Bannurmath, J.

This is an unfortunate case, wherein the misery of a poor litigant, expressed by him on account of the long delay in disposal of the case, has been erroneously looked as contempt of Court by the learned subordinate judge, at whose instance, this suo moto proceedings have been initiated by the Registry and placed before us for consideration.

2. The alleged accused/respondent Sri S. Venkanna Rao, has filed a Private Complaint in the Court of IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore which is registered in CC No.23638/2006. According to the learned Magistrate, who has complained to the High Court that, the letter of the accused written to him on 26.08.2008 is contemptuous, which reads as follows:-

“Kannadam”

3. By looking into the said paragraphs, and especially in the background of the case, in our considered view, these are the outcries of a poor litigant, who is also a senior citizen, making grievances against the delay in disposal of his case, which he is fighting as a party in person. Instead of taking up the matter in right spirit and trying to accommodate the case of the senior citizen, as directed by the Apex Court in its pronouncements to give priority to dispose of case, the cases involving senior citizens in our view, the learned magistrate is not justified making it as a grievance to initiate contempt action against the said litigant. The Apex Court in the case of P.N. Duda Vs. P. Shiva Shankar and others, reported in 1988 (3) SCC 167, has observed thus:-

“Reasonable and fair criticism of the judicial system and judges, not interfering with administration of justice and not bringing the administration of justice in to disrepute, does not constitute criminal contempt”

4. In that case, the Apex Court was considering whether the speech made by the then Law Minister was contemptuous and as such, any action should be initiated against him under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. The Apex Court has observed that:-

“Speech delivered by the Law Minister in a seminar organised by Bar Council expressing his critical views in respect of the Apex Court, held on facts, though at places intemperate, but reading the speech as a whole and having regard to the select audience, it did not constitute any contempt of Supreme Court”

In the present case also, similar is the situation. As already noted, as a senior Citizen, being dissatisfied by the long delay of proceeding, has written letter to the learned Magistrate to take up the case at the earliest. Even if the some portion there of appeared to be objectionable, as per the definition of criminal contempt, defined under Section 2(C) of the Act, in our considered view, the matter does not amount to scandalizing or tending to scandalize or lowering the authority of any Court or causing disrepute to the due course of any judicial proceedings or affecting the administration of justice.

5. Hence, in our view initiation of suo motto contempt by the Registry is misconceived and the contempt petition stands rejected.

6. Before closing, noting the plight of the poor litigant, we direct the Principle District Judge, Bangalore City to withdraw the case from the 4th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court Bangalore and post it before any other Court, having jurisdiction, with a direction to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible, at any event, within 4 months from the date of receipt of this order.

The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned Magistrate as well as the Principle District & Sessions Judge for implementation of the order, forthwith.