Bombay High Court
Nayan S/O Nagorao Ingle vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. P.S.O. ... on 19 June, 2018
Author: R. K. Deshpande
Bench: R. K. Deshpande
1 comp inward 1290.18.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
COMPLAINT INWARD NO. 1290 OF 2018
IN
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 340 OF 2016
(Decided on 05.10.2017)
(Nayan s/o Nagorao Ingle vrs. State of Maharashtra)
1] Shri Nagorao Tulshiram Ingle,
2] Ashish Nagorao Ingle,
Both R/o. 603, Raigulmohar,
Teka Naka, Nagpur ...... APPLICANTS
COMPLAINANTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A.K.Waghmare, counsel for Applicants.
Ms. H.N.Jaipurkar, AGP for State
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: R. K. DESHPANDE, J.
ORDER RESERVED ON : 20th APRIL, 2018.
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 19 JUNE, 2018 th
ORDER
1] The Court on its own motion takes the cognizance of Complaint Inward No. 1290 of 2018 made on the administrative side under the signatures of Nagorao Tulshiram Ingle and Ashish Nagorao Ingle against the Presiding Officer of Juvenile Justice Board, Smt. N.N.Bedarkar, received by the office of this Court on 15th March, 2018, arising out of Criminal Writ Petition No. 340 of 2016 (Nayan s/o Nagorao Ingle vrs. State), decided finally on 5 th October, 2017.
2] The facts in brief are as under -
::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 02:08:23 :::
2 comp inward 1290.18.odt
At the instance of one Meghraj Tarde, the offences were registered against one Nagorao Ingle, his wife and two sons; Ashish and Nayan, punishable under Sections 294, 323, 394, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code on 18.05.2014 in the Police Station at Kalamna, Nagpur, vide Crime No. 155 of 2014. Accused Nayan was below 18 years of age and being juvenile, his case was separated from Regular Criminal Case No. 1591 of 2015 and it was referred to Juvenile Justice Board vide J.C.C. No. 178 of 2015.
3] From the order dated 7th July, 2017, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in Criminal Revision No. 207 of 2016, available on record of this Court, it seems that Nagorao Tulshiram Ingle, Smt. Jyoti w/o Nagorao Ingle and Ashish s/o Nagorao Ingle were discharged from the offences punishable under Sections 294, 394, 506(2) of Indian Penal Code. There is nothing on record to show that the order was carried further either in appeal, revision or writ petition before this Court. As per the said order, the prosecution against the applicants was to continue for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur, in Regular Criminal Case No. 1591 of 2015. It is also not known, whether this part of the order was carried further in the appeal, revision or writ petition before this Court. It ::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 02:08:23 ::: 3 comp inward 1290.18.odt is, therefore, presumed that Nagorao Tulshiram Ingle, Smt. Jyoti w/o Nagorao Ingle and Ashish s/o Nagorao Ingle are being prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code in Regular Criminal Case No. 1591 of 2015. 4] Accused Nayan Nagorao Ingle, who was being prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 394, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, applied for discharge in J.C.C.No. 178 of 2015. By an order dated 19 th August, 2015, the Juvenile Justice Board (for short "JJB") discharged him for the offence under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code. This order was the subject matter of challenge in Criminal Revision Application No. 289 of 2015 filed under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was dismissed on 4th March, 2016. It is against this order, the Criminal Writ Petition No. 340 of 2015, was preferred before this Court. 5] During the course of hearing of Criminal Writ Petition No. 340 of 2016, this Court noticed that though there was a prayer for discharge from the offences punishable under Sections 394, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code before the JJB, the petitioner made out a case only in respect of the offence punishable under section 294 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, he was discharged. This Court, therefore, thought that the interest of justice would be met if, in exercise of the ::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 02:08:23 ::: 4 comp inward 1290.18.odt discretionary power, the petitioner is granted permission to file fresh application for discharge in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 394, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
6] Though, it was neither the ground raised in the petition, nor was argued, this Court, adopting sympathetic approach, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, exercised discretion and granted permission to the petitioner to file separate application for discharge for the offences punishable under Sections 394, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code before the JJB and it was directed that such application shall be decided in accordance with law and the observations made in the orders impugned shall not come in the way of the petitioner. With these observations, this Court dismissed the Criminal Writ Petition No. 340 of 2016 on 5th October, 2017. The judgment was delivered in open Court, immediately after hearing was concluded. 