The Allahabad High Court recently ordered the District Judge of Ghaziabad to inquire as to how two contradictory orders were uploaded online in a defamation case [Parul Agarwal vs State of UP and Another].
Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery refrained from action against the concerned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate - now posted in a different district - even as it found that he had not been careful and had not even initiated an inquiry against the staff concerned.
“The Court is informed that he is a young Magistrate, therefore, keeping in view of his long carrier (sic), I am not passing any adverse order. However, District Judge concerned is directed to initiate an inquiry, under which circumstances staff of concerned Court has uploaded two unsigned draft orders on website,” the single-judge ordered.
The action was ordered after the Court was told that the trial court on February 13 passed two orders the same day in a case seeking quashing of the defamation case.
While the defamation complaint was dismissed in the first, the accused was summoned to face trial in the second order.
The counsel representing the accused submitted that while the order by which the complaint was dismissed was not signed, the order by which the accused was summoned was a signed order.
Following this, the Court had sought an explanation from the Magistrate.
The judicial officer in response tendered his unconditional apology and explained that the staff of his Court had unintentionally uploaded an unsigned and draft order without his consent.
Considering the peculiar facts of the case, the Court said since two contrary orders were passed, both of them are liable to be set aside.
Hence, it quashed both the orders.
It also directed that the unsigned orders shall not be considered to be part of proceedings.
The matter was remitted back to the trial court to be decided afresh.
“Matter is remitted back to Trial Court concerned to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after taking note of the above referred judgments and after hearing complainant only expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from today, if there is no legal impediment,” the Court ordered.
Advocates Gunjan Jadwani and Rahul Agarwal represented the petitioner.
Advocate Sudhir Mehrotra represented the High Court.
Advocate Vipul Pandey represented the respondent.
[Read Judgment]