SAT NARAIN Vs. PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of Court. An incident of 1997 is now sought to be raked up and prayer made in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is that appropriate action may be taken against Shri B.S. Mangat, who now occupies the post of Additional District & Sessions Judge and is posted at Barnala, for his discharging duty as Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Abohar, when in a criminal case that was registered against the petitioner, he remanded him to the police custody from 11.9.1997 to 15.9.1997.

(2.) INDEED , the petitioner made a complaint against the second respondent to the High Court which, according to his own showing, was inquired into. Surely, if petitioner heard nothing about his complaint, or no action having been taken against Shri B.S. Magat-second respondent, it ought to have been rejected. Despite the fact that petitioner had addressed a complaint to the competent authority and the same was looked into as well without, of course, any result, present petition has been filed after six years. If in the cases of the kind in hand, notices are issued to those, who are discharging their judicial functions and pertaining to matters which are exclusively judicial and in their domain, it would completely demoralise them. So that, those, who are entrusted with public duties, carry their functions fearlessly, Central and State Governments have made Acts protecting them under the various Acts, when allegations made against them, may pertain to something that is done in the discharge of their duties. The pertinent reference in this regard may be made to provisions contained in the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. Section 3 of the Act of 1985 reads thus :-