sat 1 wp 626-2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 626 OF 2011 Mrs.Chanda Ajay Nathani ...Petitioner vs. Shri Prabhakar Limbaji Bade & Ors. ...Respondents None for the Petitioner. Mr.P.A. Pol, PP for the State. Mr.Nitin Jamdar for Respondent No.3. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & U.D. SALVI, JJ. JULY 14, 2011 P.C. :- 1 The petitioner is presently posted as a Judge, Small Causes Court at Mumbai and she entered the judicial service sometime in June 1990. She was posted at Beed as Civil Judge, Junior Division, and she decided Regular Civil Suit No.230/2000 filed by respondent no.1, vide her judgment dated 25th March, 2007. It appears that instead of challenging the said judgment and decree in the appellate court, respondent no.1 filed Misc.Application No.136/2008 sat 2 wp 626-2011 before respondent no.3, Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Beed. Respondent no.3 passed an order on 22nd December, 2010 directed the investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Consequently, an FIR came to be registered against the petitioner i.e. CR No. 8/2011 on 14th February, 2011 with the Vadvani Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 133, 218, 181, 198, 471, 499 and 341 of IPC. Hence, this petition for quashing CR No.8/2011 as well as Misc.Application No.136/2008. 2 On 8th March, 2011, the Division Bench had issued notice to the respondents and leave was granted to delete respondent no.4. Ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c) was granted and as a consequence thereof, all the proceedings including the investigation in CR No.8/2011 came to be stayed. 3 A copy of the letter dated 9th March, 2011 addressed by respondent no.3 to in-charge of Vadvani Police Station, District Beed, has been placed before sat 3 wp 626-2011 us by Mr.Jamdar and by the said communication, respondent no.3 has informed the police station not to proceed further in compliance of his order directing investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. 4 In normal course, this petition could have been placed before the Single Bench (At Aurangabad), but having regard to the order passed by the Division Bench on 8th March, 2011 and the petitioner being a judicial officer presently posted at Mumbai, we have proceeded to decide this petition. 5 The Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Judicial Officers’ Association vs. Union of India & Ors. {(1994) 4 SCC 687)}, after referring to the guidelines already set out in the case of Delhi Judicial Service Association vs. State of Gujarat {(1991) 4 SCC 406} directed thus, “ The aforesaid guidelines were in sat 4 wp 626-2011 regard to all offences generally; but when any criminal conduct is attributed to a Judicial Officer in discharge of his duties or in purported exercise or discharge of his duties, we direct that, in addition, no crime for investigation should be registered pursuant to any FIR without the permission of the Chief Justice of the High Court.” 5 In view of the above directions, respondent no.3 could not have passed the order dated 22nd December, 2010 directing investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and no CR could be registered against the Judicial Officer unless approval from the Chief Justice of this Court was obtained. 6 In view of the order passed by the Supreme Court in the above cited case, which order perhaps the respondent no.3 was not aware of, no CR could have been registered against the petitioner unless the procedure as mandated was followed. 7 Hence, we allow this petition and quash and set aside CR No.8/2011 registered with the Vadvani sat 5 wp 626-2011 Police Station, District Beed, on 14th February, 2011. (U.D. SALVI, J) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J)