7] The petitioner filed before this Court Criminal Application No. 242 of 2017 for Speaking to minutes under Chapter XI, Rule 2 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, in respect of the judgment and order dated 5 th October, 2017. It was alleged in the application that this Court did not use the word "dismissed" while dictating the judgment in open Court, the stenographer has interpolated the word "dismissed" in place of ::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 02:08:23 ::: 5 comp inward 1290.18.odt word "disposed of". It was also alleged that the judgment and order was belatedly uploaded by the concerned stenographer on 11th October, 2017 i.e. after more than 7 days. 8] On 8th December, 2017, when Criminal Application No. 242 of 2017 was heard, Shri A.K.Waghmare, the learned counsel appearing for the original petitioner made a statement that the complaint of stenographer was also made on the administrative side for tampering and interpolating the word "dismissed" instead of "disposed of" without any authority, in the order dated 5th October, 2017. This Court, prima facie, found that the allegations made against the stenographer about the interpolation were false and baseless and in fact, this Court had dictated the word "dismissed". This was verified from the diary of the stenographer in which the dictation of the order was taken. 9] It is alleged in para "D" of the Short Points of Argument, dated 20th February, 2018, that the steno also admitted that the last words in para 7 of the order dated 5 th October, 2017, were not there in the steno book. It is true that in para 7, the words "Rule stands discharged. No costs" were not dictated, but are found in the judgment. This Court had given standing instructions to the stenographers that whenever the petition is allowed, the words "Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms"
or when the petition is dismissed, the words "Rule stands ::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 02:08:23 :::
6 comp inward 1290.18.odt discharged" be written, even if it is not dictated. Unless Court directs cost to be paid, the words "No costs" be also written. 10] This Court, after pointing out the aforesaid position, gave choice to Shri A.K.Waghmare, Advocate, by speaking order dated 8th December, 2017, to file an affidavit incorporating such allegations, if he was serious in respect of it, so that some inquiry can be done and suitable action can be taken. On 15 th December, 2017, when the matter again came up for hearing, Shri A.K.Waghmare, Advocate, made submission that he would like to file an affidavit tendering an unconditional apology for making a complaint on the administrative side against the stenographer alleging interpolation of the word "dismissed" as against the word "disposed of". He expressed that it may be an inadvertent mistake. Accordingly on 2nd February, 2018, Shri A.K. Waghmare, Advocate, filed his own affidavit tendering an unconditional apology and withdrawing all the applications and affidavits filed after 15th December, 2017 unconditionally, which included the complaint made against the stenographer on the administrative side.
11] This Court wanted to put an end to the controversy and considering the statements made on affidavit by Advocate Shri A.K.Waghmare as genuine and bonafide and keeping in view the remotely possible interpretation of the word "dismissed" as ::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 02:08:23 ::: 7 comp inward 1290.18.odt was urged by Advocate Shri A.K.Waghmare, passed an order on 2nd February, 2018, deleting the word "dismissed" and substituting it by the word "disposed of" in the judgment and order dated 5 th October, 2017. The office was orally asked to bring any further complaint in this regard, if made, to the notice of this Court, keeping in view the attitude of the complainants and their counsel. 12] It was, therefore, expected that the petitioner Nayan s/o Nagorao Ingle would file an application afresh for discharge before the JJB as per the liberty granted by this Court on 5 th October, 2017. However, instead of doing that, a complaint in writing registered as Complaint Inward No. 1290 of 2018, was made on the administrative side on 15 th March, 2018, addressed to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice and the Senior Administrative Judge at Nagpur Bench about the alleged arrogant behaviour of the Presiding Officer of JJB, Smt. N.N. Bedarkar. 13] Since the complaint was also in respect of the alleged act of contempt said to have been committed in disobeying the judgment and order dated 5 th October, 2017, passed by this Court, the office thought it fit, as per the instructions, to bring it to the notice of this Court. Upon its perusal, it was directed to list the said complaint in Criminal Writ Petition No. 340 of 2016 on the Board. Accordingly, the matter was listed on the Board before this Court on 20th March, 2018. ::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 02:08:23 :::
8 comp inward 1290.18.odt 14] Shri A.K.Waghmare, Advocate, appeared for the petitioner and after hearing him, this Court passed an order directing the office to call for the say of the concerned Presiding Officer Smt. N.N.Bedarkar and show cause notice was also issued to the petitioner as to why the judgment and order dated 5 th October, 2017, passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 340 of 2016 and the order dated 2nd February, 2018, passed in Criminal Application No. 91 of 2018 should not be recalled and the action for the contempt should not be initiated against the complainants Nagorao Tulshiram Ingle and Ashish s/o Nagorao Ingle. The notice was made returnable on 3 rd April, 2018, and accordingly, the matter was listed on board.
