Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 403 (JK)

Ab. Gani Bhat (Prof. ) v. Nissar Ahmad Kakru

2013-07-15

Virender Singh

body2013
1. This petition owes its origin to OWP (PIL) No. 545/2008 titled Prof. Abdul Gani Bhat v. Principal SKIMS and Anr., decided by Division Bench of this Court on 30.03.20009, therefore, Bench Secretary was directed to obtain the zerox copy of the Judgment of the said PIL from the Registry and tag it with the records of the instant petition for facility of reference. That is how, a zerox copy of the said judgment has come on record. 2. Through the instant petition, the petitioner invokes inherent jurisdiction of this Court as envisaged under section 561-A Code of Criminal Procedure, Samvat 1989 (section 482 Cr.P.C Central Code), seeking quashing of order dated 11.04.2012 of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar dismissing his criminal complaint filed against the respondent (the retired Judge of this Court) under section 499 RPC and recommending initiation of contempt proceedings against him (petitioner), order dated 08.06.2012 of learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge Srinagar, upholding the order of learned CJM. The petitioner also seeks initiation of contempt and administrative proceedings against these two Judicial Officers because they have passed the aforesaid orders against him. 3. It may be difficult to reach the spot that troubles the petitioner, therefore, few paragraphs of the judgment of Division Bench rendered in OWP(PIL) No. 545/2008 are reproduced herein under: Para 1- "The petition on hand represents a unique litigation of its kind, for, seldom one may come across a Public Interest Litigation (for short PIL) filed by a father (PIL mover for short), espousing the cause of none other than his real son, seeking indulgence of the Court to compel the State and its functionaries to adhere to a particular qualification for selection of a lecturer in the discipline of Pediatrics in SKIMS Srinagar suppressing the fact that a similar controversy had already become subject matter of writ petition (SWP No. 744 of 2008) titled Dr. Mohammad Himayon Gani v. State of J&K & others, petitioner wherein is his son. Facts so narrated are not only orally brought to our notice but are borne out by the record of the writ petition filed by Dr. Mohammad Himayon Gani (Dr. Mohammad Himayon Gani v. State of J&K & others, petitioner wherein is his son. Facts so narrated are not only orally brought to our notice but are borne out by the record of the writ petition filed by Dr. Mohammad Himayon Gani (Dr. petitioner hereinafter), perhaps that is why the PIL mover when asked whether he was aware of any other sub-judice writ petition involving similar case suddenly and unexpectedly shouted: "My personal cases have been decided against me by Hon'ble Justice Kakru and he has also declined to hear some of my cases, therefore, he should not hear my petition" Para 4- This brings us to the first part of the direction dated 10.02.2009 reproduced hereunder: "..To ascertain the bona fides of the petitioner, one of the essentials of the Public Interest Litigation, petitioner is directed to produce documentary proof to substantiate registration of the society along with constitution, bye laws and other relevant documents." Direction aforementioned required PIL mover to establish his bonafides by production of documentary proof of registration of the society, constitution and bye laws but he failed to. When told that in PIL it is the bounden duty of the PIL mover, to satisfy the Court that he is acting bona fide, has filed the petition to advance the cause of public and not for any oblique consideration or personal gain, satisfaction whereof is possible only by examination of the documents mentioned in the above said direction, petitioner shouted at the top of his voice: "As a citizen I have every right to file a PIL" and went on to say "I am taken ill" Para 5-"Crux of the objection unfolds failure of the petitioner to prove his bona fide. Responding to the statement of the PIL mover, Mr. Magray submitted that it is not the first occasion when PIL mover has behaved in this fashion but it is his usual practice. He submitted that in so many cases several benches of this Court have recorded displeasure against his conduct and could readily furnish particulars of a few Letters Patent Appeals decided by different Division Benches of this Court besides, a direction by a single bench, observations whereof reflecting on petitioner's conduct are extracted hereunder: "(LPA No. 200/2005) Abdul Gani Bhat v. Chairman Islamia College & anr decided on 21.11.2005". "..Petitioner is personally appearing in the cases and is engaging the Court in the submissions...not to the merits of the case..Mr. Shah is required to take up his cases and his fee will be paid out of the legal aid funds. Because of the engagement of the counsel for the appellant he would not be heard in person by any Court to save the court time. This appeal is dismissed. Copy of this order be given Dasti to the appellant to be handed over to Mr. Z.A. Shah Advocate" (LPA No. 200/2005) Abdul Gani Bhat v. Chairman Islamia College & another decided on 2.09.2006. "Be that as it may, we do not fine any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. While doing so, we wish to record that appellant's conduct in the Courts and his habit of creating scenes in the name of seeking justice either on non-issues or some of his misconceived grievances unsupported by any legal basis has become a permanent burden on the Court and public time. It is surprising that inspite of having been providing the services