# Ravi Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 3 ILRA 1022
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-10-18
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 15459 of 2022
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Birla, Rahul Chaturvedi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ravi-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49216
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Constitution Of
India - Article 19 - Right to Freedom -
Liberty of free expression is not to be
3 All. Ravi Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1023
confounded or confused with license to
make unfounded allegations against any
institution, much less the Judiciary -
freedom is never absolute because the
makers of the Constitution have imposed
certain restrictions upon it - Particularly
when such Freedom of Speech is sought to
be abused and it has the effect of
scandalising the institution as a whole and
the persons who are part of the said
institution and cannot defend themselves
publicly, the same cannot be permitted in
law - Lawyers and litigants cannot be
permitted to 'terrorise' or 'intimidate'
Judges with a view to 'secure' orders
which they want. (Para - 18,19,20)

Petitioner used all sorts of canards and
unfounded insinuations against Presiding Officer
- seeking direction to institute an inquiry against
concerned judicial officer - vague and bald -
absolutely
no
material
to
substantiate
-
apprehensions made petitioner - such kind of
ultra
sensitiveness
cannot
constitute
any
legitimate ground - nothing on record to
establish any nexus between concern presiding
officer and the informant, petitioner's opponent.
(Para - 17,25)

HELD:-Not
a
fit
case
to
exercise
its
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. Petition filed
leveling unsubstantiated allegations against
presiding
officer
based
on
unfounded
apprehensions, and the petitioner wasted
precious time of the Court by filing frivolous
litigation.(Para - 26)

Petition dismissed with cost. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1022 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
orders, does not stand reflected from the
orders impugned as no reason other than
political interference and representation of
respondent No. 10 has been mentioned in
both the said orders.

24. Therefore, we find substance in
the arguments of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the law laid down by the
Supreme Court as well as this Court to the
effect that investigation normally cannot be
transferred at the behest of accused person
has been violated in the present case and,
even otherwise, political interference in the
matter of transfer of investigation from one
agency to the other is apparent even from
bare perusal of the order impugned dated
17.05.2022. This Court does not find any
speaking reason or ground which could
justify transfer of investigation except the
reasons disclosed in the order impugned
dated 17.05.2022. Further the case is not of
exceptional or rare nature in which transfer
of investigation could be said to be
justified.

25. Keeping in view all the aforesaid
facts and circumstances of the case, we find
that the order impugned dated 17.05.2022
being based on political interference and
having been passed at the behest of accused
(respondent no.10) and being bereft of any
valid or cogent reasoning, cannot be
sustained and is liable to be set aside.
Similarly the consequential order dated
02.06.2022 also cannot be sustained and is
liable to be set aside.

26. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed. The
order
impugned
dated
17.05.2022 as well as consequential order
dated 02.06.2022 transferring investigation
of Case Crime No.5 of 2022 from
Gorakhpur Sector of U.P. (Vigilance
Establishment)
to
Lucknow
Sector
(Vigilance
Establishment)
are
hereby
quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari.

27. At this stage, learned counsel for
the petitioner presses prayer no.(b), which
is with regard to issuing a direction to the
respondent no.4 to pass appropriate orders
under Section 19 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, regarding sanction of
prosecution. We find that at this stage the
prayer (b), as claimed, cannot be granted,
inasmuch as, once the orders impugned
dated 17.05.2022 and 02.06.2022 are set
aside, further consequences would certainly
follow in accordance with law and hence
with regard to prayer made in relation to
Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, it is for the competent authority to take
final call in this regard within a period of
three months from the date a certified
copy of this order is produced before the
said authority.
----------
(2023) 3 ILRA 1022
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.10.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE RAHUL CHATURVEDI, J.

Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 15459 of 2022

Ravi Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
In Person

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - The Constitution Of
India - Article 19 - Right to Freedom -
Liberty of free expression is not to be
3 All. Ravi Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1023
confounded or confused with license to
make unfounded allegations against any
institution, much less the Judiciary -
freedom is never absolute because the
makers of the Constitution have imposed
certain restrictions upon it - Particularly
when such Freedom of Speech is sought to
be abused and it has the effect of
scandalising the institution as a whole and
the persons who are part of the said
institution and cannot defend themselves
publicly, the same cannot be permitted in
law - Lawyers and litigants cannot be
permitted to 'terrorise' or 'intimidate'
Judges with a view to 'secure' orders
which they want. (Para - 18,19,20)