15] Shri A.K.Waghmare, the learned counsel appeared for the complainants and sought time to file reply in response to the order passed by this Court on 20 th March, 2018. On 17th April, 2018, the matter was listed in Chamber and it was directed to be listed in the Court, as the behaviour of Advocate Shri A.K.Waghmare was found to be arrogant and indisciplined. He was trying to browbeat the Court by raising his voice. From such kind of conduct and behaviour of a lawyer Shri A.K.Waghmare before the High Court, one can imaging what kind of trouble maker he must be before the lower Courts. The matter was, therefore, directed to be listed in open Court instead of in chamber. The ::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 02:08:23 ::: 9 comp inward 1290.18.odt matter was accordingly listed in the open Court on 20 th April, 2018 and on that date, neither the complainants appeared in person nor the counsel Shri A.K. Waghmare, appeared. The matter is, therefore, closed for orders.
16] This Court received the say of Smt. N.N. Bedarkar, the Presiding Officer of JJB, in response to the order dated 20 th March, 2018 and the complainants Nagorao Tulshiram Ingle and Ashish s/o Nagorao Ingle also forwarded their reply dated 13 th April, 2018, by post which was registered as Stamp No. 1917 of 2018. The reply was signed by Shri A.K.Waghmare, Advocate and the affidavits to it are sworn in by Nagorao Tulshiram Ingle, Ashish s/o Nagorao Ingle and Nayan s/o Nagorao Ingle. On 20 th April, 2018, the points of argument are also placed on record under the signatures of Nayan, two complainants and Advocate Shri A.K.Waghmare. At the bottom, a note was incorporated stating that since this is not application, the filing of affidavit is not necessary.
17] It is urged in the notes of argument that without any order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice or the Senior Administrative Judge, this Court was not competent to take cognizance of the complaint. In the opinion of this Court, it was not necessary. If this Court finds that the judgment and order passed by this Court is required to be recalled on the basis of the complaint, then this ::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 02:08:23 ::: 10 comp inward 1290.18.odt Court can only do it. Once such proceedings commence, the matters of contempt arising out of it are required to be dealt with by this Court as per the note appended below the roaster. The objection is unsustainable.
18] After going through the entire record of the case, the order dated 20th March, 2018, passed by this Court, the reply forwarded by Smt. N.N. Bedarkar, Presiding Officer of JJB, the reply and the points of argument filed by the complainants Nagorao Tulshiram Ingle, Ashish s/o Nagorao Ingle, Nayan Nagorao Ingle and advocate Shri A.K.Waghmare, it is prima facie observed as under :
[i] In Criminal Writ Petition No. 340 of 2016 (Nayan vrs. State of Maharashtra), this Court adopted sympathetic approach and exercised discretionary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, to grant liberty to the petitioner Nayan to file separate application for discharge for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 394, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, specifically observing in para 4 suggesting that no case was made out in the F.I.R in respect of offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, still the revisional Court confirmed the order of JJB.