of senior counsel by this Court in legal aid, he has again and again insisted on reading his petitions and memos of appeal and using the audience given only for giving vent to his personal feelings against not only the respondent college management but also the Judges of this Court. Accordingly, as a measure of conveying our disapproval of his misplaced litigative zeal, we impose symbolic costs of Rs. 500 on him which shall be recoverable from any of the dues which may be payable to him by the management of respondent-College. The matter stand accordingly disposed of." (LPA No. 108/2002) Abdul Gani Bhat v. Chairman Islamia College and anr., decided on 01.08.2002. "It appears that the petitioner with a view to continue in service and to pressurize the college authorities and under the garb of litigative thrust has filed the frivolous litigation to see that no young person be appointed against the post which has fallen vacant on his superannuation. This appeal is not only required to be rejected but it is required to be said that the appeal is filed with an intention to see that the college remains under pressure under litigative thrust. For the above reasons, the appeal being merit less is accordingly dismissed with costs. This appeal is not only required to be rejected but it is required to be said that the appeal is filed with an intention to see that the college remains under pressure under litigative thrust. For the above reasons, the appeal being merit less is accordingly dismissed with costs. The appellant is directed to pay the cost of Rs. 1000/" (LPA No. 124/2004) Abdul Gani Bhat v. Chairman Islamia College and anr., decided on 27.09.2004 "..Being satisfied about the frivolous nature of writ petition and this appeal we are of the view that mere dismissal of appeal would not be adequate and the appellant should be saddled with costs. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs. 1000/- payable to the State within a month failure which the money may be recovered as arrears of land revenue." (CMP No. 2144/2004 in Cont. No. 26/2003 Abdul Gani Bhat v. B.K. Koul and ors., decided on 25.5.2006 The single bench observed as under: "Prosecution of the respondent, Principal Islamia College Srinagar and his counsel is sought by the petitioner. In the averment reproduced hereinabove, the petitioner has specifically pleaded that his signature has been forged which is not a fact. Conversely, it is discernible at a glance that the endorsement is not signed by anybody making it abundantly clear that the averment attributing forgery to the Principal and his counsel is devoid of substance, giving a cause to proceed against the petitioner but being alive to the fact that the proceedings so contemplated are likely to take years together to reach the finality coupled with the fact that he may have to spend considerable part of his retired life in the Court, the ends of justice would be met by taking a lenient view. In this backdrop, I choose not to proceed against him. Needless to say that repetition of similar act/event on the part of the petitioner shall be at his own peril." (Emphasis supplied by us) Para 10- "It emerges from perusal of the contents of the power of attorney and order of the writ Court that Dr. In this backdrop, I choose not to proceed against him. Needless to say that repetition of similar act/event on the part of the petitioner shall be at his own peril." (Emphasis supplied by us) Para 10- "It emerges from perusal of the contents of the power of attorney and order of the writ Court that Dr. petitioner is son of the PIL mover and father PIL mover is prosecuting his son's writ petition in the capacity of his recognized agent on the basis of a power of attorney and both the writ petitions centre around the similar controversy but there is absolutely no mention of these facts in the PIL, making it clear that petitioner has approached the Court with unclean hands yet he questions adjudication of the PIL by this bench because one of us has decided cases against him. A situation, law takes care of, by making the orders of a judge capable of correction by appropriate remedies like appeals etc. There are some additional reasons also. If the yard stick so suggested by the PIL mover is applied, only those judges can deal with his cases who have never decided cases against him, obviously, members of four different Division Benches cannot hear his cases because their judicial pronouncements have not favoured the petitioner. Apparently an attempt to confront the Court with a chaotic situation which needs to be understood in the light of observations made by the Division Bench in the Judgments supra, depicting institution of frivolous writ petitions by the petitioner, for collateral purposes, to wreck, vengeance, in particular to pressurize his employer to bring him to his own terms, consequently dismissed. Costs were also imposed on him, perhaps hoping to deter him from killing time of the Court by playing to the gallery but in vain, which fact is manifest from non availing of services by the petitioner of a senior Advocate in the person of Shri Z.A. Shah engaged b y the Division Bench in his cases vide order dated 21.11.2005 and instead opting for self-arguing. He has now obtained a special power of attorney, a device innovated by him for his appearance before the Court to conduct the cases instance being writ petition (SWP 744 OF 2008) Dr. He has now obtained a special power of attorney, a device innovated by him for his appearance before the Court to conduct the cases instance being writ petition (SWP 744 OF 2008) Dr. Mohammad Himayon Gani v. State of J&K and has also filed a PIL for