Petitioner used all sorts of canards and
unfounded insinuations against Presiding Officer
- seeking direction to institute an inquiry against
concerned judicial officer - vague and bald -
absolutely
no
material
to
substantiate
-
apprehensions made petitioner - such kind of
ultra
sensitiveness
cannot
constitute
any
legitimate ground - nothing on record to
establish any nexus between concern presiding
officer and the informant, petitioner's opponent.
(Para - 17,25)

HELD:-Not
a
fit
case
to
exercise
its
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. Petition filed
leveling unsubstantiated allegations against
presiding
officer
based
on
unfounded
apprehensions, and the petitioner wasted
precious time of the Court by filing frivolous
litigation.(Para - 26)

Petition dismissed with cost. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:
1. Province of Bombay Vs Khushaldas , AIR
1950 SC 222

2. T.C. Basappa Vs T. Nagappa , AIR 1954 SC
440

3. Hari Vishnu Kamath Vs Ahmad Ishaque , AIR
1955 SC 233

4. Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. &
Other. Vs C.B.I. , Crl. Appeal No.1375-1376 of
2010
5. Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Crl.) No.1 OF
2020 IN RE : Prashant Bhushan & anr.

6. Court on its own Motion Vs Coram" (
Himanchal High Court , 24th August, 2018 )

7. Vishram Singh Raghubanshi Vs St. of U. P. ,
(2011) 7 SCC 776

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,
J. & Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi, J.)

1. Heard Shri Ravi Kumar, the
petitioner, appearing in person before us to
plead his own case; learned AGA for the
State of UP and perused the pleadings of
aforesaid writ petition and the prayer
sought by the petitioner.

2. At the outset we were shocked and
stunned to see the array of the respondent
parties, whereby, Smt. Mahima Jain, a
serving judicial officer, presently posted as
Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C.-2, Gautam Budh
Nagar is arrayed as respondent no.2 and
Smt. Kusumlata Daksh, Bench Secretary
(Peshkar) attached to the Court of Civil
Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C.-2, Gautam Budh Nagar
as respondent no.3. This Court records its
strongest exception to such type of loose
and irresponsible drafting of the petition;
whereby every man on road (the petitioner)
assumes a right to use any number of castic
innuendos and pungent remarks upon
judicial officer's integrity. Though, this
issue would be dealt at the later part of the
judgment in more befitting way, but, at this
juncture we record our grave concern to
such type of pratices.

3. Now coming to next issue, whereby
Mr. Ravi Kumar, the petitioner himself has
drafted the petition in Hindi and sought
following prayers. At this stage we may
clarify that we have got no hesitation in
admitting and entertaining the writ petition
1024 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
drafted in Hindi but it must carry some
substance in it. The prayers sought by the
petitioner are :

"अ - उपयुाक्त यानिका में उत्प्रेषणात्मक प्रकृनत का
आर्देश या निर्देश जारी करते निपक्षी सं० 2 ि 3 के निरूद्ध
मुकर्दमा िलािे की अिुमनत प्रर्दाि करिे की कृपा करें।

ब- उपयुाक्त यानिका में उत्प्रेषणात्मक प्रकृनत का आर्देश
या निर्देश जारी करते हुए निपक्षी सं० 2 ि 3 के निरूद्ध
नििागीय जााँि के आर्देश पाररत करिे की कृपा करें।

स- उपयुाक्त यानिका में तथ्यों एिं पररनथिनतयों के आिार
पर माििीय न्यायालय उपयुाक्त प्रकृनत का आर्देश या निर्देश जारी
करिे की कृपा करें।

र्द- उपयुाक्त यानिका में यािी के हक में सव्यय आर्देश
या निर्देश जारी करिे की कृपा करें। "

4. Thus, from above it is clear that the
petitioner sought "उत्प्रेषणात्मक प्रकृशत का आिेि"
which, if translated in English means "Writ
of Certiorari" was sought from us to initiate
prosecution against respondent nos.2 and 3
and second (ii) Writ of certiorari is sought
to initiate the departmental inquiry agianst
respondent nos.2 and 3.

