Thus, it can be safely said that an attempt in
joining judge who passed impunged order as party respondent
in these Appeals is not only aimed at pressurising him but also
to caution other judges not to pass order against him or they
would also face similar fate. Most importantly permitting such
impleadment will take away the essence of the judicial
system, wherein the judges are required to live the oath of
discharging duties without fear.
Registry is directed not to register any Appeal, wherein
judicial officer is made party Respondent and in any such
cases, objection be raised with regard to maintainability of
Appeal. This order be circulated to all Appellate Courts in
State of Maharashtra, for its compliance. {Para 16}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 754 OF 2025
Jagannath Prasad Shoke
Vs State Of Maharashtra ...Respondent No.1
Shri P. P. Muley Special Judge appointed under Section
14(1) of SC/ST POA Act Addl. District & Session Court
Kalyan (West) 421301. ...Respondent No.2
CORAM R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATED: 27th JANUARY 2026
1. These Appeals take exception to the order passed by
Special Court under the Provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, “Atrocities Act”), by
impleading the Judge who passed the order impugned as
Respondent No.2. Following chart would indicate the orders
impugned in these Appeals:
Appeal Nos. Date of order Order in challenge
754 of 2025 15.07.2025 C.P./Cri. M.A. No. 76 of 2025
987 of 2025 17.05.2025 Cri. M.A. No. 46 of 2025
985 of 2025 17.05.2025 Cri. M.A. No. 46 of 2025
986 of 2025 17.05.2025 Cri. M.A. No. 46 of 2025
988 of 2025 17.05.2025 Cri. M.A. No. 46 of 2025
1007 of 2025 05.07.2025 Special Case No. 560 of 2019
1047 of 2025 19.07.2025 Cri. M.A. No. 93 of 2017
2. At this stage, this Court is not going into the merits of
the Appeal and correctness or otherwise of the orders
impugned. The present order is restricted to the issue as to
“whether the learned Judge who passed the orders impugned
can be joined as a party Respondent to the present Appeal”.
3. Essentially, the Appellant claims in these Appeals that, in
view of the provisions of sub-section 2 of Section 3 of the
Judges Protection Act, 1985, it is permissible to add the
Special Judge as a Respondent to the present Appeal. It is
claimed that the learned Judge acted against the directions of
law and refused to perform duty entrusted on Special Judge
under the Atrocities Act and the Rules. It is also claimed that
the Judge passed the orders impugned without hearing
Complainant and his Advocate, which is contrary to the
provisions of Section 15A(5) of the Atrocities Act. It is alleged
that the Judge observed a practice of untouchability, which is
abolished under Article 17 of the Constitution of India. With
these averments, following prayers were made in the Appeal,
with change in the date of impugned orders and number of
proceedings, which read thus:
“(a) The Hon’ble High Court kindly be quash and setaside
the order passed by Special Court Kalyan on
17.5.2025 on Exh-1 in Cri.M.A. 46 of 2017, in the
interest of justice please.
(b) Pending the hearing and final disposal of present
appeal, the implementation of order dated 17.5.2025
in Cri. MA 46 of 2017 kindly be stayed in the interest
of justice please.
(c) The interim relief under prayer clause (b) above
kindly granted – ex-parte, being violation of principle
of natural justice & law laid down by Hon’ble Apex
court in Hariram Bhambhi case, uphold rights of
victim to hear u/s 15A (5) of POA Act, in the interest
of justice please.
(d) The Hon’ble High Court kindly be called for
records and proceedings of Cri.M.A. 46 of 2017 from
Special Court & DJ-5 & ASJ Kalyan u/s 15A (4) of the
POA Act, in the interest of justice please.
(e) The Hon’ble High Court kindly restrains
respondents No. 1 and 2 u/s 15A (8) (c) of POA Act
under original jurisdiction of the court, in the facts
and circumstances of the case, since respondents
continuously acting against special provisions of
SC/ST POA Act and PCR Act and damaging / affecting
administration of justice hence necessary to prevent
copying of offence, in the interest of justice please.
(f) Any other and further order as Hon’ble High
Court may deem fit, proper and necessary in the facts
and circumstances of the case may also be passed for
complete justice please.”
