Thane Court Not Numbering Corruption Court Matter Against Public Servant, Raising Maintainability Issue To Protect Corrupt Public servants
Thane: Thane Court registry not registering CRPC 156 matter against public servants to register FIR Under Section 7 and 13 of PC act 1988. One matter E filed at thane court under PC act . The registry put objection to bring sanction under 197. When petitioner approached registry and said that CRPC 197 is for trial not for investigation as no person has got imunity from investigation as per SC Order and CRPC 197 not applicable to PC act matter.
The registry staff approached Smt. M.B. Patwari ( Maheshwari Bhagwanrao Patwari ) Session Judge who is adminstrative incharge of filing division. The Judge MB Patwari called the petitionor in court and given direction to comply section 17 A ie sanction for PC act. When petitioner said that your court have no charge under PC act and ADJ 1 have PC act assignment . It is not administrative objection and registry have not power to decide maintainability of petition. Also informed that your court have no power to reject numbering. The Judge said you file reply about 17 A point objection then I will show you my power. In Other courts PC act cases are listed before corruption court for hearing after admininstrative objection.
As per SC Order Registry cannot decide maintainability of petition . The order of Smt MB Patwari was verbal and registry did not taken any written order from Judicial officer . Then registry put objection of section 17 A objection in E filing.
Another PC act FIR case was pending for objection (sanction 17 A) since long time .
As per various High Court orders the public servant doing corruption and not taking action as per law is not part of their duty and no sanction is required under 17 A. Their is no restriction in FIR under PC act . As per Rajasthan HC order FIR can be registered Under PC act without any sanction. As per MP High Court in case of no sanction judge has to do enquiry on its own without the help of police in PC act case.
Inspite of so much legal remedy the registry officials and judge is saving corrupt public servants from listing petition. Without any jurisdiction they are arguing on legal point . In Past Many PC act petitions may be rejected for this objections . This step of court staff is only encouraging corruption inspite of many court orders.
Registry Can't Raise Objections On
Maintainability Even If Alternative Remedy Available, High Court's Discretion
To Exercise Powers Under Article 227:
Madras High Court
Rt.Rev.Timothy Ravinder Dev ... vs Rev.Charles Samraj.N on 16 December, 2021
C.R.P.Sr.Nos.109971 and 111067 of 2021
20. In view of the above, the objections of the Registry on the maintainability of these Revisions are over ruled and I conclude that the Revisions are maintainable. Registry is directed to number both the Revisions and post 'for admission' on 17.12.2021. It is made clear that in future, the Registry shall not raise objections on the ground of maintainability of any cases, where the litigant seek to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Supreme Court of India
P. Surendran vs State By Inspector Of Police on 29 March, 2019
SLP (CRL.) No. 1832 of 2019
10. Therefore, we hold that the High Court Registry could not have exercised such judicial power to answer the maintainability of the petition, when the same was in the realm of the Court. As the power of judicial function cannot be delegated to the Registry, we cannot sustain the order, rejecting the numbering/registration of the Petition, by the Madras High Court Registry. Accordingly, the Madras High Court Registry is directed to number the petition and place it before an appropriate bench.