Read Time: 07 minutes
Supreme Court has said a Judge can take up a case provided either the cases of that category have been assigned to him as per the notified roster or the particular case is specifically assigned by the Chief Justice, and taking up a case not specifically assigned by the Chief Justice is an act of gross impropriety
The Supreme Court has said judges have to follow discipline and ought not to take up any case unless it is specifically assigned by the Chief Justice, otherwise the roster notified would have no meaning.
Taking up a case not assigned is an act of gross impropriety, top court has said.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal imposed Rs 50,000 cost on three respondents who filed civil writ petition to consolidate eight FIRs and got relief of no coercive actions after their plea under Section 482 Cr PC was quashed by another bench.
"This is a shocking case of gross abuse of process of law by...a classic case of forum hunting," the bench said.
The apex court directed the Registrar (Judicial) of the Rajasthan High Court to place a copy of this order in all eight petitions under Section 482 of CrPC filed by the second to fourth respondents for quashing First Information Reports.
Appellant Ambalal Parihar made a very serious allegation before the court. He cited the then prevailing roster notified by the Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court.
The allegation was that as the Single Judge taking up assignment of the criminal matters dealing with Section 482 CrPC did not grant interim relief to the respondents in two criminal cases, so the respondents invented this method of filing a Civil Writ Petition in which a prayer was made for consolidation of eight First Information Reports.
It was added that this was done to avoid the roster Judge who had not granted interim relief. Not only that this course was adopted, the second to fourth respondents in the Civil Writ Petition prayed for interim relief directing that no coercive action shall be taken against the second to fourth respondents in relation to all eight First Information Reports.
The complainants were not impleaded in the Civil Writ Petitions. Interestingly, both in civil and criminal cases, the same advocate represented the second to fourth respondents, the court was informed.
"This is a case of gross abuse of process of law. We wonder how a Civil Writ Petition for clubbing First Information Reports could be entertained. In the roster notified by the Chief Justice, there is a separate roster for Criminal Writ Petitions. If the Courts allow such sharp practices, the roster notified by the Chief Justice will have no meaning," the bench said.
"The Judges have to follow discipline and ought not to take up any case unless it is specifically assigned by the Chief Justice. A Judge can take up a case provided either the cases of that category have been assigned to him as per the notified roster or the particular case is specifically assigned by the Chief Justice. Taking up a case not specifically assigned by the Chief Justice is an act of gross impropriety," it added.
Though a Civil Writ Petition was filed, the Judge ought to have converted into a Criminal Writ Petition which could have been placed only before the roster Judge taking up Criminal Writ Petitions, the bench felt.
"We are sure that this conduct of the second to fourth respondents will be considered by the concerned Court taking up petitions under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the First Information Reports," the bench said.
Case Title: Ambalal Parihar vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors
Please Login or Register
