A novel method of filing a civil writ petition was invented with a prayer for the consolidation of eight first information reports to avoid the roster judge who had not granted interim relief.
—
IN a recent ruling, the Supreme Court expressed its surprise at a Rajasthan High Court judge entertaining a civil writ petition for clubbing certain first information reports (FIRs).
Clubbing of FIRs falls under a separate roster for criminal writ petitions.
The Bench, which comprised Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, observed that judges have to follow court discipline and ought not to take up any case unless it is specifically assigned by the Chief Justice.
“Though a civil writ petition was filed, the learned judge ought to have converted it into a criminal writ petition which could have been placed only before the roster judge taking up the criminal writ petitions,” the Bench ruled.
In this case, a total of six FIRs were registered by the petitioner against three persons, namely Jay Purhoit, Piyush Dosi and Mahaveer Dosi.
There were two other FIRs against the same persons but by a different person. Two criminal miscellaneous petitions were filed by the accused persons for quashing the FIRs filed at the instance of the other complainant.
In April 2023, on a petition filed by the accused persons under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the FIR, the high court granted no interim relief.
However, the accused persons took a step which the Bench described as extraordinary.
On May 5, 2023, a writ petition was filed on the civil side by three accused in which a prayer was made for issuing a writ of mandamus for clubbing the eight FIRs and consolidating them into one.
Justice Dr Pushpendra Singh Bhati, while hearing the civil writ petition, directed that no coercive action should be taken against the accused persons in connection with all the eight FIRs. It was this Order which was challenged before the Supreme Court.
The petitioner argued before the Supreme Court that the single-judge dealing with the assignment of criminal matters as per the roster notified by the Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court did not grant interim relief to the accused persons in the two FIRs which they wanted to be quashed.
The petitioner added that a novel method of filing a civil writ petition was invented with a prayer for the consolidation of eight FIRs.
This was done, the petitioner submitted, to avoid the roster judge who had not granted interim relief. The Bench was also informed that the complainants were not made a party to the civil writ petitions. Interestingly, both in the civil and criminal cases, the same advocate represented the accused persons.
Admonishing the accused persons, the Bench described their conduct a classic case of forum-hunting adding that this was a case of gross abuse of the process of law.
The Bench also expressed displeasure at Justice Bhati. It said: “Taking up a case not specifically assigned by the Chief Justice is an act of gross impropriety.”
The Bench imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on the accused persons while allowing the petition and vacating the coercive Order.
