PRASHANT BHUSHAN Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter referred to as the Code1) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the proceedings against him under Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Briefly stated, case of the petitioner, as made out in the petition, is that on April 2, 2000 he was travelling in Maruti Gypsy No. DAV 1205 from Palampur in District Kangra to NOIDA in U.P. The said vehicle is registered in the name of his father. When the petitioner reached Una his vehicle was stopped by the police and he was asked to show Registration Certificate, Insurance Certificate and Pollution Control Certificate of the vehicle. The petitioner was no carrying the original of the aforesaid certificates and he had shown photocopies of the Registration Certificate and Insurance Certificate to the police officials. However, the validity of the Pollution Control Certificate has expired. The police "challaned the petitioner for not having the original RC and for being without Pollution Control Certificate", a photocopy whereof is Annexure A. The infringement report was put up before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una present on the spot before whom the petitioner explained the lapses on the grounds that he had retained photocopies of the certificates because of the danger of loss of the original documents which were kept at his office at Noida and that in his opinion it is no offence under the Motor Vehicle Act to ply a vehicle without original certificates and copies there of are sufficient proof. It is further case of the petitioner that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate appeared to be annoyed and rudely replied that minimum penalty for not keeping the original certificates in the vehicle was Rs.2000/ - which could extent to Rs.10,000/ -. The petitioner felt that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was trying to harass him, therefore, he informed him that the vehicle belongs to Mr. Shanti Bhushan, a Senior Advocate and former Law Minister of India. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after thinking for some time imposed a penalty of Rs.2100/ -. The petitioner asked the name and designation of the Chief Judicial Magistrate who told him to shut up. The fine, as imposed, was paid. On May 8, 2000, the petitioner received a memo from the office of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, which was silent as to under what provision of law it has been issued. A copy of the memo is Annexure B. It is further claimed that the notice Annexure B is without jurisdiction and in violation of the provisions of Sections 195 and 352 of the Code and is based on totally baseless and false allegations. The petitioner aggrieved by the misuse of judicial powers by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate complained to the Honble Chief Justice of this Court vide Annexure C (a copy whereof appears to have been endorsed to Mr. Ram Jethmalani, Union Minister of Law and Justice, New Delhi). Vide Annexure D, the petitioner was informed by the Registry of this Court that his complaint Annexure "C refers to judicial proceedings, therefore, if aggrieved, he could seek redressal of his grievances in the appropriate forum. Hence, this petition on the grounds that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is barred to try the case against the petitioner under Section 228 IPC in view of the provisions of Section 195 and 352 of the Code as the petitioner had not been proceeded against under Section 345 of the Code, that the charges levelled against the petitioner are false and " that the mandatory provisions of law required to be followed for prosecution under Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code have been violated and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are illegal, mala fide, motivated by ill will and amounts to gross abuse of the judicial powers by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate.

(3.) The respondent/State chose not to file reply to the petition.