The contempt petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

Mr. Murugesan, party-in-person, has filed the present Contempt Petition Sr.No.4178 of 2015, to punish the learned District Munsif-cum- Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam. In the supporting affidavit, he has submitted that Crl.R.C.No.1262 of 2012, filed in this Court, to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.4334 of 2012, dated 24.08.2012, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam, was allowed on 21.03.2013, directing the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam, to prefer a complaint, against the respondent in the said revision petition and to act in accordance with Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C. After receiving the copy of the said order, dated 21.03.2013, the respondent herein has taken the case on file, and assigned number as C.C.No.138 of 2013.

2. According to the petitioner, he has orally represented before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam that he would file a written complaint against her and to transfer the case in C.C.No.138 of 2013. He has further submitted that his wife/respondent in Crl.R.C.No.1262 of 2012, has preferred SLP.No.26883 of 2013, against the order made in the said revision petition, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that the same was dismissed on 13.01.2014. He has filed a memo on 10.10.2014, informing the respondent herein, to prefer a complaint and to transfer C.C.No.138 of 2013, as per Section 195 and 340 Cr.P.C.

3. According to the petitioner, case in C.C.No.138 of 2013, on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam, does not contain any complaint, preferred by the learned Judicial Magistrate, under Section 195 and 340 Cr.P.C. However, after a long delay, ie., on 17.11.2014, the respondent herein, has transferred the case in C.C.No.138 of 2013 to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Coimbatore, which has been re-numbered as C.C.No.2 of 2015 on 20.01.2015. Alleging that the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam, did not carry out the directions, issued by this Court in Crl.R.C.No.1262 of 2012, dated 21.03.2013, the present Contempt Petition has been filed.

4. It is the contention of the petitioner that Section 16 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, recognises contempt committed by the Court. He has further submitted that negligence in performance of judicial duty, in terms of the directions of this Court, would attract the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and that therefore, the respondent is amenable to contempt of this Court. He has also submitted that immunity cannot be claimed, under the provisions of the Judicial Officers' Protection Act, 1850. In this context, he referred to the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and also relied a decision of this Court in Boradkanta Mishra v. Bhimsen Dixit reported in AIR 1972 SC 2466.

5. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, ought not to have taken cognizance of the offence, punishable under Section 193 IPC., without a written complaint from the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam. He also referred to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.

6. Considering the averments and submissions, stated supra, records were called for. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

7. Perusal of the records shows that earlier, vide order, dated 24.08.2012, the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam, has dismissed a petition, filed by the party-in-person to take action against his wife, for giving false evidence, in the maintenance proceedings, as not maintainable. Being aggrieved by the same, he has preferred Crl.R.C.No.1262 of 2012. Facts as deduced from the order made in Crl.R.C.No.1262 of 2012, dated 21.03.2013, are as follows:

“The following are the allegations contained in the Protest Petition filed by the petitioner: The Court below has directed the Inspector of P