KANWAL JEET ARORA Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(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:

(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.