The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of judicial independence, sobriety, and restraint in making observations or criticisms against judicial officers. The court emphasized the necessity of affording natural justice and the potential harm caused by adverse remarks in judicial orders.

Judgment

R. C. LAHOTI, J.

( 1 ) THIS special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India filed by a judicial officer, seeks expunging of remarks detrimental to her, contained in the judgment of the High Court disposing of a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by the accused persons seeking quashing of certain criminal proceedings.

( 2 ) LEAVE granted.

( 3 ) THE backdrop of events has an unusual setting. The appellant is a serving judicial officer posted as Metropolitan Magistrate. The Courtroom wherein the appellant held her Court was not properly furnished and not only her courtroom but other Court-rooms located in the same building also seriously lacked in infrastructural facilities and needed additions, alterations and improvements. The District Judge was persuading the State officials to do the needful. So far as the appellant is concerned her courtroom needed a dais to be constructed. That was done during summer vacation when the appellant was away from the headquarters. On her return she found a mess of the work having been done by the PWD officials. According to the appellant the dais was made like a box. The Presiding Judge if seated on the dais would touch the ceiling fan on the head and while looking down from the dais, would not be able to see the arguing counsel, the parties appearing and the staff seated in the Court room. Attention of the District and Sessions Judge was invited who communicated with the officials concerned but they were non-responsive. As the work done by the PWD personnel caused an obstruction in the functioning of the Court, and yet they would not listen to reason, the appellant initiated proceedings calling upon certain officials to show cause why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 be not drawn up and a reference be not made to the High Court. During the pendency of these proceedings the PWD people chopped off a wooden piece forming part of the dais and removed the same. On these facts coming to the knowledge of the appellant she took cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 380, 201, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and issued process requiring presence of the accused persons before her. The persons proceeded against preferred a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution seeking quashing of both the proceedings-one under the Contempt of Courts Act and the other in the criminal case wherein cognizance for substantive offences under the IPC was taken. During the pendency of the petition before the High Court, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate having felt satisfied by the response of the PWD officials, directed the notice under the Contempt of Courts Act to be discharged and to that extent the petitions filed before the High Court was rendered infructuous. The hearing before the High Court then remained confined to the question of quashing the cognizance of the offences under Sections 380, 201, 120-B, IPC taken by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. After hearing the learned counsel for the accused persons and the learned counsel for the State, the High Court has directed the proceedings to be quashed. The operative part of the order of the High Court reads as under :-"thus prima facie, no offence either under Section 380 or 201 or 120-B, IPC is made out against the petitioners. (The manner in which the cognisance of the said offences came to be taken clearly suggest that the Magistrate wanted to rope in the petitioners in a criminal case in order to pressurise them to have the dais in Court room No. 8 and other civil work as noted in the petition carried out as desired by her) which matter could well be taken up by the Judge Incharge. . . /district and Sessions Judge with the appropriate authority in CPWD on administrative side. In passing the impugned order dated 1/07/1999 the Magistrate had thus exceeded the jurisdiction (defying all