4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant made oral
submissions so also filed written notes under the caption “lists
of points to be argued” in support of his contentions. It is his
main submission, amongst others, that, in view of the
provisions of Section 3(2) of the Judge Protection Act, it is
permissible for the Appellant to join the Judge who has passed
the order impugned, as a Respondent. It is his contention that
since the learned Judge has refused to monitor the
investigation and disposed of the proceedings before him, this
amounts to not following the mandate of Section 156(3) of
the Cr.P.C. It is his submission that the protection under the
provisions of the Judges Protection Act would not be available
for Respondent No.2 and since there is non-compliance with
mandatory provisions of the Act, he deserves an action as
contemplated by the provisions of the Atrocities Act as well as
contempt of Courts Act. It is his further submission that it was
mandatory on the part of the learned Judge to hear the
victim, i.e. the Appellant herein, before passing the order
impugned, as the same has not been done, Appeals can be
maintained against him. He placed reliance on following
1) Priti Agarwalla And Others Vs. The State Of GNCT Of
Delhi And Others1.
2) M. Subramaniam And Another Vs. S. Janaki And
Another2.
3) Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. And Others3.
4) K. N. Shukla Vs. Navnit Lal Manilal Bhat And Anr4.
5) The State of GNCT of Delhi And Others Vs. Praveen
Kumar @ Prashant5.
5. It is made clear, at the outset that the correctness and
otherwise of the impugned orders in these Appeals are not
gone into at this stage; the same shall be decided after
hearing the Appellant and the necessary party Respondent. At
this stage, the only question arises as to whether a Judge can
be joined as a party Respondent to an Appeal.
1 Criminal Appeal No (S). 348 of 2021 of Supreme Court.
2 Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 2011 of Supreme Court
3 AIR 2008 SC 907
4 1967 AIR 1331
5 Criminal Appeal No.349 of 2021
6. It is pertinent to note that the procedural laws as well as
substantial laws applicable to civil or criminal proceeding do
not provide for the joining of a Judge as a party Respondent,
who has passed any order, when an order passed by him/her
is under challenge in an Appeal. In a Civil Appeal, the party to
the original proceedings or who is likely to be affected by
passing of the order can become party and not otherwise. In a
Criminal Appeal, the accused, the victim and the State would
only be relevant parties. Under the provisions of Atrocities
Act, in view of Section 15A (5), the victim would be a
necessary party to an Appeal filed under Section 14A, as the
victim or his dependent shall be entitled to be heard at any
proceeding under the Act. Similarly, in view of the Judgment
of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Arjun Malage
vs State of Maharashtra6, the victim of an offence under the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act requires to be
heard. Thus, except for the categories of persons mentioned
above, no other persons can become party to an Appeal.
6 PIL NO.50 OF 2021
Moreover, there is absence of any provision of law, substantial
or procedural, permitting the joining of the judicial officer
who has passed order impugned as a party Respondent, such
judicial officer cannot be joined / made as a party Respondent
to an Appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the Appellant seeks to place reliance
on section 3 of Judges Protection Act to argue that in the view
of the said provisions, a judge can be joined as a party
respondent to present Appeal. It would be relevant to take
note of said provision which reads thus:
“3. Additional protection to Judges.- (1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law
for the time being in force and subject to the
provisions of sub-section(2), no court shall entertain
or continue any civil or criminal proceeding against
any person who is or was a Judge for any act, thing or
word committed, done or spoken by him when, or in
the course of, acting or purporting to act in the
discharge of his official or judicial duty or function.
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall debar or
affect in any manner the power of the Central
Government or the State Government or the Supreme
Court of India or any High Court or any other
authority under any law for the time being in force to
take such action (whether by way of civil, criminal, or
departmental proceedings or otherwise) against any
person who is or was a Judge.”
A bare perusal of section 3(2) indicates that reliance placed
upon the same by the Appellant is wholly misplaced. The said
provision enables the Central Government, Supreme Court or
High Court to take action by way of civil, criminal or
departmental proceedings against a judge.
On the contrary, subsection (1) creates a complete embargo
on court in entertaining or continuing any civil or criminal
proceedings against any person, who has done any act, thing
or word spoken, when acting or purporting to act in discharge
of his official or judicial duty or function. Thus, even a
purported act in discharge of duty or function of a judge, is
exempted from civil or criminal proceedings.
8. The reference made to provision of section 4 of the
Atrocities Act is also irrelevant for deciding the issue in hand.
The said provision in no way would justify joining a judge as
party to an Appeal challenging order passed by him.
9. Apart from the fact that there is no legal provision
which supports joining/adding of the judicial officer as a party
Respondent in an Appeal, it would be necessary to foresee
consequences of permitting such addition. First of all, judicial
officer who passes any order in exercise of his judicial powers
is not required to justify the same in an Appeal. Judges are
not expected to follow their orders and provide justification
for passing of the same. It cannot be ignored that any order
passed by the Judge is bound to be against one party or other.
