MD)Sr.No.1248 of 2017 against Tvl.K.Ganesan, Sub- Inspector of Police (Crime), Karur Town Police Station; I.Cetric Manuvel, Inspector of Police, Karur Town Police Station; N.Ramanathan, Judicial Magistrate, J.M.Court No.1 (FAC), Karur; P.Palanivel, Assistant Jailor & Jail Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Karur; M.Padmanaban, Judicial Magistrate, J.M.Court No.1, Karur; A.Vanitha, Judicial Magistrate, J.M.Court No.1, Karur; P.Revathi, Judicial Magistrate, J.M.Court No.1 (FAC), Karur; and P.Mohanavalli, Judicial Magistrate, J.M.Court No.1, Karur, seeking the following prayers:
"(1) calling for the entire papers of the case in C.C.No.113 of 2013 u/s.379 IPC @ 392 IPC from the incompetent Court of J.M.No.I, Karur and
(i) Quashing the impugned FIR dated 03.01.2013 of u/s.379 of IPC 1860 and other impugned documents authorized by the R1 herein on 03.01.2013 in Crime No.05/2013 of Karur Town Police Station in C.C.No.113/2013 of J.M.Court No.I, Karur.
(ii) Quashing the impugned PT Warrant dated 09.01.2013 issued by the R3 herein on the instigation of the R2 herein and subsequent impugned remand report dated 10.01.2013 authorized by the R2 herein on 10.01.2013 and the impugned remand order dated 10.01.2013 authorized by the R3 herein.
(iii) Quashing the impugned proceedings of the R2 herein from 07.01.2013 to 10.06.2013 and all the impugned documents authorized by the R2 herein in Crime No.05/2013 dated 03.01.2013 of Karur Town Police Station in U/s.379 IPC @ 392 IPC in C.C.No.113/2013 of J.M.Court No.I, Karur.
(iv) Quashing the impugned proceedings of the R3, R4, R5, R6, R7 & R8 herein from 09.01.2013 to till date in connection with the impugned case in crime No.05/2013 dated 03.01.2013 u/s.379 IPC and 379 IPC @ 392 IPC in C.C.No.113/2013 of J.M.Court No.I, Karur.
(v) Quashing the impugned proceedings of the LW9 - A.Dhanasekaran in conducting the impugned identification parade on 07/02/2013 in the Sub-Jail at Karur and his impugned identification parade report dated 07.02.2013 in connection with the impugned case in Crime No.05/2013 dated 03.01.2013 u/s.379 IPC and 379 IPC @ 392 IPC in C.C.No.113/2013 of J.M.Court No.I, Karur.
(vi) Punishing the R1 herein for his committed offences in Crime No.05/2013 dated 03/01/2013 of Karur Town Police Station in C.C.No.113/2013 of the Court of J.M.No.I, Karur under Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India, 1950 r/w Sections 166, 166-A, 182, 193, 341, 342, 343, 417, 465, 471, etc., of IPC, 1860.
(vii) Punishing the R2 herein for his committed offences in Crime No.05/2013 dated 03.01.2013 of Karur Town Police Station in C.C.No.113/2013 of the Court of J.M.No.I, Karur, under Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India, 1950 r/w sec.166, 166-A, 182, 193, 195, 211, 220, 344 r/w 109, 417, 465, 471, etc., of IPC 1860.
(viii) Punishing the R3 herein for his committed offences in Crime No.05/2013 dated 03.01.2013 of Karur Town Police Station in C.C.No.113/2013 of the Court of J.M.No.I, Karur under Article 20 (1) of the Constitution of India, 1950 r/w sec.166, 219, 220, 344, etc., IPC, 1860.
(ix) Punishing the R4 herein for his committed offences in Crime No.05/2013 dated 03.01.2013 of Karur Town Police Station in C.C.No.113/2013 of the Court of J.M.No.I, Karur under Article 20 (1) of the Constitution of India, 1950 r/w sec.166 and 344 etc., IPC 1860.
