IMPORTANT POINT
Dignity of a judge and credibility of the entire system is dependent on use of dignified language and sustained restraint, moderation and sobriety.
Perceptions of fact and application of law may be erroneous but that never warrants such kind of observations and directions.

Judgment :

DIPAK MISRA, J.

The present appeal frescoes a picture and exposits a canvas how, despite numerous pronouncements of this Court, while dealing with the defensibility of an order passed by a Judge of subordinate court when it is under assail before the superior Court in appeal or revision, the imperative necessity of use of temperate and sober language warranting total restraint regard being had to the fact that a judicial officer is undefended and further, more importantly, such unwarranted observations, instead of enhancing the respect for the judiciary, creates a concavity in the hierarchical system and brings the judiciary downhill, has been totally ostracised. Further, the trend seems to be persistent like an incurable cancerous cell which explodes out at the slightest imbalance.

2. The appellant, a judicial officer, being aggrieved by the comments and observations passed by the learned Single Judge of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No. 1541 of 2007 vide order dated 31.05.2007, has preferred the present appeal. The brief resume of facts are that one Sunil Solanki had filed an application under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Code’) before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahar with the allegation that on 11.02.2007 at 09.30 p.m. when he was standing outside the door of his house along with some others, a marriage procession passed through the front door of his house and at that juncture, one Mauzzim Ali accosted him and eventually fired at him from his country made pistol which caused injuries on the abdomen area of Shafeeque, one of his friends. However, as good fortune would have it, said Shafeeque escaped unhurt. Because of the said occurrence, Sunil Solanki endeavoured hard to get the FIR registered at the concerned police station but the entire effort became an exercise in futility as a consequence of which he was compelled to knock at the doors of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by filing an application under Section 156 (3) of the Code for issue of a direction to the police to register an FIR and investigate the matter. While dealing with the application, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, the appellant herein, ascribed certain reasons and dismissed the same.

3. Being dissatisfied, said Sunil Solanki preferred a revision before the High Court and the learned Single Judge, taking note of the allegations made in the application, found that it was a fit case where the learned Magistrate should have directed the registration of FIR and investigation into the alleged offences. While recording such a conclusion, the learned Judge has made certain observations which are reproduced below:-

“This conduct of chief Judicial Magistrate is deplorable and wholly malafide and illegal”

Thereafter the learned Judge treated the order to be wholly hypothetical and commented it was :-

“vexatiously illegal”

After so stating the learned Single Judge further stated that Chief Judicial Magistrate has committed a blatant error of law. Thereafter the passage runs thus:-

“.......and has done unpardonable injustice to the injured and the informant. His lack of sensitivity and utter callous attitude has left the accused of murderous assault to go Scot-free to this day.”

After making the aforesaid observations, he set aside the order and remitted the matter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to decide the application afresh in accordance with law as has been spelt out by the High Court of Allahabad in the case of Masuman v. State of U.P. and Another [2007 ALJ (1) 221].

Thereafter, he directed as follows-

“Let a copy of this order be sent to the Administrative Judge, Bulandshahar to take appropriate action against the concerned C.J.M. as he deem fit.”

4. The prayer in the Special Leave Petition is to delete the aforesaid comments, observations and the ultimate direction.

5. We have heard Mr. Ratnakar Dash, learned senior counsel for the appellant and the lear