IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION (SR) No.215447 of 2012 BETWEEN Murala. Gopinadh.
... PETITIONER AND The State, SHO, Prakashnagar PS, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. (Rep. Ministry of Home, through Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad) ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner: PARTY-IN-PERSON Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME (AP) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard party-in-person.
2. The relief sought for in this writ petition is manifold and the substance of the relief, however, which the party-in-person conveys is that there is tampering and trafficking of judicial records relating to M.C.No.29 of 2010 before the Family Court, Rajahmundry and seeks action to be taken against the advocate against whom he makes allegations. Party- in-person also seeks certiorari jurisdiction be exercised to call for records from the II Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry and to quash the judicial proceedings issued by the said Court dated 22.11.2011 and to send the records of the case to Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nuzvid. Party-in-person also seeks further reliefs such as exemption from appearance before the Rajahmundry Court and speedy trial of CF.No.3633 of 2012 before the Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Krishna etc.
3. During the hearing on the previous dates and as per the records, it was noticed that the party-in-person has made two complaints on the administrative side to this Court making similar allegations. I had, therefore, directed the Registrar (Vigilance) to circulate the files relating to those complaints, which were stated to have been already disposed of. Registrar (vigilance) placed before this Court the record, which, inter alia, contains the complaint petition dated 19.03.2012 sent by the party-in-person making allegations against the advocate with regard to tampering and trafficking of judicial records in M.C.No.29 of 2010. After examining the matter, the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, on the administrative side, directed on 28.08.2012 that the party-in-person be advised to take appropriate steps, in accordance with law, before the appropriate forum. Subsequently, another complaint of the party-in-person was received alleging that false report is made by the same advocate against whom earlier complaint was made stating that he gave false information to the SHO, Nuzvid, thereby, preventing him from discharging his duties in Cr.Nos.173 of 2010 and 31 of 2013. The said complaint was also examined on the administrative side and the Hon’ble the Chief Justice by further order dated 03.07.2013 directing that no action need be taken on the said complaint. Thus, as the aforesaid complaints, on the administrative side, were accordingly disposed of, the party-in-person has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the reliefs, as aforesaid.
4. Even this writ petition is pending from 24.01.2013 and heard on several occasions by different Hon’ble Judges of this Court. Even on earlier occasion, on 15.02.2013, the Registrar (Judicial) was directed to ascertain whether the petition, being CRLMP.No.2307 of 2011 in CC.No.133 of 2010 filed by the party-in-person is still pending or whether any orders have been passed therein. A report was accordingly filed before this Court and it was recorded by this Court on 01.03.2013 that CRLP.No.8158 of 2011 and batch were already disposed of by the learned Magistrate by quashing the summons issued. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned on various dates and as mentioned above, on 20.11.2014, when it was listed before me, I had directed the Registrar (Vigilance) to place before this Court the record relating the official memorandum in Roc.No.655/12, Vigilance Cell dated 30.08.2012, mentioned by the party-in-person.
In the paragraphs above, the details with regard to the report are all mentioned.
5. During the hearing, I have also asked the party-in-person as to whether he requires any assistance of an advocate under legal aid. Party-in-person, however, declined to accept the legal aid.
6. The relief sought for by the party-in-person, as briefly narrated above in the opening paragraph of this order, shows that all the said reliefs are relating to the judicial proceedings of the learned II Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajahmundry and if the party-in-person has any grievance against any of the orders passed or any proceedings taken, he could have as well availed the appropriate remedies under the Criminal Procedure Code by invoking the revisional jurisdiction or approaching this Court seeking quashing of the said proceedings. Bypassing the said remedies, however, the party-in-person has filed the present writ petition. Obviously, the office has not numbered the writ petition on account of the nature of reliefs sought for and it coming up at SR stage. The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is well settled, is required to be invoked only in the absence of any efficacious alternative remedy and since the petitioner has adequate efficacious alternative remedy under Cr.P.C, in my view, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not deserve to be invoked. Further, the reliefs sought are also inconsistent and suffer from mis-joinder of several causes of action.
7. Hence, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. However, the party-in-person is granted liberty to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with Cr.P.C, if he is still aggrieved by any of the orders passed by the Court below.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 8, 2014 Note:
Record called for by the Registrar (Vigilance) may be returned in sealed cover.
(B/o) DSK