5. Without appreciating the nature and
scope of writ of certiorari, the aforesaid
two prayers were sought by Mr. Ravi
Kumar, the petitioner, in person. Writ of
Certiorari could be issued in cases,
"Whenever any body of persons having
legal authority to determine questions
affecting rights of subjects and having the
duty to act judicially but have acted in
excess of their legal authority." The
essential features and conditions under
which ''writ of certiorari' could be issued
have been pointed out by Hon'ble Apex
Court
in
Province
of
Bombay
vs
Khushaldas (AIR 1950 SC 222); T.C.
Basappa vs T. Nagappa (AIR 1954 SC
440) and Hari Vishnu Kamath vs. ahmad
Ishaque (AIR 1955 SC 233) and other
most of the cases. Assessing the guidelines
laid down in above judgments and the
prayer sought by Mr. Ravi Kumar, the
petitioner, we are afraid that we can not
grant the prayer i.e. to initiate the
prosecution against the respondent nos.2
and 3, nor we can grant relief to initiate the
disciplinary/
departmental
proceeding
against them.

FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF
INSTANT CASE:-

6. Mr. Ravi Kumar, the petitioner is a
chargesheeted accused of Case No.191 of
2018, arising out of Case Crime No.130 of
2016, u/s 498A, 323, 506, 342, 354 I.P.C. &
3⁄4 of D.P.Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District
Gautam Budh Nagar, pending in the Court of
Civil Judge (S.D.)/F.T.C., Gautam Budh
Nagar. The aforesaid petitioner, through his
counsel, has filed an Application u/s 482
Cr.P.C. No.13544 of 2018 (Smt. Satveeri and
4 others vs State of U.P.) assailing the legality
and validity of the charge sheet as well as
summoning order dated 12.3.2018. A Bench
of this Court on 20.4.2018 referred the matter
before Allahabad High Court Mediation &
Conciliation Centre to enable the parties to
settle down their differences and discord with
the aid and help of Mediator. While passing
the order, the Bench without entering into the
merit of the case, keeping in vie the nature of
accusation made thought it proper to refer the
matter for mediation, directing the Mediation
Centre to conclude the mediation process
within two months and furnish its report. The
Court had also stayed the proceedings of the
Case No.191 of 2018 for the period of two
months or till next date of listing. Relevant
excerpts of the order dated 20.4.2018 are
quoted below for the easy reference :-

"Without going into the merits of the
applicants' case at this stage, since the
matter is a matrimonial dispute between
3 All. Ravi Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1025
applicant no. 5 and opposite party no.2,
who are husband and wife, it is desirable
that the parties be required to attempt a reconciliation of their differences with the
assistance
of Allahabad
High
Court
Mediation and Conciliation Centre.

Learned counsel for the applicants is
in agreement with the aforesaid course of
action.

It is directed that petitioners shall
deposit a sum of Rs. 15,000/- within three
weeks from today with the Mediation
Centre of which Rs. 12,000/- would be paid
to the opposite party no. 2 for appearance
before the Mediation Centre.

Upon deposit aforesaid being made
good, the Mediation Centre will issue
notice to both the parties fixing an early
date
for
appearance
and
further
proceedings before the Centre.

The Mediation Centre will submit their
report within two months from the date
parties are required to first appear before
the Centre. Thereafter the case shall be
listed before appropriate Bench.

Till the next date of listing, the further
proceedings in Case No. 191 of 2018,
arising out of case crime no. 130 of 2016,
under Sections 498A, 323, 506, 342, 354
IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila
Thana, District Gautam Buddh Nagar,
pending in the court of learned Civil Judge
(S.D.)/F.T.C., Gautam Budh Nagar shall
remain stayed."

Its the own admission by Mr. Ravi
Kumar that the process of mediation got
aborted and no result has come out of the
same.

7. The Court has occasion to summon
the parent records of aforesaid Application
u/s 482 No.13544 of 2018. Curiously
enough, the matter was referred to the
mediation process way back on 20.4.2018
and as per information rendered by the
petitioner Mr. Ravi Kumar, the mediation
failed in the year 2018 itself but there is no
report available to this effect on the record.
This is the most disgusting feature of the
case. It is now a normal practice that such
type of lapses often occur, where the
reports, pleadings are never placed on
record within the reasonable time. The
Registrar General, Allahabad High Court is
hereby directed to hold an inquiry to its
logical end and fix the responsibility of
erring employees and thereafter suitable
departmental proceedings shall be initiated
against them for not sending the report
from Mediation Centre to the second
concerned, so that the report may be placed
on original records of the case at first
opportunity.