settlement of a service dispute of his son in absence of persons who will be affected by order of the Court, a practice which needs to be understood in the light of finding of the Division Bench that he has been using Court rooms and the audience for giving vent to his personal feelings against the Judges of the Court. That is not the end of it, there is something more alarming that is adjudgement of the petitioner as a burden upon the public time. We have also seen order dated 22.05.2008 in SWP No. 744/2008 revealing that petitioner had appeared to address the Court by dint of a special power of attorney but court refused to hear the matter and directed its listing before some other bench. A similar attempt was made before us, resorting to reckless shouting to prompt us to follow the suit but we refused to fall prey in the interest of judicial system and dignity of the Court, more particularly for the reason that someone has to bell the cat". Para 12 "Going by the principle laid down in the judgments supra jurisdiction of the High Court in the garb of public interest litigation cannot be invoked by an individual for redressal of his personal grievances much less in a service matter. As a corollary the PIL is dismissed along with CMPs with costs." Para 13 - "To arrive at a just conclusion in respect of quantum of costs, a few events need to be noticed. PIL has been filed by the petitioner to further his personal cause, to achieve an oblique motive and not to vindicate any public interest. There is a definite finding by the Division Bench that he has been wasting valuable judicial time of the Court at the cost of genuine causes. In the instant so-called public interest petition, the petitioner has engaged the Division Bench on several occasions and has consumed considerable time of the Court giving vent to his grievances against the Court, arising out of judgments passed against him by different benches in his personal service mattes. In the instant so-called public interest petition, the petitioner has engaged the Division Bench on several occasions and has consumed considerable time of the Court giving vent to his grievances against the Court, arising out of judgments passed against him by different benches in his personal service mattes. The respondent SKIMS, a prestigious medical institution of the State of Jammu and Kashmir has on affidavit averred harassment of the functionaries of the institute on the part of the PIL mover to compel them to succumb to his pressure, apparently aimed at the selection of his son which averment has not been rebutted. The PIL mover has misconstrued the latitude shown by the Court by allowing him to go unburdened with costs in several matters. Consequently inflow of frivolous litigations by him. On an overall consideration, imposition of costs to the tune of rupees one lac, as prayed for by learned counsel for the other side is justified but regard being had to the fact that the PIL mover has crossed 65 years age, we opt for a lenient view, accordingly costs are quantified at rupees 20.000/- payable to the SKIMS respondent through its Director to be spent for medication of patients belonging to the category of below poverty line. Costs so imposed shall be deposited by the writ petitioner in the Registry of this Court within one month for its disbursement as directed. In case of failure to deposit the amount within the stipulated period it shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue. Writ petition of Dr. Himayon shall be delinked and listed before appropriate Bench. Contention of the learned counsel for the other side that misstatement on affidavit by Dr. Petitioner renders his petition liable to dismissal, we leave it open with liberty to him to raise it before the writ Court". Para 14 "Now a word about conduct of the PIL mover. When the PIL was taken up for hearing the learned counsel for the respondents were heard. Petitioner renders his petition liable to dismissal, we leave it open with liberty to him to raise it before the writ Court". Para 14 "Now a word about conduct of the PIL mover. When the PIL was taken up for hearing the learned counsel for the respondents were heard. Petitioner was also heard at length but when asked to respond to the objection raised by the other side that this PIL was filed by him to seek an interim relief favouring his son which he could not get in an earlier petition (SWP 744 OF 2008) he started to speak against all those judges who had declined the interim relief to him and also against those judges who have decided cases against him. He raises his hands disrespectfully and shouted at the top of his voice that justice was denied to him all through. There being hardly any justification to create a scene in the Court, it had become unavoidable to take cognizance of the contempt then and there, yet we thought it proper to pause for a while and then ascertain from him as to why unbecoming behavior, accordingly directed to call out the PIL at 3.30 pm. We also directed the PIL mover to remain present. PIL was taken up as directed. Learned counsel for the other side were present but the PIL mover did not appear despite direction of the Court. Whether behavior of the PIL mover in the Court, besides his failure to enter appearance at 3.300 pm in spite of direction by the court, do make out a cause for action against the PIL mover, dependents on the examination of the matter in light of the stand, the PIL mover opts for therefore, no comment at this juncture, excepting a notice". Para 15 - "PIL mover-writ petitioner has asserted on affidavit that the writ petition aims at advancement/promotion of a public interest but