D RAMAGOPAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRL.O.P.SR.No.9647 of 2008 is presented by the petitioner invoking the provisions under sections 482 and 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure not only to call for the records in C.C.No.10224 of 2001 on the file of the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai but also to restrain Thiru. R. Pongiyappan, learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai from functioning in his present position and CRL.M.P.SR No.9648 of 2008 is presented by the petitioner to pass an interim order restraining the said Judicial Officer from functioning in the present position pending disposal of the aforesaid petition.

(2.) WHILE scrutinizing the averments in the petitions and the prayers sought for by the petitioner, the registry returned the petitioners with the following endorsement:-

(3.) LEARNED Senior Counsel Mr. B. Sriramulu would submit that ample protection is there for the Judges including the Judicial Magistrates under section 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. No proceedings can be proceeded as against a Judge for the discharge of his official or judicial duty or function. A Judicial Magistrate can be restrained from performing his function only by way of suspension or by dismissal as a result of a departmental disciplinary proceedings initiated as against him under the Conduct Rules. The supervisory authority conferred on the High Court under section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be available for the High Court only to ensure the expeditious and proper disposal of the cases by him. A Judicial Officer cannot be impleaded as a party when he had not performed any executive function. All the judicial functions discharged by him can be challenged only by way of appeal or revision before the appellate or revisional forum concerned. In a very bizarre way, the provision under section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is quoted for filing a petition which is not at all sustainable in the eye of law to dethrone a judicial functionary.