In a criminal revision petition filed before the Allahabad High Court against an order by the Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Varanasi, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Harvir Singh, found the revision to be devoid of any merit but noted that abusive language was used in the statement of the witnesses as well as the impugned order. Hence, all judicial officers of the State of U.P. were directed to take appropriate measures for avoiding filthy language while discharging their duties.
By the impugned order, the Special Judge dismissed the complaint of the revisionist under Section 203[1] of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973, on the ground that there was no cogent evidence against the opposite parties.
The revisionist submitted that the impugned order was not only illegal but also arbitrary, and that it was liable to be set aside because the Special Judge failed to consider the statements of the complainant as well as those of the witnesses. It was also submitted that the revisionist was assaulted after an altercation took place between the parties.
Furthermore, it was submitted that the opposite party had snatched the mangalsutra of the revisionist at gunpoint, and that despite the complete evidence, the Special Judge dismissed the complaint without considering the evidence. The opposing parties contended that the mere allegations made in the complaint were insufficient to summon the accused, as there was no concrete evidence on record.
The Court perused the record and stated that three witnesses were examined, including the complainant and two other witnesses. However, it was said that the statements lacked coherence and that mere allegations were insufficient unless cogent evidence was available on record. Further, the Court perused the medical report and said the injuries suffered by the revisionist were simple in nature, but the weapon used to cause injuries could not be identified.
Hence, the Court found no infirmity in the order and dismissed the petition. However, the Court perused the record in its entirety and found that abusive language was used not only in the order passed by the Special Judge but also in the statement of PW1.
The Court stated that, despite repeated instructions to use decent language when passing judicial orders or recording statements, it appeared that the Special Judge had failed to pay attention to the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court as well as this Court while passing said order. Thus, the Court directed all judicial officers of the state judiciary to take due precautions to avoid using abusive or filthy language, as the decorum and dignity of the post are reflected in the language used in judicial orders.
Lastly, the Court directed that the present order be circulated amongst all judicial officers of the State of U.P. for compliance and to avoid the usage of such language while discharging their duties.
Appearance:
For Revisionist – Mr. Rajiv Chowdhury
For Opposite Party(s) – G.A.
[1] Section 226 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
