Allahabad High Court Judgement

Allahabad High Court Judgement

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice at
JUDGEMENT HEADLINE : Show Cause Noticed Issued To AB Rajmauli Distt Magistrate Bijnor For Initiating Contempt Proceeding. Vigilance Enquiry Set Up.
JUDGEMENT TITLE : Tabrez Ahmad Civil Judge(J.D.), Nazibabad,Bijnor Vs. State Of U.P. On 12/09/2010 By Allahabad High Court
CORAM : Hon'ble Imtiyaz Murtaza,J. And Hon'ble Ram Autar Singh,J.


Court No. 44

Criminal Misc Writ Petition No 21847 Of 2010

(Public Interest Litigation)

Tabrez Ahmad Civil Judge (J.D) ...........Petitioner


State Of U.P And Others...............................Respondent

Hon Imtiyaz Murtaza J
Hon Ram Autar Singh J

Present Matter Has Its Genesis In The Report Dated 30th Nov 2010 Scripted By The District Judge Shortlisting The Events Leading To Registration Of FIR Against The Petitioner. The Report Of The Distt Judge Is Accompanied With Various Papers Including The Application Of The Petitioner.

The Entire Papers Including Application Of The Petitioner Were Placed Before Hon Chief Justice On Which The Bench Consisting Of Hon Chief Justice And Hon Vineet Saran Took Suo Motu Notice Vide Order Dated 1.12.2010 And Directed The Matter To Be Treated As Public Interest Litigation. The Learned Standing Counsel Was Also Directed To File Counter Affidavit In The Matter And In The Meanwhile Criminal Proceeding Launched Against The Petitioner Pursuant To FIR Dated 16.11.2010 Were Stayed Till Further Orders By This Court. In The Said Order, The Collector And Supdt Of Police Bijnor Was Also Directed To File Affidavit.

On Administrative Side, It Would Appear, Hon Chief Justice Passed The Order Dated 24.11.2010 For Posting Of The Case Before The Bench Dealing With Criminal P.I.L. It Is In This Backdrop That The Case Has Come Up Before Us.

We Have Heard Sri S.G Hasnain Learned Additional Advocate General Appearing For The Collector And Supdt Of Police And Perused The Materials On Record.

From A Scrutiny Of The Papers On Record, The Sequence Of Events Are Thus. On 16.11.2010, In An Accident, Two Boys Riding Bicycle Were Hit By A Speeding Tanker And Were Crushed To Death Under The Wheels Of The Offending Vehicle. According To The Copy Of The Complaint Addressed To Supdt Of Police, Bijnor Bearing Thumb Impression Of One Sunil, Father Of The Deceased Boys, On The Fateful Day At About 5.30 Pm, The Offending Tanker Bearing Registration No UP 12 C 0927, Hit The Deceased Who Were On Bicycle, In Front Of Chaudhary Restaurant In Village Bhaguwala And One Of The Boys Died Instantaneously While The Other Breathed Last On Way To Hospital. It Is Further Mentioned That The Accident Was Witnessed By Number Of People Including Farman, Sukhveer, Bijendra, Who Noted Down The Number Of Tanker On The Spot. It Is Further Mentioned That After Hitting The Deceased, The Tanker Sped Away From The Place Of Occurrence. It Is Further Mentioned That At About 10 Pm The Complainant Accompanied With Other Village People Reached The Police Station For Lodging The Report. It Is Further Mentioned In The Report That The Complainant At That Time Was Much Distraught And Taking Advantage Of His Distraught Condition, Someone Obtained His Thumb Impression On A Typed Paper Misrepresenting To Him That It Was A Memorandum For Handing Over The Bodies Of The Deceased To Him. Thereafter, It Is Further Mentioned, He Got Busy In The Performance Of Funeral Rites Of The Deceased And In That Connection, He Went To Haridwar. On Return From Hardwar On 18.11.2010, When He Went To The Police Station He Was Apprised That FIR Had Already Been Lodged. It Is Further Mentioned That He Had Not Given Any Written Report At That Time And He Was Giving The Report Now With The Request That The Police Station Concerned Be Directed To Register The Case Forthwith On The Basis Of This Written Report. The Report Addressed To The Supdt Of Police Was Scribed By One Pankaj Kumar Son Of Jai Pal Resident Of Village Shadipur. To The Similar Effect Is The Affidavit Sworn By Sunil Addressed To The Superintendent Of Police. The Distt Judge Has Also Enclosed Copy Of News Report In Which Referring To The Statement Of CO Jiraj Singh, It Is Reported That The Offending Tanker Involved In The Accident Was Intercepted And That The Driver Of Tanker Namely Goldee Had Confessed To The Accident In Which Two Boys Lost Their Lives.