::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 02:08:23 :::
11 comp inward 1290.18.odt [ii] The learned Presiding Officer of JJB was directed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 340 of 2016 to consider the application for discharge afresh in accordance with law with further clarification that the observations made in the orders impugned shall not come in the way of the petitioner. It was, in this background, this Court used the word "dismissed" in the judgment and order dated 5th October, 2017. [iii] When Criminal Application No. 242 of 2017 was heard before this Court for speaking to minutes and seeking substitution of the word "dismissed" by the word "disposed of", it was found that a false complaint on the administrative side was made against the stenographer alleging against him the interpolation of the word "dismissed" in the judgment and order dated 5th October, 2017 without any authority.
[iv] The petitioner had also filed on record - (i) the affidavit dated 12th December, 2017 of Smt. Jyoti Nagorao Ingle, Ashish Nagorao Ingle and Nayan Nagorao Ingle, (ii) the affidavit dated 12 th December, 2017 by the petitioner and (iii) the affidavit dated 12 th ::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 02:08:23 ::: 12 comp inward 1290.18.odt January, 2018 of Shri A.K. Waghmare, Advocate, levelling serious allegations not only against the Presiding Officer of JJB and her staff, but also against his Court and the staff.
[v] Inspite of the aforesaid position, this Court adopted sympathetic approach to avoid any injustice being caused to the litigant who probably may not be aware of all niceties in law and the procedure and it was expressed to Shri A.K.Waghmare, the learned counsel that if he withdraws the complaint made on administrative side against the stenographer, this Court can consider sympathetically the substitution of word "dismissed" in the judgment and order dated 5th October, 2017, in order to avoid remotely possible misinterpretation of the judgment and order. [vi] Shri A.K.Waghmare filed his own affidavit tendering an unconditional apology, on 1st February, 2018. This Court could have taken serious cognizance of such false complaint, but taking the lenient view by accepting the said affidavit to be genuine and bonafide and substituted the word "disposed of" in place of the word "dismissed". It was expected that atleast now the matter would come to an end.
::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 02:08:23 :::
13 comp inward 1290.18.odt [vii] The reply dated 2nd April, 2018, forwarded by Smt. N.N.Bedarkar, the Presiding Officer of JJB shows the allegations against the complainants as under :-
[a] Neither the petitioner Nayan s/o Nagorao Ingle nor the complainants or the counsel were interested in availing the opportunity granted by this Court to file an application for discharge, but they were interested in prolonging the matter.
[b] The behaviour of the complainants before the JJB was arrogant and falsely implicating the Presiding Officer and her staff in frivolous and vexatious allegations of - (i) committing an act of contempt and (ii) showing disregard and disrespect to the judgment and order dated 5th October, 2017, passed by this Court.
[c] There was an attempt to browbeat the Presiding Officer of JJB, which is apparent from the reply filed by her stating that the complainant No.1 was chewing something, ::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 02:08:23 :::
14 comp inward 1290.18.odt his behaviour was not proper and "he may rage on me".
[d] The JJB was required to complete the enquiry within a period of 4 months of its commencement as per Section 14(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, but the complainants were creating obstructions in the administration of justice.
[viii] In the short notes of argument placed on record on 20th April, 2018, signed by the original petitioner, the complainants and Advocate Shri A.K.Waghmare, serious allegations are made against this Court for taking up the Complaint Inward No. 1290 of 2018, without there being any order passed either by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice or the Senior Administrative Judge of this Bench. Serious and unfounded allegations are also made against the staff of this Court which would hardly be interested in the litigation.
19] From the aforesaid position, this Court has come to the prima facie conclusions as under :-
::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 02:08:23 :::
15 comp inward 1290.18.odt [A] The filing of Criminal Writ Petition No. 340 of 2016 and Criminal Application No. 242 of 2017 was neither bonafide, nor in good faith, but was an abuse of the process of Court with an intention to prolong the decision in JCC No. 278 of 2015 of JJB;
[B] Neither the petitioner, the complainants or the Advocate A.K.Waghmare really and genuinely wanted to avail the benefit of the liberty granted in the judgment and order passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 340 of 2016 or Criminal Application No. 242 of 2017, but wanted to take unfair advantage of it. These orders were obtained on misrepresentation that the petitioner was interested in filing an application afresh, for discharge and that the affidavit dated 1st February, 2018, filed by Shri A.K.Waghmare was genuine and bonafide.