8. Now coming back to the facts of
the case, it is born out from the order-sheet
of Application u/s 482 No.13544 of 2018
that during the period of last four years,
since 20.4.2018 to till date, only on two
occasions i.e. in the year 2022, following
orders were passed :

(i) Order dated : 31.5.2022-

(On the application)

List in the week commencing 4.7.2022.

Interim order, if any, shall continue till
next date of listing.

(ii) Order dated : 4.7.2022-

List after one month.

Interim order, if any, is extended till
next date of listing."

9. Except the aforesaid two orders of
31.5.2022 and 4.7.2022 there were no
orders of extending the interim order
during last four years. As mentioned above,
while referring the matter to A.H.C.M.C.C.,
in order to facilitate the contesting parties,
the Court in its own wisdom while passing
the parent interim order has put a cap of
1026 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
two months only. From October, 2018 till
31.5.2022 there was no orders as to
extending the stay order.

10. Learned A.G.A. has drawn
attention of the Court to the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court, In re : Asian
Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. and
other Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation,
Crl. Appeal No.1375-1376 of 2010 decided
on 28.03.2018, wherein the Hon'ble Apex
Court has opined:-

"Situation of proceedings remaining
pending for long on account of stay needs to
be remedied. Remedy was required not only
for corruption cases but for all civil and
criminal cases where on account of stay, civil
and criminal proceedings were held up. At
times, proceedings were adjourned sine die on
account of stay. Even after stay was vacated,
intimation was not received and proceedings
were not taken up. It was directed that in all
pending cases where stay against proceedings
of civil or criminal trial was operating, the
same would come to end on expiry of six
months from today unless in exceptional case
by speaking order such stay was extended. In
cases where stay was granted in future, same
would end on expiry of six months from date of
such order unless similar extension was
granted by speaking order."

11. Thus, it is contended by the
learned A.G.A. that the interim order dated
20.4.2018 was effective only up to six
months. The petitioner never bothered to
get the interim order extended during this
period and he wants to enjoy the interim
order for unlimited period on certain
unfounded presumption and taking legal
advice.

12. On the other hand, before the
Magistrate, an application was moved on
7.11.2020/20.4.2022
along
with
the
computer generated status report of the
case, requesting the court to issue
summons in the light of intervening
developments.

13. Attention was also drawn to
Annexure-5 of the writ petition, which is
incomplete
order-sheet
starting
from
01.12.2021 to 14.7.2022. From the perusal
of this incomplete order-sheet it is evident
that on 19.3.2021, N.B.W. was issued by
the court to ensure his personal presence
and on 20.9.2021, time was sought by the
counsel for the petitioner to furnish
relevant documents on the record. But it
seems that no reference of those documents
were ever furnished, which were supposed
to be furnished by the applicant/now the
petitioner
herein.
When
the
accused
appeared in the Court and apprised that the
aforesaid proceeding is still pending before
this Court by means of 482 proceeding.

14. Now coming to the real crux of
issue, relying over which the petitioner has
used all sorts of canards and unfounded
insinuations against the Presiding Officer.

15. Orders of two dates are relevant
i.e. 11.8.2021 and 20.9.2021. We have
keenly perused both these orders. On
11.8.2021, it has been mentioned that P.O.
is on leave, accused were absent, let
N.B.W.
be
issued
fixing
24.9.2021.
However, later on, on the same date in the
presence of advocate of the accused he was
directed to file certified copy of the ordersheet of Hon'ble High Court by 20.9.2021
(though later it was 24.9.2021), with the
additional rider that accused shall remain
present in the court. It was clarified, if there
is no stay order from this Court, the
accused have to appear on 20.9.2021 and
apply for bail. On the next date fixed i.e.
3 All. Ravi Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1027
20.9.2021 the P.O. was on leave, however,
those documents were taken on record.