(x) Punishing the R5, R6 and R7 herein for their committed offences in Crime No.05/2013 dated 03/01/2013 of Karur Town Police Station in C.C.No.113/2013 of the Court of J.M.No.1, Karur, under Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India, 1950 r/w sec.166, 219, 220, etc., IPC, 1860.
(xi) Punishing the R8 herein for her committed offence in Crime No.05/2013 dated 05.01.2013 of Karur Town Police Station in C.C.No.113/2013 of the Court of J.M.No.I, Karur, under Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India, 1950 r/w Sec. 166, 219, 220, 344, 417, etc., of IPC, 1860.
(2) Discharging the petitioner herein as innocent from the false, fictitious, concocted, frivolous and vexatious case against me in Crime No.05/2013 dated 03.01.2013 of Karur Town Police Station in C.C.No.113 of 2013 of the Court of J.M.No.I, Karur.
(3) Awarding the petitioner herein the entire fine amount so imposed/inflicted upon R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7 and R8 herein in Crime No.05/2013 dated 03.01.2013 of Karur Town Police Station in C.C.No.113/2013 of the Court of J.M.No.I, Karur under the provision of law u/s.250 of Cr.P.C., 1973 of India and for the untold hardship, mental worries & Mental agony caused in him due to the false case against him in Crime No.05/2016 of Karur Town Police Station in C.C.No.113 of 2013 of Karur J.M.Court No.I, and (4) Passing any such further or other orders, directions, relief, remedy which deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case under the provision of law u/s.482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 of India and in the interest of fair administration of law and justice, principles of natural justice and in the interest of ends of justice and thus render justice."
14. The Registry has raised it's objections as to the maintainability of the said Criminal Original Petition and vide order dated 30.06.2017, the learned Judge has upheld the objections raised by the Registry and dismissed the said petition as not maintainable.
15. On a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of W.P(MD)SR.No.11781 of 2017, which came to be rejected as not maintainable, vide impugned order dated 06.06.2017, in the considered opinion of this Court, the said writ petition is also not maintainable for the reason that the appellant/writ petitioner/party-in-person has failed to invoke the available remedy and seeks this Court to exercise it's special original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
16. The appellant/writ petitioner/party-in-person, that apart, had shown the Honourable Mr.Justice G.Rajasuria; the Honourable Mr.Justice K.N.Basha (Retired Judges of this Court); the Honourable Mr.Justice R.Sudhakar and the Honourable Ms.Justice V.M.Velumani, as the respondents 8, 9, 11 and 12 respectively, simply because they passed orders in judicial proceedings.
17. The Registry has raised it's objection as to the maintainability of the writ appeal, vide Office Note in A.E.No.174/2016, dated 10.01.2018 and the appellant/writ petitioner/party-in-person has offered his remarks as to the objections raised by the Registry and with regard to Objection No.2 raised by the Registry, he used the following words:
"It is submitted that (I) No doubt that the orders in the Crl.O.Ps and Crl.W.Ps mentioned in the Writ Appeal have been disposed of by the dishonest Judges P.N. Prakash.J. And G. Chokalingam.J without applying their mind (either judicial or common sense) into the fact of the Affidavit and its accompanying typed set of papers. They did not even knowing about the classification of Judicial Magistrate Courts and their competency in Cr.P.C., 1898 of India and in Cr.P.C., 1973 of India. ...."
[emphasis supplied] & [extracted as such]
18. The appellant/writ petitioner/party-in-person while advancing the arguments, also made a submission that insofar as this State is concerned, there is a classification of Judicial Magistrates as First Class and Second Class is still in existence, whereas it is not so.
19. It is to be remembered at this juncture that the appellant/writ petitioner/party-in-person claims that he is a practising lawyer also.
