MM 64 th Court Deny To Number The Defamation Complaint Without Argument Since 16 Sept 2019. Denied To Issue Certified Copy Without Registration Of Complaint.
Mumbai: Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Esplanda Mumbai Shri MA Shinde is not taking any initiative to help the complainant to get registration number of a Criminal Defamation Complaint against a top VVIP since 16 September 2019. Complainant filed defamation complaint before 64th MM Shri Narendra N Joshi Esplanda Mumbai on 16th Sept 2019 but magistrate asked him to do argument for registration of criminal defamation complaint against the VVIP. Complainant adjourned the argument for 1 week. Later he demanded the Hon'ble MM Narendra N Joshi written order by applying for certified copy. The certified copy department issued receipt to complainant without case number violating standard operating procedure. The judicial clerk of MM 64th Court Mr Sanjay Shelar taken written approval from MM Shri Narendra N Joshi and denied the certified copy inspite of payment done. Later court staff also denied to give the copy of MM written denial. They dont want to share any copy with complainant without case number as direction from court .The registrar Shri DR Hegde said to complainant that he has no power to give direction to Judicial Clerk as the JC is under control of MM. The CMM Shri MA Shinde has also not replied any thing in response of complaint . Now the complainant has moved towards Bombay High Court Judge Hon'ble Smt Sadhana Jadhav who is incharge of All Mumbai District Court. As per complainant it is violation of Hon'ble Supreme Court constitution bench order of access to justice.
Citations:
1. Anita Kushwaha vs. Pushap Sudan, ( (2016) 8 SCC 509 ) has held that access of justice is an integral part of the guarantee contained in Article 21 and 14 of the Constitution of India which guarantees equality before law and equal protection of law to not only citizens but non-citizens also.
2. "Our Constitution protects not only the life and liberty
but also the dignity of every person. Life convicts and hardcore
criminals deprived of personal liberty are also not wholly denuded of
their Constitutional rights. Arbitrariness is an anathema to the
principles of reasonableness and fairness enshrined in our
constitutional provisions. The rule of law prohibits the exercise of
power in an arbitrary manner and/or in a manner that travels beyond
the boundaries of reasonableness. Thus, a statutory authority is not
permitted to act whimsically/arbitrarily. Its actions should be guided
by the principles of reasonableness and fairness. The authority cannot
be permitted to abuse the law or to use it unfairly." Supreme Court of India Yunus Khan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others", reported in (2010) 10 SCC 539.
3. C.S.Karnan ( 2017) 7 SCC 1 it is ruled as under ;
High Court Judge disobeying Supreme Court direction and abusing process of court sentenced to six months imprisonment.
4. Supreme court pronouncement is binding on lower courts SC Pronouncement Binding On HCs Even If It Cannot Be Strictly Called 'Ratio Decidendi', Reiterates SC Supreme Court of India. The Peerless Gen.Fin And ... vs Commnr. Of Income Tax on 9 July, 2019
It's meaningful that the complaint filed by complainant found prima facie evidence, therefore one of the caused to not numbering the said cri.Misc.application by the Honourable CMM
ReplyDelete