16. The petitioner Ravi Kumar has
taken a strong exception of preponing of
the date from 24.9.2021 to 20.9.2021 which
was in the presence and knowledge of his
counsel and despite of our repeated
warnings not to use harsh expression
against the Presiding officer, he keep on
using those uncalled for expressions against
the learned Presding Officer. Not only this
in his pleadings in the writ petition, he
states that :-

"8- यह की पररिार्द संख्या 191/2018 नशिािी
बिाम रनि कुमार आनर्द में नर्दिांक 11/08/2021 को अनग्रम
नियत नर्दिांक 24/9/2021 नियत की गयी और नबिा
पक्षकारों को सूनित नकये नबिा उनित क़ािूिी प्रनक्रया अपिाए
नबिा निपक्षी संख्या 02 ि 03 की नमलीिगत (षड़यंत्र) के
िलते पररिार्द संख्या 191/2018 नशिािी बिाम रनि कुमार
आनर्द की ऑडारशीट में जालसाजी करके र्दी0 24/09/21 की
जगह र्दी0 01/09/2021 नियत कर नर्दया गयी. जो नक
कािूि का थपष्ट रूप से उल्लंघि नकया गया है नजससे प्रािी ि
अन्य के निरुद्ध िोिे से 82, 83 की कायािाही की जा सके.
और नजससे यानिकताा पर िाजायज र्दबाि बिाकर जमाित करिे
के नलए नििश नकया जा सके और यानिकताा की 482 संख्या
13544/18 महत्िहीि की जा सके."

17. This is nothing but a deliberate
and intentional attempt on the part of Ravi
Kumar, the petitioner to browbeat a judicial
officer and kneel down him by casting
absolute canard and venom vomiting
against him. There is nothing on record to
establish any nexus between the concern
presiding
officer
and
the
informant,
petitioner's opponent. This is nothing but a
stinking attempt on the part of petitioner to
put a question mark on the integrity of the
Presiding Judge, which has to be handled
with iron hands by the superior courts. All
these developments as culled out from the
order sheet, was in front of petitioner's
counsel. The court has unable to gather any
conspiracy theory between the Presiding
officer and petitioner's opponents, as
alleged in para 8 of the writ petition. At the
cost of repetition, we have tried to persuade
the petitioner Mr. Ravi Kumar not to do so
but stubborn petitioner keep on hammering
his arguments and wasting the time of the
Court. The allegations made are scandalous
and are capable of shaking the very edifice
of the judicial administration and also
shaking the faith of common man in the
administration of justice.

LEGAL DISCUSSION :

18. In this regard, at this juncture it is
imperative to spell out the view taken by
the Hon'ble Supreme Cout in Suo Motu
Contempt Petition (Crl.) No.1 OF 2020
IN RE : Prashant Bhushan and another,
whereby
the
Hon'ble
Apex
Court
categorically expressed its concern and
observed thus :

"34. Though there is a Freedom of
Speech, freedom is never absolute because
the makers of the Constitution have
imposed certain restrictions upon it.
Particularly when such Freedom of Speech
is sought to be abused and it has the effect
of scandalising the institution as a whole
and the persons who are part of the said
institution and cannot defend themselves
publicly, the same cannot be permitted in
law. Though a fair criticism of judgment is
permissible in law, a person cannot exceed
the right under Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution to scandalize the institution.

35. It is apparent that the contemnor is
involved in making allegations against the
retired and sitting Judges. On one hand,
our attention was attracted by Shri
Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel,
1028 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
towards the norms of judicial conduct
which also provide that Judges cannot
express an opinion in the public. The
Judges have to express their opinion by
their judgments, and they cannot enter into
public debate or go to press. It is very easy
to make any allegation against the Judges
in the newspaper and media. Judges have
to be the silent sufferer of such allegations,
and they cannot counter such allegations
publicly by going on public platforms,
newspapers or media. Nor can they write
anything about the correctness of the
various wild allegations made, except when
they are dealing with the matter. Retired
Judges do have the prestige that they have
earned by dint of hard work and dedication
to this institution. They are also not
supposed to be answering each and every
allegation made and enter into public
debate. Thus, it is necessary that when they
cannot speak out, they cannot be made to
suffer the loss of their reputation and
prestige, which is essential part of the right
to live with dignity. The Bar is supposed to
be the spokesperson for the protection of
the judicial system. They are an integral
part of the system. The Bar and Bench are
part of the same system i.e. the judicial
system, and enjoy equal reputation. If a
scathing attack is made on the judges, it
would become difficult for them to work
fearlessly and with the objectivity of
approach to the issues. The judgment can
be criticized. However, motives to the
Judges need not be attributed, as it brings
the administration of justice into disrepute.
In Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth
Edition, Volume 9, in para 27, it is
observed that the punishment is inflicted,
not for the purpose of protecting either the
Court as a whole or the individual Judges
of the Court from repetition of the attack
but for protecting the public and especially
those
who
either
voluntarily
or
by
compulsion are subject to the jurisdiction
of the Court, from the mischief they will
incur if the authority of the Tribunal is
undermined or impaired. Hostile criticism
of the judges or judiciary is definitely an
act of scandalizing the Court. Defamatory
publication concerning the Judge or
institution brings impediment to justice."