The Report Submitted By The Petitioner Addressed To Registrar General Of This Court Mentions That In Connection With A Case In Which The Distt Magistrate Had Showed Disrespect To The Court, He Had Made A Reference On 5.6.2010 To The High Court For Initiating Contempt Against The Distt Magistrate. Citing Second Instance, It Is Mentioned That On 16.6.2010, One Hon Judge Of Punjab And Haryana High Court Had Paid A Visit To Nazibabad And Despite Prior Information, The District Administration Bijnor Neither Extended Any Protocol Nor Permitted The Supdt Of Police Bijnor To Make Requisite Arrangement For The Visiting Judge. Disgruntled With The Arrangement, A Communication Was Sent To Chief Secretary U.P By The Punjab And Haryana High Court. The Third Instance Cited By The Petitioner Is That On The Above Counts, The District Magistrate Was Annoyed So Much So That He Directed Supdt Of Police To Withdraw Security Personnel Provided To The Petitioner. Lastly It Is Submitted That The Distt Magistrate Was On The Look Out For An Opportunity To Give Befitting Reply To The Petitioner And In Furtherance Of His Intention He Was Also Conniving With Local Politicians And The Accident In Which FIR Has Been Lodged Against Him, Came As A Handy Tool To The Distt Magistrate Who Contrived And Managed To Lodge The FIR Naming The Petitioner With The Active Connivance Of The Local BSP Politicians. The Officer Has Also Referred To The News Report Published In News Paper Dainik Jagran Which Is To The Effect That Two Adolescent Boys Were Crushed Under The Wheels Of A Speeding Tanker Near A Curve Of Village Baghuwala And Leaving A Dozen People Injured. The News Report Dated 17th Nov 2010 Substantiates The Report Of The Complainant That Two Persons Riding The Cycle Were Hit By The Speeding Tanker Out Of Which One Expired On The Spot While The Other Succumbed To Injuries On Way To Hospital It Is Further Mentioned In The News Report That The Police Had Intercepted The Tanker.

At 3 Pm On 8.12.2010, When The Case Was Again Called Out, The Learned Additional Advocate General Brought On Record The Affidavits Sworn By The District Magistrate Bijnor And Supdt Of Police In Compliance With The Order Dated 1.12.2010. The District Magistrate Is Present In Court. The Additional Advocate General Tried To Defend The Respondents And He Repudiated Any Role Of The Collector In The Matter. In His Affidavit, The District Magistrate Has Denied The Allegations That He Had Shown Any Disrespect To The Court And On This Count He Merely Stated That He Had Replied To The Show Cause Notice Issued By The Court At Najibabad. In Connection With The Allegation That Requisite Arrangement Was Not Made On The Visit Of Hon Alok Kumar Singh, Judge Punjab And Haryana High Court, He Stated That He Had Issued Instructions To The Supdt Of Police And Also To The Sub Divisional Officer Najibabad. He Further Stated That Upon Being Called Upon To Explain By The State Govt He Had Called For Explanation Of The Sub Divisional Magistrate And The Said Magistrate Gave His Explanation Stating That Police Escort Was Provided Which Remained Till The Stay Of His Lordship. He Also Enumerated Other Arrangements Made In Connection With The Visit Of Hon Judge As Aforesaid. As Regards Withdrawal Of Security Provided To The Petitioner, It Is Stated That During Panchayat Election, The Security Was Withdrawn But It Has Been Restored. He Denied Any Role In The Registration Of The FIR. He Merely Stated That The FIR Was Lodged On The Basis Of Report Of One Sunil Kumar Attended With The Statement That He Made A Note That Further Action In The Matter Would Be Taken After Appropriate Permission From The District Judge. The Deponent Has Also Referred To The Application And Affidavit Of One Babu In Which He Claimed Himself To Be One Of The Witnesses Of Occurrence. It Is Stated In The Application That The Petitioner Was Driving The Santro Car And He Hit The Deceased As A Result Of Which The Deceased Died On The Spot. It Would Thus Transpire That Impliedly, The Distt Magistrate Was Propping Up The Case Against The Judicial Officer. It Is Also Worth Noticing At This Stage That The Aforesaid Babu Claims Himself To Be The Witness Of The Occurrence While The Fact Remains That In The Application Made By The Complainant Before The Supdt Of Police, Babu Has Not Been Mentioned As One Of The Ocular Witnesses. Even In The C.D Prepared By Local TV Channel 200, Mention Of Which Shall Be Made In The Later Part Of This Order, No Person Of The Name Of Babu Came Forward And Claimed To Have Witnessed The Occurrence.

The Affidavit Filed By The Supdt Of Police Is Reiteration Of What Is Stated In The Affidavit Filed By The District Magistrate Bijnor.