it is in fact the other way round as is evidenced by our finding that it is a self serving litigation, obviously prima facie view that affidavit sworn in is false does emerge, of course rebuttable, but cause for a notice has arisen". Para 16-"What we have said in the preceding paragraphs about the conduct of the PIL mover, that is not all according to learned counsel for the other side but there is something more serious and grave, sought to be founded on the statement made in the petition, describing himself as a Professor and a similar statement made by his son in his petition (SWP 744 OF 2008) titled Dr. Mohammad Himayon Gani v. State of J&K & others. It is also contended that the designation of the professor was mentioned to influence the mind of the court by features of a Professor. No doubt a Professor is a highly placed officer and in its ordinary sense signifies an academician, a very learned man, a highly educated, knowledgeable, intelligent and cultured person but whether these features of the post have influenced the mind of the court in drawing an inference of bona fides at the time notice was issued, we are unable to record a finding, reason being absence of mention to that effect in the proceedings recorded by the court. However, let it be loud and clear that nothing prevents a Professor from mentioning his designation in a writ petition and if PIL mover is really one, he cannot be said to have faulted. Nevertheless, if he is not, he owes an explanation to the Court for filing affidavit pretending therein to be a Professor. To persuade us to hold that PIL mover's affidavit is false, reference is made to paragraph (1) of petition No. 53/2005 titled Abdul Gani Bhat v. Abdul Rashid Sahaf under section 561-A CrPC of the CrPC which reads: "1. The petitioner happened to be an employee (Director Physical Education) of the Islamia College, Srinagar from March. 1968 to April 2001" Para 17- "Reference is also made to the stand of the college, employer of the petitioner reproduced in the same petition extracted hereunder: "An extra-ordinary meeting of teaching and non-teaching staff members was held on 4th July 1998 under the Chairmanship of the Principal. The functioning of the Physical Education in general and the conduct of Mr. Abdul Gani Bhat, Instructor in Physical Education was discussed in particular. All the staff members were of the unanimous opinion that the work and conduct of Mr. The functioning of the Physical Education in general and the conduct of Mr. Abdul Gani Bhat, Instructor in Physical Education was discussed in particular. All the staff members were of the unanimous opinion that the work and conduct of Mr. A.G. Bhat is highly unsatisfactory and his behavior towards the Administration as well as the staff and students of the college is disgusting. The staff also deplored the role of Mr. Abdul Gani Bhat in tarnishing the fair image of the college by resorting every now and then to lodging false complains to the higher authorities" (Emphasis added by us) Para 18 "Perusal of the reproduction aforementioned reveals that the petitioner in 561-A CrPC has claimed to be the Director Physical Education of the College, whereas the College has described him as an Instructor Physical Education. On the contrary in the PIL, he claims to be a Professor on affidavit. Same is true about his son and both of them (father and son) have made statements on affidavits which according to the other side are absolutely false. In that view of the matter, a question that calls for an answer from the PIL mover and his son Dr. Mohammad Himayon Gani is whether PIL mover is a Professor. If answer is in the affirmative, the controversy of falsity of the affidavit to that extent should end up but if it is otherwise, it may lead to a conclusion that affidavit is false. In that eventuality, they shall have to show cause if any against initiation of action in accordance with law. Para 19- "Direction dated 10.02.2009 too has not been complied with by the PIL mover which stands extracted in paragraph (4) hereinabove. Prima facie, PIL mover having observed direction in breach, therefore, a cause for a notice. In the mean time, he shall furnish names of the members of his society with their parentage and complete address by next date. Para 19- "Direction dated 10.02.2009 too has not been complied with by the PIL mover which stands extracted in paragraph (4) hereinabove. Prima facie, PIL mover having observed direction in breach, therefore, a cause for a notice. In the mean time, he shall furnish names of the members of his society with their parentage and complete address by next date. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Registrar Societies also requiring him to inform the Registry whether any society has been registered in the name of "Peoples" Union for Justice Pomposh Lane, Natipora Srinagar-1190019" Para 20- "In the aforementioned backdrop, a direction hereby to the Registrar Judicial of the High Court (Srinagar Wing) to diarize a copy of this judgment as a Miscellaneous Petition, draw up the notices against Professor Abdul Gani Bhat (PIL mover) in terms of facts set out in preceding paragraphs 14 to 19 (both inclusive) and against Dr. Mohammad Himayon Gani petitioner in SWP No. 744 of 2008 relating o the narrative of facts detailed in preceding paragraph 18, requiring them to show cause as to why they should not be preceded against notices to be made returnable within two weeks. Miscellaneous petition to come up as per directions of Lord Chief Justice." 