19. At this juncture it would be useful
to refer the decision of The Himanchal
High Court in "Court on its own Motion vs
Coram" decided on 24th August, 2018,
whereby the Himanchal High Court while
thrashing the several judgment has held
that :

"17. It has to be remembered that the
subordinate judiciary forms the very
backbone of the administration of justice
and the higher court would come down
with a heavy hand for preventing the judges
of the subordinate judiciary from being
subjected to scurrilous and indecent
attacks, which scandalize or have the
tendency to scandalize, or lower or have
the tendency to lower the authority of any
court as also all such actions which
interfere or tend to interfere with the due
course of any judicial proceedings or
obstruct
or
tend
to
obstruct
the
administration of justice in any other
manner.
18. No affront to the majesty of law can be
permitted. The fountain of justice cannot be
allowed to be polluted by disgruntled
litigants or lawyers. The protection is
necessary for the courts to enable them to
discharge their judicial functions without
fear. (Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate,
(1998) 7 SCC 248).

19. It is well settled that litigant or for
that matter even a lawyer cannot be
permitted to browbeat the court or terrorize
or intimidate the Judges as held by the
3 All. Ravi Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1029
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
in
Chetak
Construction Ltd. v. Om Prakash (1998) 4
SCC 577:

"16. Indeed, no lawyer or litigant can
be permitted to browbeat the court or
malign the presiding officer with a view to
get a favourable order. Judges shall not be
able to perform their duties freely and
fairly if such activities were permitted and
in the result administration of justice would
become a casualty and the rule of law
would receive a setback. The Judges are
obliged to decide cases impartially and
without any fear or favour. Lawyers and
litigants cannot be permitted to 'terrorise'
or 'intimidate' Judges with a view to
'secure' orders which they want. This is
basic and fundamental and no civilized
system of administration of justice can
permit it."

20.
These
observations
were
subsequently, reiterated in Radha Mohan
Lal v. Rajasthan High Court (2003) 3 SCC
427.

21. Reverting back to the facts, it
would be noticed that the genesis of the
entire episode appears to be the application
filed by respondent/contemnor for release
of
the
vehicle.
In
case
the
respondent/contemnor felt that the same
was not being decided expeditiously or the
decision rendered by the Magistrate was in
any way wrong or erroneous, he could have
resorted to lawful remedies butcould not
have resorted to Judge bashing and using
derogatory and contemptuous language
against Judges.

22. No Judge is infallible and the
order passed by him/her may or may not be
correct, but that would not give a litigant
much less a lawyer to indulge in Judge
bashing. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
inHaridas Das vs. Usha Rani Banik (Smt.)
and others APU Banik(2007) 14 SCC 1 has
rightly observed as under:

"1.
"Judge
bashing"
and
using
derogatory and contemptuous language
against Judges has become a favourite
pastime of some people. These statements
tend to scandalize and lower the authority
of the Courts and can not be permitted
because, for functioning of democracy, an
independent judiciary to dispense justice
without fear and favour is paramount. Its
strength is the faith and confidence of the
people in that institution. That cannot be
permitted to be undermined because that
will be against the public interest.

2. Judiciary should not be reduced to
the position of flies in the hands of wanton
boys. Judge bashing is not and cannot be a
substitute for constructive criticism.

xx xxxx xxxx

12.
There
is
guarantee
of
the
Constitution of India that there will be
freedom of speech and writing, but
reasonable restriction can be imposed. It
will be of relevance to compare the various
suggestions as prevalent in America and
India. It is worthwhile to note that all
utterances against a Judge or concerning a
pending case do not in America amount to
contempt
of
Court.
InArticle
19the
expression "reasonable restrictions" is used
which is almost at par with the American
phraseology
"inherenttendency"
or
"reasonable tendency". The Supreme Court
of America in Bridges v California (1911)
86 Law Ed. 192 said:

"What finally emerges from the clear
and present danger cases is a working
principle that the substantive evil must be
extremely serious and the degree of
imminence extremely serious and the
degree of imminence extremely high before
utterances can be punished."