[C] Sympathetic approach, lenient view and exercise of discretion by this Court in favour of the petitioner, complainants and the counsel Shri A.K.Waghmare in its judgment and order in Criminal Writ Petition No. 340 of 2016 and Criminal Application No. 242 of 2017, were misused to browbeat and pressurise the Courts and the staff.
::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 02:08:23 :::
16 comp inward 1290.18.odt [D] The JJB was required to decided JCC No. 178 of 2015 within four months as per Section 14(1) of Juvenile Justice Act. But the petitioner and the complainants created obstructions in the administration of justice.
[E] The facts and circumstances narrated indicate that the petitioner, the complainants and the lawyer Shri A.K. Waghmare instead of availing the opportunity given by this Court are jointly and severally engaged in the activities of vilifying and scandalizing the Presiding Officer of the Court and the staff in the office.
[F] The petitioner, the complainants and Shri A.K. Waghmare, Advocate, have levelled false and frivolous allegations of malpractices and committing the acts of contempt against the Presiding Officer of the Court and the staff.
[G] This Court has reason to believe that Shri Arvind Krushnarao Waghmare, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner and the complainants is instrumental in instigating them to vilify, scandalise and browbeat the Presiding Officer of the Court and the staff with ::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 02:08:23 ::: 17 comp inward 1290.18.odt an intention to create hindrance, obstruction and interference in the administration of justice, as the litigants in whose favour, the orders are passed, could not have done this.
20] There is a single integrated judicial system in India. The Supreme Court of India is at the apex level to administer the justice, and the High Court is at the State level having subordinate Courts below it. The Contempt of Courts Act deals with two kinds of contempt - (i) civil and (ii) criminal. Section 10 of the said Act confers upon the High Court of the State the same jurisdiction, powers and authority in respect of contempt of Courts subordinate to it as it has and exercises in respect of contempts of itself.
"Criminal Contempt" is defined under Section 2(c) of the said Act as under :
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(c) "criminal contempt" means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which--
(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any Court; or
(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or
(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner."
Section 6 of the Contempt of Courts Act deals with the ::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 02:08:23 ::: 18 comp inward 1290.18.odt complaint against Presiding Officers of subordinate Courts when not contempt, and it states that a person shall not be guilty of contempt of Court in respect of any statement made by him in good faith concerning the presiding officer of any subordinate Court to (a) any other subordinate Court, or (b) the High Court, to which it is subordinate. Article 215 of the Constitution of India makes the High Court a Court of Record and confers much wider power than the power under the Contempt of Courts Act and it also includes maintenance of purity and sanctity of the Court proceedings.
21] Subject to the aforesaid provision, the subordinate Courts and the Judicial Officers presiding over such Courts are entitled to have the same respect and dignity, as is shown to the higher Courts and the judiciary. The lawyers and litigants in the subordinate Courts have to maintain the same discipline, decorum and court-craft, as is maintained in the higher Courts. The purity and sanctity of the proceedings before the subordinate Courts is also required to be maintained. The very concept of independence of Judiciary does not permit the lawyers, litigants and the people at large to compare or treat on par the judicial system with the system of bureaucrats and pollute the divine atmosphere of the Court and purity of the court proceedings. Merely because the proceedings in the subordinate Courts are ::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 02:08:23 ::: 19 comp inward 1290.18.odt conducted in the local language so as to make the lawyers, litigants and the people at large more comfortable and giving them somewhat informal atmosphere, does not give them a licence to denigrate the Presiding Officers of the Courts. 22] Levelling of vague, unspecific, unbelievable, improbable and irresponsible allegations of serious nature to denigrate the Judicial Officer in respect of his conduct of judicial proceedings, reflects only an antipathy, amounting to scandalise the Judicial Officer and lower down the authority of the Court, constituting a criminal contempt. The unfounded and unwarranted aspersions on the ability of the Judges to render justice undermine the authority of the Court and create distrust in the mind of the public at large. It distracts the attention or concentration of the Judicial Officer and thus causes or tends to cause obstruction and interference in the administration of justice. 23] Making false and frivolous complaints, filing repeated applications to prolong the process of adjudication, taking unfair advantage of the court orders and the pending proceedings, to instigate, misuse and take unfair advantage of the litigants as well as the litigation, to browbeat and pressurize the Court, and the staff, to instigate the litigants to vilify and scandalise the Presiding Officers and mud-slinging the record and proceedings, etc., in my opinion, are the instances of "criminal contempt" covered by the ::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 02:08:23 ::: 20 comp inward 1290.18.odt definition of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act. If at all there is genuine and bona fide grievance against any Judicial Officer of the subordinate Court in respect of his conduct in judicial proceedings, it should be very specific and clear to be brought to the notice of the High Court in a dignified manner with the readiness to bear the responsibility of it. The allegation, if at all any, should connect the Judicial Officer with such misconduct, misbehaviour or indiscipline with the probability and belief, so that cognizance of it can be taken and the proceedings can be carried against him legitimately to logical end.
