1 CR.APL NO.2078/2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2078 OF 2004 1. Rajendra s/o Fakira Patil, Age 32 years, Occupation Service, r/o Wichkhede Post Undirkhede, Tq. Parola, Dist. Jalgaon. 2. Madhavrao s/o Shankar Patil, Age 60 years, Occupation Retd. Govt. Servant, r/o Parola, Tq. Parola, District Jalgaon. ..APPLICANTS VERSUS (1. Shri Kekan Shivajirao Pandharinath, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Parola, Tq. Parola, Dist. Jalgaon) (Respondent no.1 deleted as per Court order dt.5.11.2004) 2. The State of Maharashtra. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. A.K.Tiwari, Adv., for the applicants. Mr. P.P.More, APP for respondent State. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:June 14th, 2011 *** 2 CR.APL NO.2078/2004 PER COURT : 1. Heard finally. 2. The accused/applicants question propriety of contemplated action by the learned Joint Judicial Magistrate, First Class, by issuing notice dt.17.3.2004 in terms of Section 228 of I.P.C. 3. A civil suit was filed by the accused/applicants which was pending before the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Parola. However, it was grievance of the accused/applicants, lodged to the learned District Judge at Jalgaon that the learned Judge, inspite of hearing the submissions, has killed time, to pass appropriate orders on the application for injunction. The accused/applicants felt, consequent upon such delay, their legitimate rights are squeezed and fractured and, they are facing innumerable financial losses. Another aspect, which has been put in as a grievance, in the application dt.17.3.2004 was that SCC No.28/2001 was moved before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, however, without proper verification of the record and evidence, the learned Judge has dismissed the said case. Lastly, it was urged that the accused/applicants have no confidence and, consequently, the civil proceedings of RCS 3 CR.APL NO.2078/2004 No.36/2003 be transferred to any other Court. 4. This application was addressed to the learned District Judge and its copies were given to the learned Judge seized with RCS No.36/2003. It appears from the order that the said officer was taking up evidence or verification in SCC No. 229/2004, Assistant Superintendent from office, at 2.35 p.m. tendered the above referred application dt.17.3.2004. Learned Judge felt that it was an interruption in his judicial work as he was taking up SCC No.229/2004. 5. Reading above aspects of the matter, it cannot be gathered that the accused/applicant had any intention to interrupt the ongoing proceedings in SCC No.229/2004 with which they had remote concern. They had put up the grievance before the learned District Judge and as a formality, its copy was sent to the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division. The mismatch of the timing by the office could not be attributed to the discredit of the accused/applicants. The reaction in above notice in aggravated form by the learned Judge was uncalled for and, apparently, illegal. Even the procedure contemplated for taking drastic action is not at all adhered to. Issuance of non bailable warrant was also not expected as the accused/applicants were unaware of the developments in the matter. 4 CR.APL NO.2078/2004 In response to notice, the accused/applicants appeared before the learned Judge and tendered their unconditional apologies which the learned Judge should have taken into right perspective. They informed and, rightly, that the application, which was moved to the District Judge and its copy being given by the Office Superintendent to the learned Judge, will remotely attract Section 228 of IPC. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 27/2004 against the applicants/accused is quashed. Criminal Application allowed. Rule made absolute. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/2078-04crapl