20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Vishram Singh Raghubanshi Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh (2011) 7 SCC 776, has
1030 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
noted the dangerous trend of making false
allegations against judicial officers and
observed as under:

"18. The dangerous trend of making
false allegations against judicial officers
and humiliating them requires to be curbed
with heavy hands, otherwise the judicial
system itself would collapse. The Bench
and the Bar have to avoid unwarranted
situations on trivial issues that hamper the
cause of justice and are in the interest of
none. "Liberty of free expression is not to
be confounded or confused with license to
make unfounded allegations against any
institution, much less the Judiciary". A
lawyer cannot associate himself with his
client maligning the reputation of judicial
officers merely because his client failed to
secure the desired order from the said
officer. A deliberate attempt to scandalise
the court which would shake the confidence
of the litigating public in the system, would
cause a very serious damage to the
Institution of judiciary. An Advocate in a
profession should be diligent and his
conduct should also be diligent and
conform to the requirements of the law by
which an Advocate plays a vital role in the
preservation of society and justice system.
Any
violation
of
the
principles
of
professional ethics by an Advocate is
unfortunate and unacceptable. (Vide: O.P.
Sharma & Ors. v. High Court of Punjab &
Haryana, (2011) 5 SCALE 518)."

21. We are now-a-days living in a
democracy in its ugliest form; where
nobody has got any regard for any
institution. This is unholy and dangerous
sign that all and sundry are making
unfounded and unsubstantiated allegations
against
judiciary
in
an
irresponsible
manner. Making irresponsible insinuations
upon the judiciary or its officers has now
become a fashion. This unholy practice has
to be whole-heartedly discouraged and
deplored by every responsible person of the
society. Judiciary is one of the strongest
pillars of any healthy democracy. This fact
receives more significance when recently
we have celebrated our 75th Independence
Day. In order to strengthen the foremost
pillars of democracy, there should be
mutual regard. The subjects of that
democracy too are expected to not become
liberal and irresponsible in their expression.
The Superior Courts are bound to protect
their subordinate courts.

22. This Court records its strongest
anguish and concern that the people at large
are
now
making
unwarranted
and
unsubstantiated and canards against the
judicial officers relying upon their whims
and capricious and making irresponsible
allegations of dishonesty. The higher courts
are duty bound to save the dignity and
honour of the system in general and the
individual judicial officer as well that no
person is permitted to make a sweeping and
wild allegations regarding the integrity and
character of any judicial officer.

23. The apprehension of the petitioner
solely springs from the uncalled for
preponing the date as has been described
hereinbefore, which according to the
petitioner is tantamount to a conspiracy of
the judge and his predilection towards
prosecution
side.
The
unsubstantiated
paranoia of an ultra-conscious litigant and
his illegitimate apprehensions cannot make
us to believe on them and also cannot
constitute a legitimate ground to allow the
prayer sough in the petition. The Judges are
also the parts of the society just as
everybody else is and they do not live in
ivory towers. The upsurge of particular type
of social crimes causes concern of the
3 All. Ravi Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1031
judges also who in an important way have
also to deal with such crimes in their
judicial capacity, therefore, if at some stage
some judge ventilates his exasperation at
commission of certain crimes which may
sometimes appear to be revolting against
the collective consents of humanity of
which the judge himself is an integral part.
Such expressions must not be mistaken to
be any abdication of judicious independent
thinking. Nor should it be interpreted as an
indication that such presiding officer shall
not adhere to the shorn duties as a Judge.

24. If there is some such order passed
by the trial court with which the petitioner
feels aggrieved, the right course is to
challenge the same in judicial capacity in
the higher courts. The propriety or
correctness of any step or order taken or
adopted by any judicial officer is amenable
to jurisdiction of the superior court. So far
as the allegation that the presiding officer is
hand in glove with the opposite party is
concerned, our judicial institutions are
robust enough not to be swayed by any
such parochial considerations. It is very
easy to make insinuation against the
presiding officer like this. We do not find
any substantial record on the basis of which
it may hold that either presiding officer has
been approached or the petitioner has been
nurtured holds water. The allegation as has
been fastened by the petitioner against the
presiding
officer
is
too
vague
and
conjectural and perhaps even irrelevant and
simply cannot persuade us.