24] The facts and conclusions drawn in this case prima facie reflect the nefarious activities of the petitioner, complainants and their Advocate Shri A.K. Waghmare to cause interference or obstruction in the administration of justice. The allegations levelled by them are prima facie found to be vague, unspecific, unbelievable, improbable and irresponsible against the Judicial Officers in respect of conduct of judicial proceedings. Prima facie, the conduct of Advocate Shri A.K. Waghmare is to take unfair advantage and misuse the litigants and the litigation also to vilify, scandalise, denigrate and browbeat the Judicial Officer and the staff. It is not possible for this Court to tolerate such kind of nefarious activities. Such a growing tendency on the part of such cantankerous lawyers to instigate the litigants to undermine the ::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 02:08:23 ::: 21 comp inward 1290.18.odt image of judiciary needs to be curbed.
25] In view of above, this Court passes an order as under :
(1) In exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the judgment and order 5th October, 2017 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No.340 of 2016 [Nayan s/o Nagorao Ingle v. State of Maharashtra] so also the order dated 2nd February, 2018 passed in Criminal Application No.91 of 2018, are hereby recalled, and Writ Petition No.340 of 2016 is restored for admission.
(2) The office is directed to register this order as suo motu contempt petition in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, in which Advocate Shri Arvind Krishna Waghmare, Nagorao Tulshiram Ingle, Jyoti w/o Nagorao Ingle, Ashish s/o Nagorao Ingle and Nayan s/o Nagorao Ingle be joined as the contemnors No.1 to 5 respectively along with their addresses available on record.
(3) The order be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice ::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 02:08:23 :::
22 comp inward 1290.18.odt for placing the matter before the appropriate Division Bench as a criminal contempt to be dealt with in accordance with law.
(4) Issue notice to the contemnors on their addresses available on record, returnable on 23rd July 2018, on which date the contemnors are directed to remain personally present before this Court along with their affidavits in response to what has been prima facie observed by this Court in this order so that the Division Bench can decide the further course of action to be adopted in the matter. (5) The contemnor Shri Arvind Krishna Waghmare is also required to additionally state on oath as to whether on any earlier occasions he was reprimanded by any Court for his conduct and behaviour or any notice proposing to take action for contempt was issued to him, with details, if any, thereof.
(6) The contemnors are all restrained from filing or forwarding any complaint to any of the authorities in the nature referred to in this order or to approach media with any such complaint until further orders by the Division Bench.
::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 02:08:23 :::
23 comp inward 1290.18.odt (7) The office is directed to take out all the copies of the applications, pursis, affidavits, etc., which are referred to in the order and available on record, to be annexed to this contempt petition for service thereof upon the contemnors.
(8) A copy of this order alongwith a complete set of documents be forwarded to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to consider as to whether it calls for any action - interim as well as final - against Advocate Shri Arvind Krishna Waghmare.
JUDGE Rvjalit ::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 02:08:23 :::