Charanjeet Chanderpal And ORS v. The Advocate General And ORS

1/3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.184 OF 2012 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.144 OF 2012 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.628 OF 2012 AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.59 OF 2013 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.184 OF 2012 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3649 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NOS.145 AND 629 OF 2012 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3649 OF 2011 Charanjeet Chanderpal and ors.

...Petitioners.

vs.

The Advocate General and ors.

...Respondents.

WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3961 OF 2012 ` WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.622 OF 2012 Gautam Gulab Advani.

...Petitioner.

vs.

The State of Maharashtra and ors.

...Respondents.

Mr. Charanjeet Chanderpal petitioner in person in WP No.,184/2012, Criminal Application No.144/2012, 628/2012,.59/2013 with WP No.3649/11, Criminal Application No.622/2012 Mr.C. Chanderpal

2/3 Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri. Dinesh Adsule, APP. for the State.

Shri. Mahesh Vaswani respondent in person No.5 in WP No.184/2012, Respondent No.2 in WP No.3961/2012 and Respondent No.4 in WP No.3649/2011.

Shri. S.J.Khera respondent in person No.14 in WP.184/2012 and Respondent No.15 in WP No.3649/2011.

Shri. Atul Damle with Sudam Kale for Respondent No.10 in WP No.3649/2011.

CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI AND SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JJ.

DATE : 18TH FEBRUARY 2015 PC:

These criminal Writ Petition Nos.184 of 2012, Writ Petition 3649 of 2011 and 3961 of 2012 are allowed to be withdrawn. 2) We have no apprehension in our mind that apart from sub section (2) of Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act,1971 and Section 10 thereof there are ample powers in this Court to punish those guilty of contempt of subordinate courts. Similarly, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 contemplates that subordinate courts can report to this court cases of contempt and based on this, appropriate action can be taken. 3) Eventually, it is for the learned Judges, Presiding Officers of subordinate courts and this court to take appropriate action in

3/3 accordance with law to curb the tendencies as have been highlighted by Mr. Chandrapal. Even by the existing legislation in the field and when the law providing that contempt of court can be a punishable offence, courts can do much to curb the tendencies allegedly in vogue in litigants and if the law falls short it is something which cannot be addressed by courts but by the competent legislature to be looked into. In the circumstances, we do not think that all the Judges of the subordinate judiciary need to be informed about the state of law nor guided about their powers, jurisdiction and authority to take note of the complaints as are voiced by Mr. Chanderpal.

4) With these observations, these petitions are disposed of. Even the accompanying applications are also disposed of. (SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)