4. As is clear from the Judgment of Division Bench that the petitioner's son being aggrieved of process of selection relating to the posts of Professor/Lecturer in different disciplines, questioned the said selection through the medium of writ petition SWP No. 744/2008, but when he could not get the interim relief, his father, the petitioner herein, filed aforesaid OWP (PIL) No. 545/2008 against the same process of selection. The Writ Petition was not only dismissed, but petitioner was proceeded against. It is to settle scores with the Division Bench, particularly author of the judgment (the respondent herein) that the petitioner sought his prosecution under section 499 Cr.P.C before the Courts below but failed as stated above. Hence the present petition under section 561-A CrPC (State Code) invoking inherent powers of this Court for quashment of both the orders. 5. It needs to be mentioned here that the main petition was taken up by a Coordinate Bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.P. Singh on 18.09.2012 on which date the petitioner appeared in person and was made aware of the provisions of Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1971. 5. It needs to be mentioned here that the main petition was taken up by a Coordinate Bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.P. Singh on 18.09.2012 on which date the petitioner appeared in person and was made aware of the provisions of Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1971. He, however, insisted for prosecution of the petition. It would be apt to refer to the said order. It reads: "The petitioner-Prof. Abdul Gani Bhat, has filed this petition invoking jurisdiction under section 561-A of Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 227 of the Constitution of India (Section 104 of Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir), inter alia, seeking initiation of contempt of Court proceedings against the Chief Judicial Magistrate Srinagar and 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar who are stated to have dismissed his complaint and criminal revision respectively. The petitioner is made aware of the provisions of the Judicial Officers Protection Act 1971. He, however, insists for prosecution of the petition against the serving Judicial Officers. In view of the provisions of the Judicial Officers Protection Act 1971 and the statement made by the petitioner in the petition, it is considered appropriate to direct him to deposit Rs. 25000/- with Registrar Judicial to demonstrate his bonafides in filing the petition before his petition is considered. At this stage, he submitted that the case be released for its consideration by some other bench as he has "No faith in the Court" The statement made by the petitioner, presumably dissatisfied with the order requiring him to deposit Rs. 25000/- to demonstrate his bonafies, prima facie, affects the administration of justice. This is so because a litigant cannot adopt such an approach, for, if dissatisfied with the orders of the Court, he is required to avail of the remedies available to him under law but cannot resort to making such utterances that may affect the administration of justice. The statement made by the petitioner that he has no faith in the Court, prima facie, amounts to his interference in the administration of justice which calls for proceedings against him in contempt. A notice shall, therefore, issue to him to show cause as to why be he not proceeded against in contempt for his utterances and seeking release of the case for its consideration by some other Bench. List after three weeks." 6. The petitioner has chosen not to deposit the amount indicated in the aforesaid order. A notice shall, therefore, issue to him to show cause as to why be he not proceeded against in contempt for his utterances and seeking release of the case for its consideration by some other Bench. List after three weeks." 6. The petitioner has chosen not to deposit the amount indicated in the aforesaid order. A notice, however, was served upon him by the Registry. When the main petition was taken up by this Court on 24.05.2013, the petitioner made a statement at the Bar that he had already filed detailed reply/statement of facts to the notice in the Registry and was also given receipt in this regard but this statement turned out to be false as per the noting of the Registry. The petitioner meanwhile moved a miscellaneous petition being IA (Cr) No. 191/2013 for recalling of the aforesaid order dated 18.09.2012. The matter came up before this Bench on 05.06.2013, on which date the petitioner chose not to appear. It was adjourned and kept on Board for 06.06.2013 on which date the petitioner appeared in person and heard at length. For facility of reference, order dated 06.06.2013 reads as under: "Through the miscellaneous application No. IA (Cr). 191/2013, applicant/petitioner Professor Abdul Gani Bhat, who appears in person seeks recalling of order dated 18th of September, 2012. It was put up before me yesterday, on which date, the petitioner was not present, therefore, not considered and kept on Board for today along with the main petition. Petitioner submits that since he is appearing in person, he may be allowed to read the entire contents of the application which runs into 11 pages. He was allowed to go through it and thereafter also he consumed the time of the Court in arguing the main petition as well. Since the instant petition owes its origin to OWP (PIL) No. 545/2008 filed by the petitioner in this Court as is the case of petitioner himself, Bench Secretary of this Court is directed to obtain the zerox copy of the judgment dated 30.03.2009 rendered in the aforesaid OWP (PIL) No. 545/2008 from the Registry and place it on record for facility of reference. Reserved for orders". 