Neutral Citation No.
- 2025:AHC:112217-DB
Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 4 of 2025
Applicant :- High Court Of Jucicature At Allahabad Through Its Registrar
General
Opposite Party :- Manoj Kumar Gupta And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Mukesh Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Hon'ble Sandeep Jain,J.
The delay in filing review application has been satisfactorily
explained in the affidavit filed in support of the delay
condonation application.
Delay in filing review application is condoned.
Accordingly delay condonation application is allowed.
Heard Shri Sameer Sharma, the Senior Advocate assisted
by Shri Ashish Mishra, Advocate representing the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad.
The present review application has been filed for review of
the judgment and order dated 21.5.2024 passed in Criminal
Misc.Writ Petition No.13460 of 2023.
Though the petition has been filed under Chapter XVIII Rule
1 of the Allahabad High Court Rules 1952 but the Court has
entertained this petition as this Court has the power under
Article 215 read with Article 226 of the Constitution to review
its order passed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
The judgment and order dated 21.5.2024 was passed by this
Court in Criminal Misc.Writ Petition No.13460 of 2023 after it
had come to the notice of this Court that a Judicial Officer
posted as Chief Judicial Magistrate in District Banda had
misused his position by getting a First Information Report
registered against certain officers of the electricity
department and had also pressurized the Investigating
Officer in the case to make arrest of the officers named in
the First Information Report.
The relevant portions of the judgment & order dated
21.5.2024 which has caused the filing of the present review
application have been incorporated in Paragraph Nos. 26 to
30. Paragraph Nos.26 to 30 of the aforesaid order are
reproduced below:
"26. Taking into account the prima facie findings and the material collected by the
S.I.T., this Court is of the considered opinion that the present F.I.R. is driven by
malafides and in the colourable exercise of power vested in respondent no.4 and
thus we have got no hesitation to quash the F.I.R. exercising the extra ordinary
powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
27. At the very outset of the judgment, we have mentioned in Preface about the
character, nature, conduct of a Judge, his position in the society, expectations of
public at large from a Judge, his own public and private image and reputation and
more importantly his own basic character which should be aboveboard having see
through integrity and impeccable and spotless judicial character. The office of a
Judge is full of responsibility as he is supposed to perform a divine job, but if we start
comparing with the facts of the present case, we have got no hesitation to say that
the conduct and character of Respondent No.4 Dr. Bhagwan Das Gupta is well short
of those essential and basic characters, which mentioned above, rather unbecoming
of a Judge. A judicial officer (Respondent no.4), as mentioned above, just to harass
the petitioners who in discharging of their official duties were doing a government job
entrusted to them, is proceeding to initiate a criminal case, so that the petitioners
may kneel down before him and start dancing on his tune. If this is the standard of a
Judge, then fate and future of subordinate judiciary is pitch dark and rudderless. He
cannot be permitted to enjoy his position as C.J.M. and behave and act as an
ordinary litigant. His own interest, it seems, is of the paramount consideration, for
which he can stoop down to any level. This Court, as mentioned above, has
deprecated and reprehended his conduct in the strongest term and is in the
complete disagreement with the action taken by Respondent no.4 against the
petitioners.
Such type of conduct shall not be repeated in future by any of the judicial officer,
except in the matter of grave and severe nature like murder, suicide, rape or other
sexual offences, dowry death, decoity and in rest of the remaining cases, if any,
judicial officer or Judge wants to become the first informant in his personal capacity
in any F.I.R., he must take his concerned District Judge into confidence and after
having the assent from the District Judge, he can become an informant of any F.I.R.
28. Taking into account the totality of circumstances, the impugned F.I.R. so lodged
by Respondent No.4 Dr. Bhagwan Das Gupta dated 27.7.2023 as Case Crime
No.605 of 2023, u/s 406, 409, 419, 420, 464, 467, 468, 471, 386 I.P.C., Police
Station-Kotwali, District Banda, is hereby Quashed. The instant Writ Petition stands
ALLOWED.
29. Let this judgment and order be circulated through the Registrar General of this
Court to all sessions divisions of the State of U.P., apprising the District Judges and
Judicial Officers not to permit any F.I.R. by a Judge/Judicial Officer, in their personal
capacity to subserve their personal interest, except the cases of serious and heinous
in nature viz; murder, dowry deaths, sexual offences/rape or dacoity.
30. Besides this, Registrar General of this Court is directed to keep the copy of this
judgment in the dossier/service record of Dr. Bhagwan Das Gupta, C.J.M., Banda,
Respondent no.4."
Several grounds have been raised in the review application
for review of the judgment and order but during the course of
argument, the counsel for the review applicant only argued
for withdrawal of the observations made in Paragraph No.29
of the judgment & order dated 21.5.2024 because the same
was contrary to the observations made in the second part of
Paragraph No.27. It was argued that the observations made
in Paragraph No.29 of the judgment restrained the Judicial
Officers from getting any First Information Report registered
in their personal capacity for any offence even committed
against them or their family members and the said
restrictions would violate the rights of the Judicial Officers
under Article 21 of the Constitution.
We agree with the contentions of the counsel for the review
applicant.
There is an apparent contradiction between the observations
made in the second part of Paragraph No.27 and the
observations made in Paragraph No. 29 of the judgment &
order dated 21.5.2024.
In view of the aforesaid, the observations made in
Paragraph No.29 of the judgement & order dated 21.5.2024
so far as they direct the Registrar General of the High Court
to circulate all sessions divisions of the State of U.P.,
apprising the District Judges and Judicial Officers not to
permit any F.I.R. by a Judge/Judicial Officer, in their personal
capacity to subserve their personal interest, except the
cases of serious and heinous in nature is hereby recalled
and modified as follows:-
The Registrar General shall circulate the judgment & order
dated 21.5.2024 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc.Writ
Petition No.13460 of 2023 to all sessions divisions of the
State of U.P., apprising the District Judges and Judicial
Officers not to permit any registration of First Information
Report by any judicial officers except in the matter of grave
and severe nature like murder, suicide, rape or other sexual
offences, dowry death, dacoity and in rest of the remaining
cases, if any, judicial officer or Judge wants to become the
first informant in his personal capacity in any F.I.R., he must
take his concerned District Judge into confidence and after
having the assent from the District Judge, he can become an
informant of any F.I.R.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the review
application is allowed.
Order Date :- 14.7.2025/IB
Digitally signed by :-
ITU BANERJEE
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
