JUDGMENT
Jaspal Singh, J.
(1) The petitioner is a young Metropolitan Magistrate still measuring his wings while respondent No. 2 is an Additional Sessions Judge having weathered many a seasons of judicial life, Unfortunately, in a judicial order, respondent No. 2 has passed certain remarks against the petitioner. While the petitioner has found them unpalatable and has prayed for their expunction, the State too has found them indefensible.
(2) It so happened that on an application of the State for cancellation of an F.I.R. the petitioner took cognizance and passed an order for summoning of the accused. Aggrieved by that order the accused persons preferred a criminal revision. An Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order with a direction to the petitioner to reconsider the matter, and to spell out the offences of which he had taken the cognizance “with reasoned order and also to what persuaded him not to accept the police report.” Consequent upon that order, the petitioner passed an order, the relevant portion of which runs as under: “I have perused the proceeding including the complaint which was the precursor of the whole proceeding. I have also perused the medical legal report by which the complainant Harvinder was examined. On the basis of complaint that there is nothing at this stage to disbelieve the complainant, I, therefore, take cognizance of the offences u/s. 326/506/34, Indian Penal Code against accused Dina Nath, Mukesh Mata and Ram Swaroop Tyagi. As accused Dina Nath is present in person so no need to issue summons to him, the other two accused, namely, Mukesh and Ram Swaroop be summoned for 11.4.97.”
(3) The order saw the filing of yet another revision petition. It came up for disposal before respondent No. 2. While allowing the revision petition, respondent No. 2 passed the following remarks against the petitioner. “SUCH acts on the part of the learned Magistrate brought his action in disrepute. It is obvious that the learned Additional Sessions Judge cried hoarse with his all lung powers, but the learned Magistrate has not bothered to listen him. The learned Magistrate was at his wit’s end and deliberately circumvented and adopted dubious methods to avoid the cautions embedded in the order dated 19.11.96, which fact amounts to wilful disobedience of the order of a Superior Court…. It signified a wilful disregard and disobedience of the Court’s order…. Despite the above intervention, the fissures in the thoughts of the learned Magistrate remained and even grow wider. He went on without following the legal dictates with more askance at the order passed by the Superior Court. He winked at the order of the Superior Court and passed a mechanical and routine order. Thus, he had committed the contempt of the Court of Sh.J.D.Kapoor, Additional Sessions Judge, Karkarduma Courts, Delhi and is liable to be proceeded with under Section 16 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. His judicial insouciance (sic) resulted into lengthening (sic) the litigation to the limit of exasperation (sic) which act has to be viewed with great concern. Since the learned Magistrate is a naive in the filed of law, I do not propose to make a reference to the Hon’ble High Court under Contempt of Courts Act. But a warning is administered to him to be careful in future and to act in the spirit of the orders of the Superior Courts.”
(4) I do not think the remarks were called for. The order employs sledge hammer rather than tools of the precision mechanic. Anger seems to have taken over analytic faculties. Though respondent No. 2 protests vociferously over the petitioner ignoring the “command” of the superior Court, he himself in his anxiety to castigate the petitioner, ignores what was said by this Court in Court on its own motion in re. Umesh Kumar 1997 Iv Ad (Delhi ) 791. Perhaps, it takes time to learn.
(5) The remarks in question are expunged.