In such circumstances, at least one side will have grievance
against the Judge. The remedy however for such aggrieved
party would be to prefer an Appeal against such order before
the Appellate forum and not to prosecute Judge in an Appeal.
In such Appeal, on judicial side, Appellate Court is expected to
see as to whether the order impugned is justified and if it is
so, it can be maintained. In case order is not in accordance
with law, the same can be set aside. But, in no circumstances a
Judge can be called upon to justify merits of his order in
Appeal.
10. Permitting joining of a judicial officer as a party
Respondent to an Appeal will have serious and drastic
consequences on the entire judicial system. Needless to say
that if a Judge is made as a party, he will have to defend his
own order before the Appellate Court. Neither State nor
administration of the Court can do so on his behalf. Thus, not
only the Judge would be required to spend time, money and
energy in defending of his own order, but a situation will
come when he will not be in a position to perform his judicial
role of hearing and deciding lis, but would only require to
defend the orders passed by him previously. This is never
contemplated by the law and the judicial system. Permitting
such situation to occur will lead only to chaos and nothing
else. One more aspect requires consideration is that to
maintain the independence of judiciary, the judges must be
protected from attempts made by unscrupulous judgments,
who leave no stone unturned, to secure order in favour by
hook or crook. Scandalising judges and browbeating them are
some of such tactics. In one of the present Appeals i.e. Appeal
No. 754 of 2025, order dated 3rd July 2025 filed by Appellant
himself indicats that he had joined Respondent No.2 herein,
as party in Protest Petition. The said order requires
reproduction herein:
“ORDER
1. This is a Protest Petition filed by the petitioner
in 'C' summary filed on 19.09.2016 in FIR-
353/2011. He has claimed the reliefs for rejection
of 'C' summery, for direction for further
investigation, registration of case under Section
4(2)(b) of POA Act and for further investigation,
direction to register FIR, calling for recording and
proceedings and for expeditious trial.
2. Petitioner has made the State Government of
Maharashtra as accused No.1, Special Judge of
Additional District and Sessions Court, Kalyan Shri.
P. P. Muley as accused No.2 and Ld. Advocate Shri.
M.M. Deshmukh of Kalyan as accused No.3.
3. The Superintendent of Additional District
Court, Kalyan has submitted the objections to
register the case on 02.07.2025.
4. Heard the petitioner at a length. Perused the
Petition filed by the petitioner.
5. Considering the reliefs claimed by the
petitioner the arraying of Special Judge of
Additional District and Sessions Court, Kalyan Shri.
P. P. Muley and Ld. Advocate Shri. M.Μ. Deshmukh
of Kalyan is not warranted.
6. Secondly, Shri. P.P. Muley, Special Judge of
District Kalyan and Advocate Shri. M.M. Deshmukh
were not the parties to the earlier proceedings.
Therefore, they are not to be made parties in this
petition.
7. Thirdly, Shri. P. P. Muley, District Judge-5 and
Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan is protested
under the provisions of Judge (Protection) Act,
1985. As per the provision of Section 3 of this Act,
notwithstanding anything contained in any other
law of the time being in force and subject to the
provisions of Sub-section (2), no court shall
entertain or continue any civil or criminal
proceeding against any person, who is or was a
Judge for any act, thing or word committed, done
or spoken by him when, or in the course of, acting
or purporting to act in the discharge of his official
or judicial duty or function.
8. It is argued by the petitioner that the
protection under the Judge Protection Act, 1985 is
not applicable.
9. Petitioner relied upon the case of Baburao
Dagadu Paralkar V/s. State of Maharashtra wherein
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "no
Judgment of a court, no order of a Minister can be
allowed to stand, if it has been obtained by fraud.
Fraud unravels everything."
10. As per the present case and the above referred
case are altogether different. Therefore, in my
opinion with due respect the above referred
Judgment Baburao (Supra), is not applicable to the
present case. If the petitioner is having grievance
against the orders passed by any court, petitioner
has every right to challenge those orders before the
Hon'ble Superior Courts.
11. Considering the above said discussion, facts of
the case and the reliefs claimed, I pass the following
order.
ORDER
The Protest Petition be registered only against the
respondent No.1 i.e. State Government of
Maharashtra.”