Another Evidence On Record Of Great Significance Is The C.D. This C.D Is A Recording Of A Local Channel Namely, "T.V. 200". This Channel, It Would Appear, Has Recorded The Version Of Local People At The Site Of Accident. It Brooks No Dispute That The Accident Took Place In Front Of Chaudhary Restaurant. One Kuljeet Singh Son Of Preetam Singh Who Claimed To Be The Owner Of The Said Restaurant, Was The First Person Interviewed By The Aforesaid Channel. He Gave Version To The Aforesaid Electronic Media To The Effect That At The Time Of Accident, He Was Sitting On Cash Counter. He Heard A Loud Noise Upon Which He Was Attracted To The Site From Where The Noise Emanated. He Saw That A Tanker Had Crushed Two Cycle Borne Boys. While Aforesaid Kuljeet Singh Was Being Interviewed, He Was Seen Flanked By A Sub Inspector. He Also Stated That A Car With Blue Light Affixed At The Top Was Also Seen By Him Standing At The Other Side Of The Road From Which Driver Alighted And He Came To The Restaurant And After Purchasing Two Water Bottle, The Car Left For Onward Journey. The Sub Inspector Was Heard Saying That The Channel Should Not Record His Video And Saying This, The Sub Inspector Site-stepped. Another Person Whom The Channel Interviewed Is One Farman Ahmad. This Witness Stated That At The Time Of Accident, He Was Standing Nearby And He Saw That A Tanker Which Was Coming From The Opposite Side Hit The Cycle Born Boys Who Came Under The Wheel Of The Tanker. He Immediately Made A Call To A Constable Namely Ajeet Singh Informing Him About The Accident. Thereafter, The Channel Showed The Tanker Standing Bearing Registration No UP 12 C-0927. Complainant Sunil Is Also Shown In The Recording By The Aforesaid T.V. Channel. He Has Reiterated His Version As Contained In The Application Referred To Above Which Is To The Effect That He Was Unlettered And After The Accident, Someone Put Forth Before Him A Typed Application Misrepresenting That It Was A Memorandum For Entrusting The Bodies To Him And He Affixed His Thumb Impression Without Further Asking About The Contents Of The Typed Letter. During Interview, He Prayed That The FIR Be Recorded Afresh On The Basis Of The Application Which He Has Given.

Be That As It, The Earlier Bench Has Already Taken Suo Motu Notice Of The PIL. From The Facts On Record, It Would Transpire That The Santro Car Mentioned In The F I R Which Is Stated To Be Involved In The Accident Has Been Disowned By The Petitioner And It Is Stated That The Said Car Has No Concern With Him And He Had Never Used The Said Car For Any Purpose And He Has Also Denied To Have Travelled In The Car At All Or To Have Been On The Wheels Of The Said Car At The Time Of Accident. He Has Also Denied To Have Known The Owner Of The Car. From The News Papers Report, It Is Clearly Indicated That It Was Tanker Which Was Involved In The Accident. The Subsequent Report Of The Complainant Addressed To Superintendent Of Police Also Substantiates The News Report That It Was Tanker Which Was Involved In The Accident. The News Report Is Also To The Effect That Driver Of The Tanker Namely Goldee Was Taken Into Custody And He Confessed To Be Driving The Tanker Which Hit The Boys. It Was Also Stated That The Tanker And The Driver Were Taken Into Custody. We Have Also Considered The Sequence Of Events Mentioned By The Petitioner Leading To Lodging Of FIR Nominating Him As The Offender In The Accident And Also The Fact That The Petitioner Had Already Made Reference Against The District Magistrate For Initiating Contempt For Showing Disrespect To The Dignity Of The Court.

It Is Indeed Disquieting That If The News Reports And Contents Of CD Are To Be Believed, The Role Played By The Police Particularly The Station Officer Is Most Hideous In Initially Taking Into The Custody The Tanker And Also The Driver And Subsequently, Managing To Lend A Different Colour To The Entire Matter. The Tanker With Registration Number Is Shown In The TV Channel. In The News Reports The Name Of The Driver Has Been Given As Goldee. What Happened To The Tanker And The Driver, If The Accident Is Believed To Have Been Caused By The Tanker, Is A Matter Which Requires Thorough Investigation/enquiry. It Is In This Light, We Propose That The Vigilance Officer Of This Court Should Be Entrusted With The Enquiry Into The Matter Which Should Submit Its Report Within 10 Days To This Court.

