A contempt petition is filed against Addl. Sessions Judge Shri. Rajesh Asmar, Pusad for passing orders under section 340 of Cr.P.C. in disregard of the Bombay High Court judgments.
The Prayers in the petition reads thus;
(a) To take appropriate action under Section 2(b), 12 & 16 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against Respondent No. 1 Shri Rajesh G. Asmar Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad Dist. Yavatmal and punish him as per law;
(b) Appropriate direction as per section 3 (2) of Judges protection Act, 1985 and section 344 of Cr.P.C. to the Respondent No.04 Principle District Judge, Yavatmal to conduct enquiry and launch prosecution under Section 52, 166, 218, 219, 471, 474, 409 r/w 120 (B), 34 etc. of IPC against Shri Rajesh G. Asmar Addl. Sessions Judge, Pusad and others as per law & ratio laid down Deelip Bhikaji Sonawane vs. The State of Maharashtra 2003 SCC OnLine Bom 129, Govind Mehta vs. State of Bihar (1971) 3 SCC 329, Kamlakar Nandram Bhavsar vs. State of Maharashtra (2002) ALL MR (Cri) 2640, K. Rama Reddy vs. State of A.P. 1997 SCC OnLine A.P. 1210;
(c) Direction to Respondent No. 1 to provide cost of the petition;
(d) Appropriate administrative action of immediate suspension, enquiry and dismissal of Respondent No. 1 Shri Rajesh G. Asmar as per law laid down in R. R. Parekh vs. High Court of Gujarat (2016) 14 SCC 1;
(e) Any other appropriate order in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.
The judge is alleged to be guilty of:
(i) Not registering the application under section 340 of C.r.P.C as special Judicial Case as mandated in Criminal Manual and binding precedents in [Kenneth Desa v. Gopal, 2007 SCC OnLine Bom 1513, Harish V. Milani v. Haresh V. Milani, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 2080]
(ii) Allowing the accused to file say and argue the case under section 340 of C.r.P.C when Supreme Court & High Court specifically gave the directions to not to hear the accused. [Harish V. Milani v. Haresh V. Milani, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 2080, Madan Gopal Jalan Vs Partha, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 3525]
(iii) Not conducting the preliminary enquiry when it is mandatory to do it. [ Mahadev Savla Patil Vs. The Village Development Officer, 2016 ALL MR (Cri) 344 , Dr. Praveen Vs. Dr. Arpitha 2021 SCC OnLine Kar 15703]
(iv) Directing police to take action when police are prohibited from taking actin as per bar under section 195 C.r.P.C. [Dinguram Ramaji Sangore and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra 2019 ALL MR(Cri) 988.]
(v) Committing contempt of various guidelines given by the Supreme Court & High Court by not referring the case laws given by the counsel for the Applicant and refusing to follow the binding precedent by casual remark that said case laws are not applicable. [Official Liquidator Vs Dayanand and Ors, (2008) 10 SCC 1, Prabha Sharma Vs. Sunil Goyal and Ors, (2017) 11 SCC 77 Dattani and Co. Vs.Income Tax Officer 2013 SCC OnLineGuj 8841, Roy Joseph Creado Vs Sk Tamisuddin and ors 2008 (2) Bom CR 242, Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd, (1997) 6 SCC 450, Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhatija v. Collector, Thane, (1989) 3 SCC 396.]
2. As per provisions of section 2(b), 12& 16 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 such Judges are liable for punishment up to six months imprisonment. [In Re; C.S. Karnan (2017) 2 SCC 756. In Re; M.P. Dwivedi AIR 1996 SC 2299, Supdt. of Central Excise v. Somabhai Ranchhodhbhai Patel (2001) 5 SCC 65]
3. Such Judges are also liable for prosecution under section 52, 166, 218,202,219,409 etc of Indian Penal Code and departmental action of suspension and dismissal. [K. Rama Reddy Vs State 1998 (3) ALD 305 Nirmal Yadav v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2011 SCC OnLine P&H 15415 Shameet Mukherjee Vs. C.B.I. 2003 SCC OnLine Del 821, Union of India v. K.K. Dhawan, (1993) 2 SCC 56, R.R. Parekh Vs High Court of Gujarat and Ors AIR 2016 SC 3356, Prominent Hotels Case 2015 SCC OnLine Del 11910]
Relevant case laws and pleadings can be seen in the petition. Download Petition Copy