Contempt petition against Civil judge for disregarding the binding precedents

Yogesh Waman Athavale Vs Vikram Abasaheb Jadhav (Bombay High Court)

1. The petitioner, by way of filing the present petition prays for initiating contempt proceedings against respondent No.1, who is Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chiplun, District Ratnagiri, for allegedly disregarding the binding precedents of the Superior Courts.

2. The petitioner, who is an advocate and practicing in the Courts at Judicial Magistrate First Class and Civil Judge Junior Division, Chiplun and District and Sessions Court at Ratnagiri and Khed, for the last more than 11 years alleges that the act of respondent No.1 in willfully and consistently ignoring and not following the binding precedents of the Superior Courts cited by the petitioner during the course of hearing before respondent No.1 is nothing but contumacious act. The petitioner has given following four alleged instances in which respondent No.1 did not follow the binding precedents:

1. In R.C.S. No. 209 of 2012 (Shri Suresh Sakharam Bhosale & Anr. Versus Shri Anant Dhondu Bhosale & Anr.), the petitioner has caused appearance for defendants. On an application by the plaintiffs therein an issue was framed namely “4A- Do the plaintiff proves that the sale deed executed by defendant Nos.1 to 8 is barred by the provisions of Consolidation and Fragmentation Act? (for short, “the said Act”). On behalf of defendant Nos.1 and 2, the petitioner made an application praying that the said issue be referred to the competent authority under the said Act and in support thereof submitted copy of the judgment and order passed by High Court of Bombay in the case of Tukaram Motiram Shinde V/s. Vishwanath Khandele¹ Respondent No.1 while rejecting the application did not even refer to the said judgment and passed a cryptic order. (Exh. A)

2. In DV Application No. 28 of 2017 (Smt. Seemeen Mohseen Alli Sayyed Versus Shri Mohseen Mohamad Alli Sayyed & Ors.) under D.V. Act, the petitioner has caused appearance for respondent- husband. The wife again filed a private complaint No. 105 of 2017 against his client and family members under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”). It is the contention of the petitioner that, in Rajesh Sharma Vs. State of U.P.², the Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued directions that every complaint/ FIR registered under Section 498A of the IPC received by the Magistrate be referred to the Family Welfare Committee and after the report of such committee is received, the same shall be considered by the Magistrate. Moreover, since the accused therein are resident of Pune and Yavatmal i.e., beyond territorial jurisdiction, respondent No.1 should have postponed the issue of process and either himself enquired or directed an investigation by the police. However, respondent No.1 did not follow the ratio laid down in judgment in the case of Rajesh Sharma (supra) and the mandate of provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Cr.PC”).

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.