Court Imposes Rs. 25,000 Fine and Initiates Contempt Proceedings Against Petitioner for Disparaging Remarks
In a significant ruling, the Gujarat High Court has dismissed the special criminal application filed by Vishwas Sudhanshu Bhamburkar against the State of Gujarat, challenging the decision of the Magistrate to treat his application under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) as a complaint and examine him under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The petitioner had alleged forgery by builders in obtaining No Objection Certificates (NOC) from the Airport Authority of India, but the Magistrate had refused to refer the matter for police investigation.
Justice M.R. Mengdey, presiding over the case, found the petition to be frivolous and an abuse of the judicial process. The Court observed that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case of cognizable offense, as required for initiating a police investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Instead, the Magistrate's decision to proceed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. was deemed appropriate, allowing for the examination of the complainant.
The High Court underscored that the petitioner bypassed the available revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. by directly approaching the High Court. Furthermore, the Court highlighted the petitioner's repetitive litigation attempts, including previous petitions and appeals to the Supreme Court, which were dismissed.
In addition to dismissing the petition, the High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the petitioner. The Court also issued a notice for contempt proceedings against the petitioner for making contemptuous statements and allegations against the judiciary, both in the petition and during court proceedings. These remarks were deemed to undermine the dignity of the judicial institution.
Justice Mengdey further directed the Registry to revisit the competency certificate issued to the petitioner, which allowed him to appear in-person before the Court. The judgment highlighted the inappropriate conduct of the petitioner, including disparaging remarks about the Supreme Court's ability to enforce its orders and accusations against the judicial system.
The judgment serves as a reminder of the courts' responsibility to protect the integrity of the judicial process and to address misuse of legal avenues. The Gujarat High Court's decision reinforces the principle that legal actions must be grounded in substantive merit and not be used to harass or defame judicial officers or the system.
Bottom Line:
Abuse of process of law - Petitioner challenging the order of Magistrate refusing to refer complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and instead examining the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. - Petition found frivolous and misconceived - Magistrate justified in treating the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint and examining the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. - Petitioner failed to establish prima facie case of cognizable offence.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 156(3), 190, 200, 397, 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code; Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
Vishwas Sudhanshu Bhamburkar v. State of Gujarat, (Gujarat) : Law Finder Doc id # 2849604
