Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Nilesh C. Ojha, an advocate representing Sanjay Punamiya (defendant no.1 in Suit no.175 of 2014), filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court. The suit concerned a 7,000 sq. ft. flat at Marine Drive, Mumbai, where the plaintiff (owner's daughter) alleged that Punamiya trespassed and fabricated documents to claim a lease. The petitioner sought contempt action and criminal prosecution against respondent no.2 (Justice Roshan Dalvi, a sitting High Court judge), respondent no.3 (PSI Shengle), and other police officers for allegedly illegally delivering possession of the flat to the plaintiff. The court examined the maintainability of the petition. It noted that the judge had passed orders in the civil suit, and the police had executed those orders. The court held that judicial officers are immune from criminal prosecution for acts done in their official capacity under Sections 77 and 78 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Police officers acting under court orders are similarly protected. The court found the petition to be an abuse of the process of law and dismissed it with costs of Rs.25,000.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Abuse of Process of Law - Maintainability of Criminal Writ Petition - Petition filed by an advocate seeking contempt action against a High Court judge and police officers for alleged illegal delivery of possession - Held that the petition is an abuse of the process of law and is dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000 (Paras 1-10).
B) Judicial Immunity - Protection of Judicial Officers - Sections 77 and 78 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Judicial officers are immune from criminal prosecution for acts done in the discharge of their official duties - Held that no criminal proceedings can be initiated against a judge for acts done in judicial capacity (Paras 5-8).
C) Police Protection - Acts Done Under Court Orders - Police officers acting in obedience to court orders are protected from criminal liability - Held that the police officers who executed the court's order for possession cannot be prosecuted (Paras 6-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a criminal writ petition seeking contempt action and criminal prosecution against a sitting High Court judge and police officers for alleged illegal delivery of possession in a civil suit is maintainable.
Final Decision
The Criminal Writ Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000 to be paid to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority.
Law Points
- Judicial immunity
- Protection of judicial officers
- Police protection under court orders
- Abuse of process of law
- Criminal contempt
- Sections 77 and 78 of the Indian Penal Code
- 1860
Case Details
Criminal Writ Petition No.3611 of 2014
Mohit S. Shah, Chief Justice, B.P. Colabawalla, J.
Mr. Nilesh C. Ojha (Petitioner in person), Mr. S.K. Shinde (Public Prosecutor) with Mr. J.P. Jagnik (Additional Public Prosecutor) for Respondent-State
State of Maharashtra, Smt. Justice Roshan Dalvi, Shri Shengle, Shri D.V. Sawant, Shri O.D. Kakde, Shri Sanjay Punamiya, Central Bureau of Investigation, Smt. Mohini Kamwani
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal Writ Petition seeking contempt action and criminal prosecution against a High Court judge and police officers for alleged illegal delivery of possession in a civil suit.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought contempt action and criminal prosecution against respondent no.2 (Justice Roshan Dalvi), respondent no.3 (PSI Shengle), and other police officers for allegedly illegally delivering possession of a flat to the plaintiff in Suit no.175 of 2014.
Filing Reason
Petitioner alleged that the judge and police officers acted illegally in delivering possession of the suit flat to the plaintiff, despite the petitioner's client (defendant) being in possession.
Issues
Whether a criminal writ petition seeking contempt action against a sitting High Court judge for acts done in judicial capacity is maintainable.
Whether police officers acting under court orders can be prosecuted for executing those orders.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the judge and police officers acted illegally and should be prosecuted for contempt and criminal offences.
Respondents (State) argued that the petition is an abuse of process and that judicial officers and police are immune from prosecution for acts done in discharge of official duties.
Ratio Decidendi
Judicial officers are immune from criminal prosecution for acts done in the discharge of their official duties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Police officers acting in obedience to court orders are similarly protected. A petition seeking contempt action against a judge for judicial acts is an abuse of the process of law.
Judgment Excerpts
Before indicating the prayers for which this Criminal Writ Petition is filed, it will be necessary to refer to the facts noted by this Court in Appeal (L) no.352 of 2014 and the orders passed by Mrs.Justice Roshan Dalvi.
The petitioner is an Advocate for Sanjay Punamiya, defendant no.1 in Suit no.175 of 2014.
The suit is filed by the owner of a 7,000 sq. ft. flat at Marine Drive, Mumbai, alleging that defendant no.1 trespassed into the suit flat and fabricated documents to show that he is granted lease in the suit flat on a monthly rent of Rs.50,000/- per month only.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition No.3611 of 2014 before the Bombay High Court seeking contempt action and criminal prosecution against a sitting High Court judge and police officers. The court reserved judgment on 7 November 2014 and pronounced it on 11 November 2014.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 77, 78
