Crl. Misc. No. M-27371 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-27371 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:- 16.02.2011 Neelam ....Petitioner Vs. The Punjab & Haryana High Court and others. ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI ****** Present:- Mr. O.P.S. Tanwar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Raman Mahajan, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. Kshitij Sharma, AAG, Haryana, for respondent Nos. 3 & 4. Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate, for respondent No.5. RITU BAHRI, J (ORAL) This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for issuance of a direction to respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to grant necessary permission to respondent Nos. 3 & 4 to proceed with the FIR No.66 dated 06.02.2009, under Section 306 IPC, P.S. Ganaur, against respondent No.5 Sh. R.K. Jain, Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ganaur. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 had informed the Court that on 17.08.2010, the Full Court of this Court had recommended that the proceedings against Sh. R.K. Jain, Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ganaur, be dropped. Crl. Misc. No. M-27371 of 2009 (O&M) 2 Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Judicial Service Association Vs. State of Gujrat and Ors, 1991 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 566 and U.P. Judicial Officers' Association Vs. Union of India and others, 1994 (4) Supreme Court Cases 687. Reference has been made to para 55 of the judgment of Delhi Judicial Service Association's case (Supra) , which reads as under:- “55. The facts of the instant case demonstrate that a presiding officer of a court may be arrested and humiliated on flimsy and manufactured charges which could affect the administration of justice. In order to avoid any such situation in future, we consider it necessary to lay down guidelines which should be followed in the case of arrest and detention of a Judicial Officer. No person whatever his rank, or designation may be, is, above law and he must face the penal consequences of infraction of criminal law. A Magistrate, Judge or any other Judicial Officer is liable to criminal prosecution for an offence like any other citizen put in view of the paramount necessity of preserving the independence of judiciary and at the same time ensuring that infractions of law are properly investigated, we think that the following guidelines should be followed. (A) If a judicial officer is to be arrested for some offence, it should be done under intimation to the District Judge or the High Court as the case may be. (B) If facts and circumstances necessitate the immediate arrest of a judicial officer of the subordinate judiciary, a technical or formal arrest may be effected. (C) The facts of such arrest should be immediately communicated to the District and Sessions Judge of the concerned District and the Chief Justice of the High Court. (D) The Judicial Officer so arrested shall not be taken to a police station, without the prior order or directions of the District & Sessions Judge of the concerned District, if Crl. Misc. No. M-27371 of 2009 (O&M) 3 available. (E) Immediate facilities shall be provided to the Judicial Officer to communication with his family members, legal advisers and Judicial Officers, including the District & Sessions Judge. (F) No statement of a Judicial Officer who is under arrest be recorded nor any panchnama be drawn up nor any medical tests be conducted except in the presence of the Legal Adviser of the Judicial Officer concerned or another Judicial Office of equal or higher rank, it' available. (G) There should be no handcuffing of a Judicial Officer. If, however, violent resistance to arrest is offered or there is imminent need to effect physical arrest in order to avert danger to life and limb, the person resisting arrest may be over-powered and' handcuffed. In such case, immediate report shall be made to the District & Sessions Judge concerned and also to the Chief Justice of the High Court. But the burden would be on the Police to establish necessity for effecting physical arrest and handcuffing the Judicial Officer and if it be established that the physical arrest and handcuffing of the Judicial Officer was unjustified, the Police Officers causing or responsible for such arrest and handcuffing would be guilty of misconduct and would also be personally liable for compensation and/or damages as may be summarily determined by the High Court.” In view of the above said decision, no proceedings can be initiated against respondent No.5 Sh. R.K. Jain, Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ganaur. This criminal miscellaneous has become infructuous and is disposed of as such. (RITU BAHRI) February 16, 2011 JUDGE ajp