P.N. Prakash, J.

1. This Court after summoning and hearing the petitioner in person, after perusal of the records and after calling for responses from persons concerned and also after hearing the counsels appearing for the petitioner has decided to initiate criminal contempt against the two counsels who are :

"1. Mr. Manikandan Vathan Chettiar

2. Mr. Mathankumar"

2. The factual matrix leading to taking cognizance of the contempt committed by the two counsels are as follows:--

"On 31.07.2014, there was a quarrel between two families in connection with the usage of a pathway running between their houses in Talavalapattu Village in which there was a free-for-all situation, resulting in persons from both sides suffering injuries and getting admitted to the local Government Hospital. After receiving information from the hospital, the Sub Inspector of Police, Periyathachur went to the hospital and recorded the statement of one A. Senthamizhselvan belonging to one party and also the statement of Lakshmi belonging to the other party and came back to the Station and registered two FIRs i.e.:

[a] On the complaint of A. Senthamizhselvan, Cr. No. 126 of 2014 under Sections 147, 148,294(b), 324 and 506(ii) IPC against Balaraman and six others, including Lakshmi [A6] (Petitioner herein)

[b] On the complaint of Lakshmi, Crime No. 127 of 2014 under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 324and 506(ii) IPC against seven persons including A. Senthamizhselvan [A3]."

3. All the seven accused, including Lakshmi, in Cr. No. 126 of 2014 filed an application in Crl.M.P. No. 5721 of 2014 for anticipatory bail before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Villupuram (shown as 3rd respondent in this O.P). The 4th respondent herein was the counsel who had appeared in the bail application filed by the petitioner. After notice to the State, the learned Judge granted anticipatory bail to all the petitioners/accused in Cr. No. 126 of 2014 by order dated 05.08.2014 on condition that, they execute a bond for Rs. 5,000/- each with two sureties and report before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. until further orders. Challenging this order, Lakshmi is before this Court in this petition with the following prayer:

"(a) For action against the District Judge, Public Prosecutor and the Police;

(b) For action against the Land-Grabber; and

(c) For protecting the right to life and property of the petitioner."

4. In the petition filed by Lakshmi she had alleged that, the police, the Public Prosecutor and her counsel had connived in order to help the complainant's party [who were the accused in the other case] to gain to foothold into her land. It may be relevant to extract the very words in the petition rather than give any interpretation to them:

"Finally the police got the accused also to be discharged on the same day that the petitioner got discharged, and the accused are gradually gaining a foothold into the petitioner's patta-land, due to treachery on the part of the Police, PP & DJ"

5. This Court was indeed shocked at such allegations being made about the District Judge who had granted the relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. This petition was getting adjourned from 19.11.2014 and ultimately on 07.04.2015, this Court heard Mr. Manikandan Vathan Chettiar and reserved orders.

6. When this Court perused the case papers for the purpose of dictating orders, it was observed that in the Vakalatnama filed by Lakshmi, neither the signature of Manikandan Vathan Chettiar nor his junior Mathankumar was found. Therefore, on 10.04.2015, this Court issued a memo to the Assistant Registrar [Criminal Section] calling for an explanation from the Officer for passing the petition without even checking whether the counsels have signed the Vakalatnama. The matter was directed to be listed on 16.04.2015 for hearing in the open Court.

7. On 16.04.2015, this Court ordered the Petitioner Lakshmi be directed to be summoned to this Court and also directed that P. Selvakum