HC quashes Sessions Judge’s suo motu action

 

 

THE Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court on Tuesday quashed Principal District and Sessions Judge Dinesh Surana’s suo motu action to file a criminal revision application regarding the midnight arrest of Ritu Maloo by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID). Maloo is accused in the Ram-Jhula accident case, which claimed the lives of two youngsters on February 25 this year. “Neither did we get any clue from the order of Sessions Judge as to what is the reason to invoke the powers, nor after going through the order of Magistrate, we see any reason to hold that the order is improper, against the provisions of law or passed in absence of any propriety,” stated JusticeVinay Joshi and Justice Vrushali Joshi in the order and questioned Judge Surana’s actions concerning his suo motuintervention during the hearing. On September 25, the Judicial Magistrate First Class ( JMFC) granted the CID permission to arrest Malooafter sunset and before sunrise. Consequently, the CID arrested hershortly after midnight on September26 from her residence in DeshpandeLayout, Wardhaman Nagar.

 

However, on Monday, Judge Suranatook suo motu cognisance of themidnight arrest and directed the registry to file a criminal revision application. The High Court quashed thisaction and labelled it illegal andunnecessary. In its observations, the High Court underlined that there was no pressing situation that justified Judge Surana’s suo motu action and noted that it could potentially harm the integrity of the ongoing case. The judges pointed out that Judge Surana failed to provide any substantive reason for his decision to intervene. In his initial ruling, Judge Surana mandated the production of case records to ascertain the legality of the permission granted by the JMFC. He also issued a notice to both the CID and Ritu Maloo to submit their responses. This led to a petition filed by Shahrukh Zia Mohammad in the High Court which challenged Judge Surana’s suo motu action. “At the most the aggrieved person by such order of Magistrate is the accused, who has no grievance at all.

 

The learned Sessions Judge would have assigned some reasons to give signal that there are grounds which necessitates him to exercise suo moto powers. Apart from that, the order permitting arrest during night hours, has already been executed, as the accused was arrested, produced before the Magistrate and the matter has traveled much beyond. We see no fruitful purpose in testing the said order as the things cannot be reversed,” the court stated. Advocate Amol Hunge represented the petitioner, Advocate Shreerang Bhandarkar represented Maloo, and Senior Advocate Firdoz Mirza appeared for the panel, with GP Devendra Chavan representing State.