The Bombay High Court acquitted the petitioner of court misconduct following a registry enquiry and dismissal of the writ petition to prevent abuse of process.
Criminal RCC proceedings No.1009 of 2004 ordered quashed; writ withdrawn; civil applications disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
wp 1811.04 .odt
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1811 OF 2004
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4191 OF 2014
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4635 OF 2004.
Trimurti Pawan Pratishthan
through its Honorary Secretary
Shri S.H. Ghadge Patil
Petitioner/s
Versus
National Council for Teachers Education
Bhopal and another.
Respondent/s
Mr. S.H. Ghadge party in person.
Mr. K.G. Patil, Additional GP for the Respondent No.2
Mr. S.S. Bora, Advocate for respondent No.1.
___
CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI &
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ.
DATE : 17TH FEBRUARY, 2014.
PER COURT:
1]After having heard the petitioner party in
person and perusing with his assistance not only his
original petition but a civil application, which is
nothing but a synopsis of the dates and events and the
orders made from time to time, we are satisfied that
nothing survives either in the writ petition or in any
connected proceeding. Petitioner cannot be said to be
guilty of misleading this court or of producing any
document, which was not an order of this court.
2]Since an enquiry has been held at the level
of the Registry and the petitioner has fairly admitted
his mistake, which is genuine and bonafide, that we do
{2} wp 1811.04 .odt
not pursue this petition any longer. However, this
petition ought to serve as a reminder to all those,
who, based on incomplete information, data and
frequent absence from the court, rely upon court
proceedings as orally narrated.
3]The record of the court ought to be only
document and based on which either oral statements
should be made or the competent authorities be
informed of any court orders. We find that frequently
there are communications addressed also by Advocates
informing their opponents that a particular order has
been passed. That, such communications are based on
what transpired in the court and what the court orally
observed is apparent, but, when the instances of this
nature are increasing, parties ought to be cautious
that the parole discussion or any oral information of
the court proceeding should never be relied upon and
taken as authentic.
4]The order passed by the court and duly
certified to be so, or on getting copy thereof, is
the only way the court orders should be understood and
communicated.
5]Any discussion, question and answers or
response or clarification to the queries from the
Honourable Judges should not be construed as the Court
having finally decided or has formed an opinion or
view about the controversy before it. The
authenticity attached to the judgments and orders,
which are not only pronounced but duly signed and
wp 1811.04 .odt
copies whereof are made available, therefore, must be
preserved and safeguarded. This is the only way the
court proceedings should be understood by all
concerned.
6]This court should be firm with all such
litigants and advocates and who, very often rush to
communicate to the other side or to the members of the
public, the orders of the court, although, formally
orders are either yet to be transcribed or if
transcribed, are not corrected finally, but are in
draft form. The risk involved in the case of present
nature has to be noted by all concerned. We say
nothing more and close these proceedings.
7]Having perused the record of this petition
with the assistance of the parties, we are of the
opinion that in the light of the findings of enquiry
held by the Registrar (Judicial), the Criminal
proceedings need not be continued. Continuation
thereof would be really an abuse of the process of the
court. The Criminal proceedings bearing RCC No. 1009
of 2004, pending on the file of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Aurangabad, are, therefore, quashed. Writ
petition is allowed to be withdrawn at the request of
petitioner party in person and the pending civil
applications are accordingly disposed of.
[RAVINDRA V. GHUGE]
JUDGE
grt/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings initiated for alleged misconduct in court proceedings can be quashed after the petitioner admits to a genuine mistake.
Whether litigants and advocates should rely on oral court observations rather than certified written orders.
Trimurti Pawan Pratishthan through S.H. Ghadge Patil
National Council for Teachers Education
S.C. Dharmadhikari
Ravindra V. Ghuge
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court