Allahabad High Court Imposes ₹1 Lakh Cost Over 'Reckless' Claim That Judge Issued NBW On An Advocate's Persuasion

A bench of Justice Samit Gopal observed that the applicants had sworn the affidavit on a "perusal of records", but the records contained no evidence whatsoever to substantiate the claim that the Presiding Officer had been influenced in his private chamber.

"The said paragraph is sworn on perusal of records by its deponent Om Prakash the applicant no.2. The records do not substantiate any such allegation. Thus the allegations are totally reckless and without any basis", the bench remarked.

Briefly put, the applicants (Shyam Sundar and Om Prakash) approached the High Court seeking the transfer of a complaint pending before the court of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) / Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi.

The case involved offences under Sections 387 (Extortion), 323 (Voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), and 506 (Criminal intimidation) IPC.

In their plea, the applicants alleged that the complainant's real brother, a practicing Advocate in the Jhansi District Court, had met the concerned Presiding Officer in his Chamber.

The applicants explicitly pleaded that, on his persuasion, the Trial Court issued an NBW against them in November last year.

Perusing the affidavit, the High Court noted that the records did not substantiate any such allegation.

The Court further noted that the State Counsel had rightly argued that the content of the affidavit was contemptuous. It noted that there was nothing in the judicial order to suggest it was passed based on the persuasion of the opposite party's brother.

The High Court also noted that the applicants were engaging in dilatory tactics, as a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court had previously declined to quash the proceedings against the applicants and had granted them liberty to file a discharge application within a specified timeframe.

The HC had also granted them interim protection from coercive measures till the disposal of the discharge application.

However, despite the HC order and repeated orders by the Trial Court directing them to file the said application, the applicants failed to do so and instead, they moved the present transfer application.

"In so far as the stage of trial is concerned, the same is at the stage of filing an application for discharge / claiming discharge and framing of charge. The applicants have not chosen to file their discharge application till date", the Court observed.

Thus, the petition was dismissed with a cost of Rs. 1 Lakh. The Court warned that if the amount is not deposited, the Trial Court shall direct the District Magistrate to recover the sum as land revenue forthwith.

Apart from this, the High Court also expressed strong displeasure regarding the legibility of the Trial Court's order.

The single judge perused the impugned order to note that it was a five-line order where nothing was readable except the date and the acronym 'NBW'

"This Court repeatedly on the Judicial side and the Administrative side have been issuing directions and circulars to the trial courts to draw orders in legible manner but the trial court in this matter appears to be totally ignorant about the same and has signed the said order without even looking into it as to whether it is legible or not", the Bench remarked.

Consequently, the District & Sessions Judge, Jhansi, was directed to ensure the Trial Court passes legible orders and to submit a report on the matter within two weeks.