20. In V.Manikandan v. Registrar General, High Court of Madras, Chennai
- 104 and another reported in (2012) 3 MLJ 193, the petitioner therein is an Advocate and he filed a writ petition impleading one of the sitting Honourable Judges, namely, the Honourable Ms.Justice K.Suguna as party to the writ petition and it was posted for maintainability. The petitioner, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, in paragraph 24, has stated that "the Registry is raising 'stupid queries'".
21. The Division Bench of this Court, on perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that it is not according to the Rules, has observed as follows:
"20. All these facts can be questioned by the Registry before numbering a writ petition and Rule 3 clearly says, soon after the writ is numbered, the same be posted for the orders of the Court. Hence, the WPSR filed by the petitioner, which is posted for maintainability by the Registry, cannot be found fault with. If the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit are accepted, any petition, whether it is maintainable before the Court or before the Tribunal, even if it is defectively filed, are to be automatically numbered. If the said procedure is followed, the regulatory power conferred to the High Court under Article 225 and 226 of the Constitution of India, will be of no meaning, which the petitioner should have ascertained before filing this kind of petition, finding fault with the Registry and the learned Judge."
22. The objections raised by the Registry were upheld and the W.P.S.R filed by the petitioner - Advocate, namely, V.Manikandan, came to be rejected.
23. The very same Advocate, namely, Mr.V.Manikandan @ Manikandan Vathan Chettiar, was a Counsel on record in W.P.SR.No.93661 of 2014 filed by Thuyamurthy, against the Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, praying for a writ of Quo Warranto, calling upon the respondent to show cause as to the basis upon which he is permitting 83 unqualified officers to occupy their offices, sign Government files, expend public money, draw salaries, etc., despite their selection having been set aside by the orders in W.A.No.1063 of 2009 and Civil Appeal No.5877 of 2014 with a consequential direction to dismiss them from service.
24. The Registry sought for clarification in the Maintainability Note and the said Advocate represented the papers by submitting the response and thereafter, the Registry has posted the case before the Honourable First Bench of this Court for maintainability.
25. When the matter was posted for maintainability, Mr.Manikandan Vathan Chettiar, Advocate, did not appear and his junior - Mr.R.Mathan Kumar, Advocate, appeared and he submitted that the Court may pass orders on merits.
26. The Honourable First Bench of this Court has also taken note of the fact that the very same Advocate, who is the Counsel on record in W.A(SR)Nos.100792 and 101554 of 2011 - S.Padma and another v. Chief Justice, High Court of Madras, Chennai - 104 reported in (2012) 3 MLJ 687, wherein the objections were raised as to the maintainability, made the following endorsement:
"Please read the affidavit and the note appended to the petition before making such flimsy returns."
A Division Bench of this Court while upholding the objections raised by the Registry, made the following observations and it is relevant to extract same as under:
?16. An Advocate, who is an Officer of the Court, is bound to respect the Court and maintain its dignity, decorum and majesty. Scandalizing the Court to implead the Hon'ble The Chief Justice as the respondent and making unwarranted remarks in the solemn affidavits of the petitioners as the advice of the learned counsel, would certainly amount to criminal contempt. ...........
F.The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions cited supra make it crystal clear that scandalising the Court and the hostile criticism of Judges is termed as diverting the due course of justice and signing the petition filed based on such affidavits in support of the petition amounts to an act of criminal contempt.?
27. The First Bench of this Court after taking into consideration the materials placed on record, found that the objections raised by the Registry as to the maintainability of the writ petition have to be upheld and accordingly, rejected W.P.SR.No.93661 of 2014.
28. This Court in S.Padma and another v. Chief Justice, High Court of Madras, Chennai - 104 reported in (2012) 3 MLJ 687, in paragraph 8 also observed as follows:
"8. Insofar as maintainability of these writ petitions, viz., impleading the Hon'ble The Chief Justice as a party respondent and praying for constituting a SIT to investigate the allegations of bribery of trial Judge, his wife, witnesses, etc., the said prayer itself is not maintainable. The entire allegation, being made against the trial Judge, who is one of the senior District Judges, without material available as on date solely on the basis of suspicion is not only unwarranted but also scandalous. Article 235 of the Constitution of India clearly empowers the High Court, supervisory control over the subordinate judiciary. Therefore, constituting a SIT amounts to giving such power of superintendence to an outside agency. ..."
