A division bench comprising Justices G B Pattnaik and R P Sethi set aside the High Court judgement saying that ``in our opinion, it was rather premature for the High Court to throttle the investigations into several serious allegations.''

According to the complaints, warrants for arrest of anyone could be issued for the asking at the Dakor Court in Kaira district. In fact, non-bailable warrants had been issued by this court even against Justice M L Pendse, the then acting Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court.

One of the complainants, Manohar M Gulani and his family members were arrested through such warrants and lodged in various police stations and jails. The moment he or his family members were released on bail in once case, they would be made the accused in some other caseand re-arrested.

When a social activist came to know of this episode from a newspaper report, he filed a public interest petition before the High Court seeking suitable directions to the state government and the state Bar Council.

Subsequently, the High Court directed the Director General of Police to conduct an inquiry and submit a report. The High Court, on the administrative side, took action suspending the judicial magistrate of Dakor Court. But no final decision was taken in the public interest petition.

While investigation into the PIL and other complaints was in progress, the accused persons named in the complaint moved the High Court which by the impugned judgement quashed the two complaints as also the public interest petition.

The Supreme Court, in its judgement, expressed its inabilility to understand how the High Court, in exercise of its power under extraordinary jurisdiction, could interfere with a collateral proceeding initiated by the court itself in an application filed in publicinterest.

``There cannot be any dispute that the facts revealed a serious scandal in the functioning of some subordinate courts in the state and, therefore, the High Court took cognizance of the matter and directed an inquiry to be conducted and on the basis of this inquiry, it was open to the High Court to issue necessary orders including the impugned judgement, setting aside the public interest petition'', the judges observed.

As far as the question of the complaints and inquiry on the basis of FIRs registered by the complainant were concerned, the judges found that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the same with an elaborate discussion on the merits of the matter and in coming to the conclusion that Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be a bar.