7. Adverting to the main petition, it needs to be recalled that Division Bench of this Court vide its Judgment dated 30th of March, 2009, burdened the petitioner with costs to the tune of Rs. Reserved for orders". 7. Adverting to the main petition, it needs to be recalled that Division Bench of this Court vide its Judgment dated 30th of March, 2009, burdened the petitioner with costs to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- and made some observations about the lack of his bonafides and unsatisfactory conduct which conclusion, according to the petitioner, constitutes an offence against the respondent (author of the Judgment), therefore, he lodged a criminal complaint against him in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Srinagar which was found vexatious, frivolous and contrary to the law. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Srinagar, while dismissing the complaint, referred the matter to this Court for initiation of contempt proceedings against the petitioner inter alia on the basis of section 77 of RPC which reads: "Act of Judge when acting judicially Nothing is an offence which is done by a Judgment when acting judicially in the exercise of any power which is, or which is good faith he believes to be , given to him by law." 8. As stated above, order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar was challenged by the petitioner before learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge Srinagar, who further elaborated legal position by referring to section 19 of RPC and dismissed the revision petition on the principle of law laid down by Apex Court in Judgment titled State of Rajasthan v. Parkash Chand, reported as AIR 1998 SC 1344. Relevant para 34 of the said Judgment reads: "34. Even otherwise it is a fundamental principle of our jurisprudence and also it is in public interest that no action can lie against a judge of a court of record for a judicial act done by the judge. The remedy of the aggrieved party against such an order/judgment is to approach the higher forum through appropriate proceedings. This immunity is essential to enable the judges of the Court of record to discharge their duties without fear or favour, though remaining within the bounds of their jurisdiction. Immunity from any civil or criminal action or a charge of contempt of court is essential for maintaining independence of the judiciary and for the strength of administration of justice." 9. This immunity is essential to enable the judges of the Court of record to discharge their duties without fear or favour, though remaining within the bounds of their jurisdiction. Immunity from any civil or criminal action or a charge of contempt of court is essential for maintaining independence of the judiciary and for the strength of administration of justice." 9. The dictum of the Judgment is more than clear that no action, much less any action through a criminal complaint, is permissible against the Judges and the only remedy for a party aggrieved of the judgment is to challenge it by way of an appeal/revision or resorting to any other legal recourse, but a petition seeking criminal complaint against the Judges of the High Court or the Judicial Officers is neither an appropriate nor permissible remedy under law. Thus, I am of the view that dismissal of criminal complaint by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Srinagar, maintained by 4th Additional Sessions Judge Srinagar and reference to this Court is warranted. I also rule that institution of a complaint against the High Court retired Judge, working Judge and the Judicial Officers is sheer abuse of the Court for which a litigant of this kind has to face the consequences in accordance with law and it is obligatory upon the Judicial Officers to take cognizance of such event as has been done by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar. However, I would like to make it clear for the guidance of our Judicial Officers that the complaint arising out of such situations should not detain them and must be dismissed in limine with action against such litigant as may be called for in law. 10. My above view is founded on the provisions of statutes and the law laid down by the Apex Court which provides immunity to the Judges of the Court of record and the Judicial Officers for their judicial acts which has a purpose enabling them to discharge their judicial functions free from fear of consequences, being important for complete independence of judiciary. This protection given by law to the Judges has been flagrantly violated by the petitioner in his complaint as is evident from the Judgments of both the Court below. This protection given by law to the Judges has been flagrantly violated by the petitioner in his complaint as is evident from the Judgments of both the Court below. The order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Srinagar reveals that the petitioner has resorted to irresponsible and contemptuous remarks in the complaint and the statement, stating further that the petitioner was made aware that for a judicial act, the former Judges and the sitting Judges have immunity under law and was apprised of the consequences. Learned CJM has very specifically referred to the provisions of law which restrain a litigant from seeking any criminal action against the judicial act, but the petitioner went ahead unmoved and chose to file revision petition seeking prosecution of the revision which was dismissed by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge Srinagar elaborating the legal position in his Judgment, but of no impact on the petitioner as is evident by the institution