Holding that the sessions court cannot interfere with the process of justice “while exercising the revisional powers”, Additional District and Sessions Judge (ADSJ) Roopam Singh dismissed a revision application by Dr Mohinder Kumar, who was slapped with a fine of Rs 1 lakh for filing “frivolous complaints against the judicial officers of various courts”. The revision application, in which the Dr Kumar had also sought registration of a case against the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), was dismissed by the ADSJ on April 18. Dr Kumar has been termed as a “chronic litigant” who came under the scanner of the high court after he had filed many complaints against judges of the lower court and the high court. [related-post] In January this year, CJM Anubhav Sharma had dismissed a complaint by Dr Kumar and instead fined him for taking the judicial system for a ride. Punjab and Haryana High Court, through its Registrar (Rules), had made a complaint against Dr Kumar on May 26, 2008. Dr Kumar had failed to appear before the CJM court despite the court summoning him 11 times. . The high court had submitted that Dr Kumar be tried under sections 182 (giving false information, with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person), 186 (obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions), 209 (dishonestly making false claim in court) and 465 (forgery) of IPC. After he was fined by the CJM on January 21, Dr Kumar moved a revision petition on February 6 on the ground that the CJM was “biased” in issuing the non-bailable warrants against him to secure his presence. He also demanded that the CJM be booked under relevant sections of IPC for following corrupt practices under law. While dismissing the revision petition, ADSJ Roopam held, “The CJM, Chandigarh, committed no error in continuing with the complaint. There is no substance in this plea because, as observed earlier, the CJM was simply discharging his duties”. Dr Kumar had also sought registration of a criminal case against the CJM. The court held, “if accused-petitioner had any grudges against the CJM, proper remedy available to him was to file complaint before the court of Illaqa (area) Magistrate in accordance with law”. “Accused petitioner is a chronic litigant, who is well-aware of all the provisions of law. Learned trial court has rightly observed that the application filed by accused petitioner praying to treat his application as complaint against the Presiding Officer was nothing else but abuse of process of law as well as scandalising in content and intent”, observed the court.
