Sufficient opportunity granted to the contemner for filing a reply is crucial in determining the maintainability of a criminal contempt reference.

ORDER :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. Smt.Aditi Thakur, First Civil Judge Class-II, Ambikapur, District Surguja has referred this reference under Section 12 read with Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter called as 'Act of 1971') further read with Rule 350 (1) of the High Court of Chhattisgarh (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter called as 'Rules of 2007') after holding preliminary inquiry under the Rules of 2007 stating inter-alia that conduct of the respondent/contemner in Court proceeding dated 27.2.2021 prima facie falls within the category of criminal contempt as defined under Section 2(c) of the Act of 1971 and therefore, cognizance be taken under Section 12 read with Section 15(2) of the Act of 1971.

2. After receipt of record, this Court by order dated 02.12.2021 finding the case to be worth consideration, took cognizance of criminal contempt and issued notice to the respondent/contemner for his appearance before this Court and accordingly, in response to the notice so issued, the contemner has appeared and firstly filed preliminary reply on 16.12.2021 regretting for proceeding dated 27.2.2021 and further stated that he did not want to tarnish the image of the Court and only an outcome of heat of moment, the incident happened and he has tendered his apology, which was also reiterated in additional reply dated 14.1.2022 and further in para-6 of reply so filed, he has undertaken that this incident will not be repeated in the near future and tendered his unconditional apology.

3. However, detailed additional reply supported by affidavit to the reference on behalf of the respondent/contemner has been filed on 2.4.2022, in which the respondent/contemner has stated that averments made in reference by the said Court are not true, valid & correct and same is not maintainable in law and order-sheet dated 27.2.2021 on the basis of which the reference has been made has also been disputed by the respondent/contemner by stating that the learned trial Judge has levelled incorrect and untrue allegations against him and order-sheets were ante-dated and were prepared after many days of so called incident and even he has not been given sufficient opportunity for filing his reply and explanation in his defence to the show-cause notice issued by the said Judge/Court. Therefore, the present contempt proceeding initiated and referred by the learned trial Court/Judge is not tenable in the eye of law and closure of his opportunity of hearing on 27.3.2021 by the said Court was in violation of principles of natural justice and no case is made out for reference under Section 15(2) of the Act of 1971 against the respondent/contemner for alleged contempt. It has been alleged that the learned trial Judge has manipulated the order-sheet. Therefore, he be discharged from the case by exonerating him from the charges of criminal contempt under Section 12 of the Act of 1971. Additional statement has also been made in the shape of paras-6 to 16.

4. Dr.N.K.Shukla, learned Senior Counsel with Mr.Manoj Paranjape, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/contemner, would submit that reference as made by the learned Judge under Section 12 read with Section 15(2) of the Act of 1971 taking the aid of Rule 350 (1) of the Rules of 2007 is not at all maintainable as preliminary enquiry has not been conducted in accordance with Rule 350(2) of the Rules of 2007 and no reasonable opportunity of hearing has been granted to the respondent herein. He would rely upon the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of In Re: (Under Contempt of Courts Act) v. Indra Datt Nayak, 1994 M.P.L.J. 126. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that contempt jurisdiction has to be invoked sparingly and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record, no case for initiating contempt procee