of the present petition under section 561-A CrPC. 11. Record reveals that when the main petition was taken up by the Court on 18-09-2012, the Court took care of the petitioner's interest by informing him about the protection provided to the Judges in view of the Provisions of Judicial Protection Act 1971. However, he insisted for prosecution of his petition against the serving judicial officers. Therefore, the Court considered it appropriate to direct him to deposit Rs. 25000/- with the Registrar Judicial of this Wing to demonstrate his bona fides in filing the petition before it could be considered. The petitioner at that stage has submitted that his case be released for its consideration by some other Bench as he has no faith in the Court. However, he has now responded to the present situation vide his miscellaneous application No. IA (Cr) No. 191/2013 whereby he seeks recalling of the aforesaid order dated 18-09-2012 in the following manner: ".....The disparaging remarks and the order for paying Rs. 25000/- before his honour would hear my petition, is based purely on his personal perceptions, his fancy, imagination, his whims, caprices and prejudices.." 12. One of the grounds taken by the petitioner in order to challenge the orders of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Srinagar and learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge Srinagar is that the respondent, being no more Judge of the High Court, cognizance of the complaint could not have been refused. One of the grounds taken by the petitioner in order to challenge the orders of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Srinagar and learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge Srinagar is that the respondent, being no more Judge of the High Court, cognizance of the complaint could not have been refused. This argument merits rejection because a Judge of the Court of record and the Judicial Officers enjoy immunity under law for the orders and Judgments passed by them on judicial side and their exit from the post of a Judge, be it due to retirement, resignation or for any other reason would not make his Judgment and for that matter any order, an act of a non judicial body or authority and the immunity in respect of his orders and Judgments has to remain effective and enforceable even after his exit, a legal position which the petitioner is supposed to know because he has been claiming to be a knowledgeable person in law. Therefore, he has to account for filing a complaint against the respondent, a retired Judge. 13. In his petition under section 561-A CrPC, the petitioner has also alleged nervousness and sensitivity to the learned CJM because a retired Judge figured as an accused in his complaint and has alleged abuse of the process of the Court to both the Judges (learned CJM and learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge) because of their refusal to take cognizance of the complaint filed by him and for referring the matter to this Court for initiating contempt proceedings against him. The petitioner has also sought contempt proceedings and administrative action against these two Judicial Officers apparently for their judicial act, although they are protected under law. The principle of law discussed hereinabove is applicable to their orders, therefore, initiation of contempt proceedings and administrative action against them is out of question. 14. The events mentioned hereinabove have given rise to one more cause to proceed against the petitioner for contempt proceedings. The principle of law discussed hereinabove is applicable to their orders, therefore, initiation of contempt proceedings and administrative action against them is out of question. 14. The events mentioned hereinabove have given rise to one more cause to proceed against the petitioner for contempt proceedings. The petitioner has not denied that the Judges had not made him aware that the criminal complaint filed against the respondent and the petition filed against Chief Judicial Magistrate and 4th Additional Sessions Judge were in derogation of law, but he has not shown even scant respect to the law and the Courts and has left no stone unturned to ridicule the Judges of the High Court and the lower Courts by filing complaint and petition for the reason that they passed orders against him in exercise of their legal obligation. So much so, the petitioner has questioned the fairness of one more Judge of this Court (Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.P. Singh) because he told him while entertaining the main petition at its initial stage on 18.09.2012 that his insistence to seek initiation of contempt and administrative action against learned CJM and 4th Additional Sessions Judge would amount to abuse of process of the Court rendering him liable to contempt proceedings but he choose to respond with a contemptuous statement that he has no faith in the Court. 15. In the given facts and circumstances, the main petition 561-A CrPC No. 174/2012 is dismissed with exemplary cost of Rs. 100,000/-(Rupees one lac). Be consigned to records. 16. The cost so imposed shall be deposited by the petitioner through a Bank Draft in favour of Registrar Judicial of this Wing within one month from today, in default thereof, the Collector, (Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate) Srinagar shall recover the said amount from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue within a further period of one month and shall transmit the amount to Registrar Judicial of this Wing who, in turn, would deposit the same in the accounts of Legal Services Committee of this Court. 