29. In the considered opinion of this Court, the above cited orders and decisions, would fully be applicable to the case of the petitioner for the reason that the appellant/writ petitioner/party-in-person, who claims that he is a practising Advocate, had used intemperate language and in fact, against two Honourable Judges of this Court, chose to make wild and scandalous allegations without any basis or substance and the said act on the part of the appellant/writ petitioner/party-in-person, is condemnable and deprecated.
30. In R.K.Garg v. State of H.P reported in (1981) 3 SCC 166, the Honourable Supreme Court made the following observation about legal profession:
"9. ... the Bar and the Bench are an integral part of the same mechanism which administers justice to the people. Many members of the Bench are drawn from the Bar and their past association is a source of inspiration and pride to them. It ought to be a matter of equal pride to the Bar. It is unquestionably true that courtesy breeds courtesy and just as charity has to begin at home, courtesy must begin with the Judge. A discourteous Judge is like an ill-tuned instrument in the setting of a courtroom. But members of the Bar will do well to remember that such flagrant violations of professional ethics and cultured conduct will only result in the ultimate destruction of a system without which no democracy can survive."
31. The Honourable Supreme Court, in Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, In re reported in (1995) 3 SCC 619, had stressed on the honour of the profession and the exemplary conduct and it is relevant to extract hereunder paragraph 20:
"20. The legal profession is a solemn and serious occupation. It is a noble calling and all those who belong to it are its honourable members. Although the entry to the profession can be had by acquiring merely the qualification of technical competence, the honour as a professional has to be maintained by its members by their exemplary conduct both in and outside the court. The legal profession is different from other professions in that what the lawyers do, affects not only an individual but the administration of justice which is the foundation of the civilised society. Both as a leading member of the intelligentsia of the society and as a responsible citizen, the lawyer has to conduct himself as a model for others both in his professional and in his private and public life. The society has a right to expect of him such ideal behaviour."
32. In an yet another decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in O.P.Sharma and others v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana reported in (2011) 6 SCC 86, the following observation has been made:
"... An advocate is expected to act with utmost sincerity and respect. In all professional functions, an advocate should be diligent and his conduct should also be diligent and should conform to the requirements of the law by which an advocate plays a vital role in the preservation of society and justice system. An advocate is under an obligation to uphold the rule of law and ensure that the public justice system is enabled to function at its full potential. Any violation of the principles of professional ethics by an advocate is unfortunate and unacceptable. Ignoring even a minor violation/misconduct militates against the fundamental foundation of the public justice system."
33. The appellant/writ petitioner/party-in-person, who claims to be a practising Advocate, has failed to adhere to the high standard and courteous behaviour expected from him and has shown utter disregard and chose to make wild and baseless allegations.
34. The learned Judge while upholding the objections raised by the Registry in the impugned order, has also noted that the appellant/writ petitioner/party-in-person, who is an Advocate, cannot file reckless pleadings as done in that case and also imposed a cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the Legal Services Authority attached to this Court, with a further direction, directing the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu to take suitable disciplinary action for drafting and filing such a vexatious petition throwing to wind all judicial decorum.
35. It appears that the appellant/writ petitioner/party-in-person did not learn his lessons in spite of such strictures and observations and continue to exhibit rash behaviour throwing to wind all decency and decorum. This Court is also of the considered view that apart from the said acts, the prayers sought for by him are also not maintainable.
36. Therefore, the objections raised by the Registry are upheld and consequently, W.A(MD)SR.No.30600 of 2017 is rejected.
Note: A copy of this judgment be marked to,
(i) The Secretary, The Bar Council of India, New Delhi - 110 002.
(ii)The Secretary, The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, Chennai - 600 104.
(iii)The Principal District Judge, Karur.
.