P ASHOK KUMAR Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SENSING the derailment of procedure established by law at the bottom level of the subordinate judiciary, in that, some Judicial Magistrates, in collusion with complainant Bankers/Financial Institutions, are in the habit of entertaining complaints relating to matters purely of civil nature and thereby, in abuse of judicial discretion and power, superabundantly passing orders under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation of such matters by the police for the undue benefit of the financial institutions, and in some instances they are entertaining similar complaints by themselves under Section 200 Cr.P.C., vigilance enquiries were conducted and reports received and the complaints entertained by them came to be quashed by orders of this Court passed in a number of petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In spite of such reaction by this court and repeated directions to the Judicial Magistrates not to refer the complaints/matters of civil nature for police investigation, recently, while dealing with like matters, it has come to light that such illegal trend is still widely in vogue. Since it was deeply felt that the issue relates to the propriety of the subordinate judiciary, by order dated 11.07.2008, the Registrar (Vigilance Cell), High Court, was directed to collect the details with reference to pendency of such cases before the Judicial Magistrate Courts in the State. Shouldered with the arduous task entrusted by this Court, the Registrar continued the job, however, he could not get the requisite particulars within the time stipulated in view of the reason that some of the Magistrates were reluctant to furnish the full-fledged details. Ultimately, subsequent to the strict direction of this Court, statistics and particulars from the courts of Metropolitan/Judicial Magistrates throughout the State could be procured. This Court places on record its deep appreciation for the erstwhile Registrar, Vigilance, and the present Registrar, Vigilance, High Court, Madras, and the Staff of the Vigilance Cell in accomplishing the task entrusted to them by putting in hard labour and almost working round the clock.

(2.) ANNEXURE-A, B and C available in the vigilance report gives the particulars about the pending cases with regard to credit card transactions, personal loans, Hire Purchase Loans, cheque bouncing cases with IPC. offences etc., and the details of the Magistrates who have taken on file huge number of cases is furnished below:- "ANNEXURE-AChennai III Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai : 10293 X Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai : 10738 XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court , Saidapet, Chennai : 3159 XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai : 171 ------------ Total 24361 ------------ANNEXURE-BCoimbatoreJudicial Magistrate -III, Coimbatore : 243ANNEXURE-C Ramanathapuram Judicial Magistrate Court, Paramakudi : 156 (Grand Total : 24760) "The particulars of the Banks/Financial Institutions at whose instance such cases have been taken on file by the Metropolitan Magistrates at Chennai are available in the Vigilance Report and the same is quoted here-under, III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai Pending Calendar Cases for the offences under Sections406 and 420 of I.P.CX METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, EGMORE, CHENNAIPending Calendar Cases for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of I.P.C. XVII METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, SAIDAPET, CHENNAIPending Calendar Cases for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of I.P.C.XVIII METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, SAIDAPET, CHENNAIPending Calendar Cases

(3.) THE other adverse impact of this illegal practice is mounting up of unnecessary cases and thereby the valuable time of the court is wasted and to the dismay of the legitimate litigants, their cases could not be taken up at right time in the usual course. Already, the judicial system in our country is over-crowded with crores of civil and criminal matters at all levels. THE Apex Court, in its umpteen number of judgments, has repeatedly cautioned the subordinate judiciary to stem the tide of the expanding use of criminal law in settlement of disputes which are basically of civil nature. In G. Sagar Suri & another v. State of UP & Others (2000) 2 SCC 636), the Supreme Court held that it is the duty and obligation of the criminal court to exercise a great deal of caution in issuing the process particularly when matters are essentially of civil nature. That being so, in view of mixing the civil disputes with criminal offences, the aggrieved parties are increasingly invoking the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prevent abuse of the process of Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. THE illegal practice has made the Magistrate Courts breeding points of pendency of unnecessary criminal cases reflecting its adverse effect at all levels upto the Supreme Court.