In The Application Of The Petitioner Dated 24.11.2010 Which Has Been Annexed By The District Judge Bijnor Alongwith His Letter Referred To Supra, It Has Been Stated In Para 1 That Mr A.B Rajmauli Has No Respect For Judiciary And He Has Committed Contempt Of The Court For Which A Reference Has Been Made To Hon High Court On 5.6.2010. Photo Copy Of Reference Has Been Annexed As Annexure 1 To The Application. In Annexure-1, Which Is A Letter Addressed To Registrar General Through District Judge Bijnor, It Has Been Stated That On 18.5.2010 While The Court Was Busy Hearing Arguments In PA Case No 07 Of 2008 Prem Bala V Hari Ram, The Proceeding Of The Court Was Disrupted And Came To A Halt On Account Of Blaring Of Hooter Fixed On The Ambassador Car Of The Distt Magistrate Bijnor. It Is Further Stated That Plying Of Four Wheelers Through Campus Was Prohibited Due To Crowd Consisting Of Lawyers And Litigant Public. The Above Facts Were Noted By The Officer In The Order Sheet Of PA Case No 7 Of 2008. The Aforesaid Vehicle Again Passed Through The Campus Of The Court At 1.20 Pm Blaring Hooter At Its Top And This Misfeasance, It Is Reported, Was Repeated By The Distt Magistrate With Intention To Lower Down The Dignity Of The Courts In The Estimation Of Public At Large Notwithstanding The Fact That There Was Separate Road Which Could Be Used By The District Magistrate For Passage Of The Vehicle. It Is Further Mentioned That A Show Cause Notice Was Issued But He Did Not Show Cause. It Is Also Mentioned That The Hooter Was Used By The District Magistrate Despite Its Prohibition As Contained In The Order Of The Division Bench In W.P No 3648 (M/B) 2006 Decided On 16th Dec 2006 And Consequent GO Issued By The Government Vide GO No 1284/30.4.2007/35P/77 Dated July 18, 2007.

A Judge Or Magistrate Has A Duty To Discharge His Judicial Functions In The Interest Of Justice. The Courts Cannot Be Intimidated Or Run On Dictate Of Any One Except On The Own Conscience Of The Presiding Officer. The Power Of The High Court Of Superintendence And Control Over The Subordinate Judiciary Under Article 235 Of The Constitution Includes Within Its Ambit The Duty Protect Members Of The Subordinate Courts.

On Consideration Of The Above Facts Relating To The Incident Of Blaring Of Hooter As Mentioned Above, We Have Given Our Anxious Considerations To The Facts And It Would Ex-facie Crystallize That The Ingredients Of Section 2 (C ) Of The Contempt Of Court Act, 1971 Are Disclosed. Let Notice Be Issued To A.B Rajmauli District Magistrate Bijnor Why Suo Motu Cognizance Of The Matter Be Not Taken And Why He Should Not Be Proceeded Against Under Section 2 (C )of The Contempt Of Court Act, 1971 Punishable Under Section 12 Of The Said Act. The Case Shall Be Listed On 5th Jan 2011 On Which A.B Rajmauli, District Magistrate Shall Appear In Person.

Both The Proceedings Shall Be Separated And Listed Separately. In So Far As Contempt Proceedings Are Concerned, The File Be Laid Before Hon Chief Justice For Nominating The Bench For Proceeding Further In The Matter.

In So Far As PIL Petition Is Concerned, In The Facts And Circumstances Of The Case, It Is Directed That It Would Be Appropriate If The Matter Is Entrusted For Vigilance Enquiry By The Vigilance Officer Of This Court. In Consequence, The Order Be Placed Before Hon Chief Justice For Issuing Appropriate Direction To The Vigilance Officer Of The Court Attended With Direction To Submit His Report To This Court Within 10 Days In The Light Of The Facts On Record And Also Regard Being Had To The Contents Of C.D.

It Is Further Directed That In So Far As Remissness On The Part Of District Administration Bijnor In Extending Protocol To The Visiting Dignitary Or In Making Requisite Arrangement For The Visiting Judge Of Punjab And Haryana High Court Is Concerned, The Chief Secretary Shall Fix Responsibility And Initiate Departmental Action In The Matter Against The Erring Officials As Ex Facie, It Is Borne Out From The Facts On Record And Also From The Communication Received From The Registrar General Punjab And Haryana High Court That The District Administration Was Lax And Remiss In Extending Protocol Or In Making Requisite Arrangement For The Visiting Judge Of Punjab And Haryana High Court.

The PIL Petition Shall Be Listed Before The Court On 22nd Dec 2010.

Office Shall Make Available Copy Of This Order To Government Advocate And Also To Chief Standing Counsel Within 24 Hours.

Office Is Directed To Submit This Order Before Hon Chief Justice Forthwith For Obtaining Orders In The Light Of Directions Contained In The Body Of This Judgment.

Go to Navigation