25. Submission as has been raised by
the petitioner in order to seek direction to
institute an inquiry against the concerned
judicial officer is very vague and bald.
There
is
absolutely
no
material
to
substantiate the same. It is very difficult to
accept
such
kind
of
unsubstantiated
insinuations to become a legitimate ground
to initiate any inquiry. The apprehensions
as have been made by the petitioner seems
to be wholly unfounded and such kind of
ultra sensitiveness cannot constitute any
legitimate ground to allow the prayer
sought in the petition.

26. We conclude that this is not a fit
case where this court should exercise its
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India and as we have
noted that the present petition is filed
levelling
unsubstantiated
allegations
against the presiding officer based on
unfounded apprehensions and petitioner
has wasted precious time of the Court by
filing
frivolous
litigation,
under
circumstances, the present writ petition
stands dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/-
to be paid to the State Exchequer.

27. The petitioner shall deposit the
cost of Rs.50,000/- with the Registrar
General of this Court within a period of
five months from today. On deposit of such
cost, it shall be transmitted to the account
of Allahabad High Court Mediation &
Conciliation Centre. If the petitioner fails to
deposit the cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty
thousand), the Registrar General of this
Court
shall
inform
the
District
Magistrate/Collector, Gautam Budh Nagar
for recovery of the said amount as arrears
of land revenue, who shall after recovering
the same amount from the petitioner,
transmit it to the Registrar General of this
Court for depositing in the account of
Allahabad
High
Court
Mediation
&
Conciliation Centre within a further period
of three months.

28. Let a copy of this judgment be
communicated to the learned District &
Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar as
1032 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
well as to Ms. Mahima Jain, Judicial
Officer/Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C.-2, Gautam
Budh Nagar by the Registrar (Compliance)
of this Court forthwith.

29. Let the copy of this order be
circulated to every sessions division by
Registrar General of this Court.
----------
(2023) 3 ILRA 1032
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN
MISHRA, J.

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 328 of 2022

Viraj Bhati & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Rajiv Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Om Prakash Rai, Sri Ashish Rai

Civil Law - Constitution of India.1950 -
Article
226,
-
Criminal
Procedure
Code,1973 - Section - 491 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 307, 323, 498(A),
504
&
506
-
Hindu
Minority
&
Guardianship Act, 1956 - Sections 6 &
6(A) - Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 -
Sections 3 & 4 - Writ of Habeas Corpus -
against illegal custody of minor child - after
death of father of corpus, he was in custody of
his grandmother and uncle - court finds that,
the instant habeas corpus petition filed by the
natural guardian mother on behalf of the corpus
as well as on her own behalf - Whether petition
is maintainable - Held, A mother is always
mother whether earning sufficiently or not and it
cannot be presumed that after termination of
her employment in Ferns Petals, she will not be
able to nourish or take care of needs of the
child - Mother has superior right of custody over
her son - she cannot be denied the custody of
her child being her natural guardian under law
and privacy over custody of child has been
claimed by her rightly above any other person in
absence of his father - Petition allowed -
directions issued accordingly.
 (Para - 12, 13, 14)

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Master Advait Sharma Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
2021 (0) Supreme (All) 216,

2. Perry Kansagra Vs Smriti Madan Kansagra,
(2019) 20 SCC 753,

3. Ashish Ranjan Vs Anupma Tandon & anr.,
(2010) 14 SCC 274,

4. Githa Hariharan Vs Reserve Bank of India,
AIR 1999 SC 1149,

5. Rosy Jacob Vs Jacob Chakramakkal, AIR 1973
SC 2090,

6. Tejaswini Gaud & ors. v. Shekhar Jagdish
Prasad Tewari & ors., (2019) 7 SCC 42.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Manohar
Narayan Mishra, J.)

1. Hear Sri Rajeev Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri O.P.
Rai and Ashish Rai, learned counsel for the
respondent no. 3 and learned A.G.A. for the
state and perused the material on record.

2. Instant habeas corpus petition has
been filed by the petitioner no. 2 Smt. Anu
Kumari on behalf of the corpus Viraj Bhati
(minor) as well as on her own behalf and
has sought following relief in the petition:-

"(i) issue a writ of habeas corpus,
directing the respondent no. 3 to produce
the corpus/petitioner no. 1/minor boy/son
of petitioner no. 2 before this Hon'ble