17. Petitioner's application No. IA(Cr) 191/2013 for recalling of aforesaid order dated 18-09-2012 also fails on the same reasoning as recorded hereinabove for dismissal of the main petition under section 561-A CrPC. Accordingly, it also stands dismissed. It's record shall also be consigned to records along with the main petition (561-A CrPC No. 174/2012). 18. 17. Petitioner's application No. IA(Cr) 191/2013 for recalling of aforesaid order dated 18-09-2012 also fails on the same reasoning as recorded hereinabove for dismissal of the main petition under section 561-A CrPC. Accordingly, it also stands dismissed. It's record shall also be consigned to records along with the main petition (561-A CrPC No. 174/2012). 18. Apart from derogatory expressions detailed hereinabove, the petitioner is scandalizing the Courts and the Judges and has been repeatedly lodging petitions seeking prosecution of the Judges because of their judicial acts undermining the Courts and the Majesty of law, thereby lowering the authority of the Courts which amounts to interference with administration of justice. Therefore, reference made by the learned CJM, Srinagar for initiating criminal contempt against the petitioner in terms of section 15(1) b of Contempt of Courts Act, 1997 succeeds and is allowed. Registry shall register this order as `Suo Moto Criminal Contempt against Prof. Abdul Gani Bhat. 19. The petitioner also seeks quashing of the Judicial Protection Act through miscellaneous application IA (Cr) No. 191/2013 which application has been dismissed vide preceding paragraph. However, it needs to be observed that this prayer does not call for deliberation at all, because if power vested in the authority by the statute is wrongly exercised, it can be questioned, but a wrong exercise of a power will not affect the vires of the Statute This contention, therefore, is untenable. Moreover, a relief for quashing of statute through a miscellaneous petition arising out of 561-A CrPC, the petitioner is absolutely incompetent. 20. Here it would be appropriate to notice that the petitioner also seeks recalling of order dated 18-09-2012 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.P. Singh on the ground that it was based on whims and caprices. This contention can be well appreciated in the light of the order itself reproduced in extenso in the opening paragraphs which reveals that when the petition was taken up for consideration, the petitioner was apprised of the law which protects the Judicial acts of the Judicial Officers and the consequences of such litigation, yet the petitioner insisted for issuance of process and at that stage, the Hon'ble Judge directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 25000/- to demonstrate his bonafides to which he reacted with a statement that he has no faith in the Court and sought release of the case for consideration by some other Bench. 25000/- to demonstrate his bonafides to which he reacted with a statement that he has no faith in the Court and sought release of the case for consideration by some other Bench. The statement so made by the petitioner that `he has no faith in the Court' amounts to an interference in the administration of justice giving cause for contempt proceedings against him, consequently he was put on notice to show cause as to why he be not proceeded against in contempt, but he failed to file any reply and when the matter came up for further consideration before the Court, a statement was made by the petitioner that he had already filed the reply in the Registry against proper receipt and sought time for its production stating that he must have kept the reply in some other file. A detailed order in this regard was passed by the Court on 24.05.2013 in which Registry was also directed to trace the reply and place it on the file, but could not do the same because it was never filed. The statement made by the petitioner, when appeared in person on 24.05.2013, was, thus, incorrect and false. He did not express any regret for having made a wrong statement and also made no efforts to file reply, instead filed IA (Cr) No. 191/2013 for recalling order dated 18.09.2012 which stands already dismissed. In the given facts, I am in agreement with Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.P. Singh that it amounts to contempt. Be registered accordingly in terms of order dated 18.09.2012. 21. At the conclusion of this order, I wish that the petitioner calls it a day to his adventure and understands that appearance in person does not entitle him to malign the Judges and the Judicial Officers recklessly making aspersions on them undermining the dignity of the Courts because they have denied his desired directions to him, as is evident from the observations of Division Bench, orders of learned CJM, learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge and the learned Single Judge. What I have noticed from the conduct of the petitioner in the Court is that he has no inclination to regret. What I have noticed from the conduct of the petitioner in the Court is that he has no inclination to regret. I am, therefore, of the opinion that expeditious disposal of the contempt proceedings initiated through this order against the petitioner, one way or the other in accordance with law would be in the interest of institution so that this Court is not used as a platform by him all the time to play to the gallery disrespecting the Judicial System as a whole which amounts to an attempt striking at the roots of the administration of justice. 22. Let Registrar Judicial place this order before Lord Chief Justice for assigning these two contempt petitions to the appropriate Benchs.