TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 1387
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erior Courts. 2. The petitioner, who is an advocate and practicing in the Courts at Judicial Magistrate First Class and Civil Judge Junior Division, Chiplun and District and Sessions Court at Ratnagiri and Khed, for the last more than 11 years alleges that the act of respondent No. 1 in willfully and consistently ignoring and not following the binding precedents of the Superior Courts cited by the petitioner during the course of hearing before respondent No. 1 is nothing but contumacious act. The petitioner has given following four alleged instances in which respondent No. 1 did not follow the binding precedents: 1. In R.C.S. No. 209 of 2012 (Shri Suresh Sakharam Bhosale & Anr. Versus Shri Anant Dhondu Bhosale & Anr.), the petit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....agistrate. Moreover, since the accused therein are resident of Pune and Yavatmal i.e., beyond territorial jurisdiction, respondent No. 1 should have postponed the issue of process and either himself enquired or directed an investigation by the police. However, respondent No. 1 did not follow the ratio laid down in judgment in the case of Rajesh Sharma (supra) and the mandate of provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Cr.P.C."). 3. In D.V. Application No. 39 of 2015, the petitioner appears for petitioner-wife. The evidence was completed on 20.02.2018 and at Exh. 72 the pursis for closing the evidence was also submitted. Thereafter, the opponent-husband therein filed an application (Exh. 79 and 80) praying....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rovisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 4. Mr. Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioner, vehemently submitted before us that respondent No. 1 is in habit of overlooking and disregarding the binding precedents of the Superior Courts on flimsy grounds without properly going through the text of those binding precedents. The learned Counsel then invited our attention to the instances which are elaborately quoted herein above and also took us through the orders annexed with the Petition to substantiate his contentions. 5. Mr. Nargolkar, representing respondent No. 2, submitted that respondent No. 1 was summoned by the learned Guardian Judge of the concerned District, on administrative side for counseling and he has been accordingly and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....whisper as to whether those authorities relied on by the petitioner were taken into consideration or not before passing the order below Exh. 120. However, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 has informed the Court that already respondent No. 1 was informed and he was called by the learned Guardian Judge of the concerned District, on administrative side for counseling and he has been accordingly and suitably counseled and in such circumstances, there remains nothing in the Petition and same is liable to be disposed of. 11. The next instance is about filing of private complaint No. 105 of 2017 under Section 498 A of the IPC wherein the present petitioner represented husband-accused. Copy of the said complaint (Exh. B colly) is f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wn in National Textile Corporation Ltd.(supra). We have gone through the order passed below Exh. 79 and 80 in D.V. Application No. 39 of 2015, copy of which is filed on record. Though the judgments relied on by the present petitioner are referred in the said order but there is no clarity as to how those judgments were distinguishable and not applicable to the case in question. This is not the way of differentiating the authorities vis-a-vis the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. 14. The last instance is in respect of criminal proceeding in S.C.C. No. 2134 of 2013 filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. According to petitioner although the complainant in his cross examination had clearly and unequivocally admitted the receipt o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appellant before the Hon'ble Apex Court, however, the Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the findings of the High Court. The case in our hand is not a case of unwarranted remarks at the hands of respondent No. 1. 17. The learned Counsel, secondly, placed reliance in Balkrishna Mahadev Lad vs. State of Maharashtra 2012 (6) Mh.L.J. It has been held by this Court that whether it is a civil contempt or criminal contempt, the quintessence, is, that the breach must be a willful breach or willful disobedience or replete with mens rea. If the Judge of the subordinate Court were to commit some error in discharge of his/her official or judicial duty or functions, that per se cannot be the basis to proceed against the judicial officer. I....