Back
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
V.M. Kanade and Revati Mohite Dere, JJ.
Smt. S.A. Sinha—Applicant
versus
Dr. Leo Rebello—Respondent
Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Reference No.4 of 2014
Decided on 29.2.2016
(B) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971—Section 15(2)—Contempt of court—Power to punish a person for having committed criminal contempt has to be used cautiously and sparingly—Proper balance has to be struck between freedom of speech and right of judicial officers to administer justice without any obstruction from litigants or anyone else—Litigants cannot be allowed to take law into their own hands and start browbeating and insulting Court before whom his matter is pending for adjudication—Litigants cannot scandalize Court by writing letters to him at his residential or office address—Litigants cannot file applications for adjournment or for any other purpose and send it to Court’s residence or office—Litigants cannot threaten or induce Court through correspondence—If this is permitted, all litigants will start writing letters to Court and this would seriously hamper fair and transparent administration of justice. (Para 43)
(C) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971—Section 15(2)—Contempt of court—Respondent/contemnor who is an accused charged for offences punishable under Sections 354, 337, 509, 323, 504 I.P.C. has persistently harassed, intimidated, threatened Metropolitan Magistrate before whom his case was pending trial—Gist of Reference is that Contemnor behaved rudely, improperly and arrogantly and has committed contempt in face of Court by abusing, insulting, intimidating, threatening the learned Metropolitan Magistrate—Magistrate has given instances of dates and events when this has happened—If no action is taken against such accused, it will be impossible for subordinate courts to function and to discharge their duties in accordance with law—This is a clear case of obstruction by accused in administration of criminal justice by trial court—Respondent/Contemnor has gone to extent of sending draft orders which Magistrate was supposed to pass and she was threatened that if she did not do so, she would be removed/transferred since he knew Judges of High Court and Supreme Court— Respondent has shown audacity of issuing contempt notice against High Court for entertaining Criminal Reference—Respondent/Contemnor has committed criminal contempt of subordinate Court within meaning of Section 2(c)(i) to (iii)—Simple imprisonment for a term of three months and fine of Rs 1000/- awarded. (Paras 19, 20, 31, 32, 35, 42 and 53)
Result: Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Reference allowed.
JUDGMENT
V.M. Kanade, J.—This is a case where the respondent/contemnor who is an accused charged for offences punishable under sections 354, 337, 509, 323, 504 I.P.C. has persistently harassed, intimidated, threatened the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (“MM”) before whom his case was pending trial and as a result the learned MM has made a reference under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”).
2. Reference under section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been made by Smt.S.A.Sinha, Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court, Borivali, Mumbai vide letter bearing Confi.Outward No.32 of 2014 dated 14.10.2014 addressed to the Registrar (Judicial-I), High Court, Bombay.
3. It is stated in the said order that she was Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court, Borivali, Mumbai and she had taken Criminal Cases; one bearing charge of that Court on 06.06.2011. She has stated that two C.C. No.3869/PS/2008 (C.R. No.281/99) of Samtanagar Police Station filed against Dinesh Mathuria and others under Sections 143, 147, 149, 323, 504, 343, 427, 506 I.P.C. in which Dr. Leo Rebello was the complainant and the other bearing C.C. No.1574/PS/2008 (C.R. No.280/99) also registered at Samtanagar Police Station filed against Dr. Leo Rebello under sections 354, 337, 509, 323, 504 I.P.C in which Mrs. Ratna Vinay Malhotra was the complainant, were pending in her Court. Both these cases were kept in her court on the same day.
4. She has referred in the Reference as to what transpired on 21.12.2011 in her Court when the Contemnor appeared in her Court. She has stated that the Contemnor obstructed the judicial proceedings, insulted the judicial officer, did not maintain the court decorum, tried to pressurize the court and also threatened the court that he had removed CMM. Thereafter on 02.01.2012, the Respondent/Contemnor issued a confidential letter to court by hand, which had objectionable contents. Then, again, on 22.08.2013, the Contemnor issued another letter to the Judicial Officer, which had objectionable contents. The letter contained the contents which were insulting and the contents of the letter, apart from being highly objectionable, clearly amounted to contempt of court within the meaning of Section 2(c)(i) to (iii) of the said Act. Thereafter, again, further letter dated 12.11.2013 was sent by the Contemnor by a speed post to the said Judicial Officer in which there was wild threat that several High Court and Supreme Court Judges knew him and he tried to pressurize the Court. Thereafter, it is stated in the Reference that when the matter was posted on her board on 20.02.2014, the Court gave directions to the accused to remain present for recording their pleas. Respondent/Contemnor was not present that time when the matter was called out. However, thereafter, Respondent/Contemnor barged into the Court in 10/15 minutes and started shouting loudly when other proceedings were going on and used threatening words to the court. She has then stated that, again, on 26.06.2014 when both the matters were kept for hearing, Respondent/Contemnor entered the Court and started shouting loudly and when the Court directed him to provide a copy of the application filed by him to the other side, he used insulting and threatening words to the Court. He obstructed judicial proceedings and due to his behaviour in the court, the entire board of the Court collapsed and hearing of other matters could not take place. Reference was made of this incident in the Roznama and the statements of persons present on that day were recorded by the Magistrate. Thereafter, statements of PC - Sunil Pawar, Vanrai Police Station, Advocate Shri Malekar, Advocate Shri Dubey, Advocate Smt. Purnima Mehta, Advocate Shri K.U. Joshi, PC - Shevale, Samtanagar Police Station, PC - Patil, Samtanagar Police Station, PC - Surve, Kandivali Police Station and PC - Sonavale, Vanrai Police Station, learned APP Shri Mahakal and Interpreter Kum. Kada
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