11. Fortunately the learned Special Court refuses to
approve the joining of a judge as party to the said
proceedings. Thus, it can be safely said that an attempt in
joining judge who passed impunged order as party respondent
in these Appeals is not only aimed at pressurising him but also
to caution other judges not to pass order against him or they
would also face similar fate. Most importantly permitting such
impleadment will take away the essence of the judicial
system, wherein the judges are required to live the oath of
discharging duties without fear.
12. At this stage, it would be relevant to take note of the
Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in a case of
Common Citizen of India (Common Man) And Anr. Vs. The
Hon’ble High Court Judicature of Bombay And Ors7. The
relevant paragraphs thereof are reproduced herein below:
“16. The attempt of the petitioners to implead the
Judges of this court deserves to be strongly
deprecated. A litigant cannot, even if he is appearing
in person and just because he is unsuccessful in the
initial round, while seeking a review of the orders
passed by this court, implead the Hon'ble Judges and
the Bench sitting collectively or individually as party
respondents. The review petition, as is ordinarily well
settled, has to be heard by the same Judge for the
review goes to the Judge and appeal goes to the court.
If the review has to be heard by the very same Judge,
then we do not see how the petitioner can complain
that the said review petition should not be heard by
one of the Judges comprising the Bench or if that is
heard by a distinct Bench and dismissed, he can go on
impleading and arraying all the Judges as party
respondents and seeking reliefs against them
personally. We do not think that the petitioner's
prayers in that behalf can be granted.
23. Before parting, we must once again reiterate our
strong disapproval of the practice which appears to be
prevailing in the Registry of the Aurangabad Bench of
this court. The Registry there does not seem to think it
necessary to object to the impleadment of the Hon'ble
Judges comprising a Division Bench or a Judge sitting
singly as party respondents to review petitions or
applications in that nature.
7 W.P. No. 10972 of 2015
24. We have not been shown any rule which requires
such impleadment. We, therefore, strongly recommend
that hereafter, the Registrar (Judicial) shall insist upon
parties/litigants and their advocates deleting the
names of Hon'ble Judges as party respondents to
review petitions and until such deletion, the matter
should be treated as not ready or under objections.
Despite opportunity being given to the litigants and
their advocates to delete such names and references to
the Hon'ble Judges and personal allegations against
them, if the same are not deleted by carrying out
appropriate amendments, the Registry shall append a
note on the proceedings themselves stating clearly that
parties and lawyers were asked to delete such
references, but there being no compliance, the matter
comes to be placed before an appropriate court for
directions. That would enable the appropriate court to
dismiss such proceedings only on this ground. Just as
there is enough justification for discontinuance of such
practice because none can insist on such impleadment,
its discontinuance upholds a salutary principle. The
sanctity and purity of court proceedings lies in
protection to Judges and presiding officers against
personal attacks by litigants lawyers on them. It is too
well settled to require any reference to a judgment or
a precedent that there is freedom to be critical of a
judgment, but the language of such criticism must be
sobre and respectful. The discourse of law is the
discourse of civility. Even in the memo of review
petitions or appeals, criticism of the judgment should
not reflect any personal attack of the litigant or the
draftsman on the Judge or presiding officer. None can
claim a freedom to mount an attack, and that too
contemptuous, on a Judge while criticising or assailing
his judgment. If this much protection to the Judge is
not ensured or there is no safeguard against malicious
personal allegations, no court or no Judge can
function fearlessly and independently. Sometimes, a
court is required to be severely critical of the conduct
of parties before it. It does not demean or show any
disrespect to them much less personally, but ensures
that the hand of the law is strong enough, and its arm
long enough to punish every guilty person howsoever
high he may be and to reach injustice wherever it is
found.”
The above observations though made in case of review
petition, would aptly apply to the present case and issue
involved herein.
13. Upshot of above discussion is that joining of a Judge,
passing order impugned, as party Respondent in an Appeal is
not permissible and Appeal with such party would not be
maintainable.
14. Needless to say that even though it is not open for
Appellant or any person to join the Judge concerned, who has
passed the impugned order, as a party Respondent to the
Appeal, there would be inherent power of the High Court, so
also in appropriate cases, Appellate Court to seek an explanation from the concerned Judge for passing of the order impugned.
15. The Appellant is therefore directed to delete Respondent
No.2 from the array of Respondent within a period of two
weeks from today.
16. Registry is directed not to register any Appeal, wherein
judicial officer is made party Respondent and in any such
cases, objection be raised with regard to maintainability of
Appeal. This order be circulated to all Appellate Courts in
State of Maharashtra, for its compliance.
17. Stand over to 20th February 2026.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
No comments:
Post a Comment