Crl.M.No.18057-M of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M.No.18057-M of 2010 Date of Decision: August 17 ,2010 Darshan Singh Chhina ....Petitioner(s) Versus Gurdev Singh ....Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Petitioner Darshan Singh Chinna in person. JASWANT SINGH, J By filing the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.PC, petitioner has sought quashing of order dated 4.9.2009 passed by CJM, Jalandhar dismissing a criminal complaint filed by the petitioner and order dated 8.3.2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar dismissing the criminal revision petition filed against order dated 4.9.2009. Facts of the case are that petitioner, who retired from Punjab Superior Judicial Service as District & Sessions Judge, has been practising as an Advocate at Jalandhar since 2000. In the year 2008, he was representing accused in a criminal Complaint titled Reshmo v. Ram Parkash under Section 376 IPC, pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge. In that criminal complaint, on 17.11.2008, petitioner filed an application to summon a defence witness. During the post lunch session when the petitioner went to the said Court, the Reader put up the said application alongwith case file before the Presiding Officer-District and Sessions Crl.M.No.18057-M of 2010 2 Judge, Jalandhar, upon which the latter asked as to what for the file had been put up. Thereafter the Presiding Officer asked the petitioner as to how many such applications had been moved in the past, to which the petitioner replied that the application in question was probably third. The Presiding Officer issued notice of the said application to the Public Prosecutor for 9.12.2008. It is further averred in the petition that thereafter mobile phone of the petitioner rang in the Court itself, whereupon the Presiding Officer, allegedly went into a rage and thrice said “I Feel Sorry For You”. It is then alleged by the petitioner that in order to diffuse the situation he went into the Retiring Room of the Presiding Officer but the latter declined to entertain him saying that he should have sought permission through the Office Superintendent. The petitioner is alleged to have got an appointment with the Presiding Officer, through the Office Superintendent, on 22.11.2008 at 4 pm, though of course the petitioner was not satisfied with the behaviour of the Presiding Officer during that meeting. Thereafter the petitioner made a complaint dated 17.11.2008 to the then Chief Justice which was duly processed by this Court and the petitioner was assured that the Presiding Officer would be advised to call the petitioner to bury the hatchet. In compliance of the said assurance by this Court, the petitioner allegedly received a communication dated 13.1.2009 from the Presiding Officer for a meeting on 19.1.2009 at 4 pm but due to the manner and tenor of that communication the petitioner refused to see the Presiding Officer on the appointed date and time and made a note dated 16.1.2009 to that effect. Thereafter, petitioner vide his letters dated 30.1.2009 and 9.3.2009 requested this Court (on administrative side) to dispose of his complaints dated 17.11.2009 and 3.12.2008, but no reply was received by him. It is Crl.M.No.18057-M of 2010 3 further averred in the petition that the petitioner filed a criminal complaint under Sections 500/506 IPC(Annexure P1) against the respondent in the Court of CJM,Jalandhar, but the same was preponed and dismissed by learned CJM on 4.9.2009 without hearing the petitioner against which the petitioner filed a revision petition which was also dismissed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Jalandhar vide order dated 8.3.2010 (Annexure P/5). It is these two orders which have been impugned in the present petition. It is contended by the petitioner that his criminal complaint was fixed before the learned CJM for 7.9.2009, but the same was preponed to 4.9.2009 without notice to the petitioner and dismissed on the same day without hearing him, which is totally illegal and against the law. It is further argued that while dismissing his revision petition vide order dated 8.3.2010 (Annexure P/5) the learned Sessions Judge has also failed to take note of the said factual position. After hearing the petitioner in person and perusing the impugned orders, this Court is not persuaded to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has rightly come to the conclusion that the allegations against the then learned Sessions Judge relate to the discharge of his official duties and thus entitled to full protection under Section 3(2) of the Judges Protection Act,1985 and hence the complaint is not maintainable. No doubt, there is no material on record which would show that notice of preponement of date from 7.9.2009 to 4.9.2009 was issued to the petitioner, however, in view of facts of the present case and that the complaint itself is not maintainable, in the opinion of this Court, would not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. Even at the Crl.M.No.18057-M of 2010 4 time of hearing, petitioner has not been able to show that the respondent is not entitled to protection under the Judges Protection Act,1985. The learned revisional Court has rightly observed that for this reason no purpose would be solved by remanding the complaint to the learned trial Court. It is unfortunate that a former Judicial Officer from the Superior Judicial Service is dragging another Judicial Officer, who is presently a Judge of this Court, over a trivial issue to such proceedings to the detriment of image of the Judiciary. Dismissed. August 17, 2010 ( JASWANT SINGH ) joshi JUDGE