IMPORTANT POINT
Statements made in good faith about a judicial officer do not constitute criminal contempt, promoting open dialogue and criticism within the justice system.

JUDGMENT :

Anupinder Singh Grewal, J.

This criminal original contempt petition has been listed after suo motu notice had been taken by the Single Bench with regard to the averments of the respondent in a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

2. The respondent, while preferring the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., had stated that the Judicial Magistrate is not inclined to pass an order but is only inclined to give adjournments and the respondent is being harassed by the action of the Judicial Magistrate. The Single Bench had referred to the zimni orders passed by the Court of JMIC which indicated that the matter had been adjourned at the request of the counsel for the respondent and, therefore, it took suo motu notice for initiation of criminal contempt proceedings. The order of the Single Bench dated 12.10.2023 is reproduced hereunder:-

“The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking issuance of direction to the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate. Dera Bassi to expedite the hearing of CRM481/2022 filed by the petitioner on 12.12.2022 and with a further prayer seeking direction to learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dera Bassi to decide the above mentioned case on the next date of hearing i.e. 18.11.2023 or on any earlier date.

A perusal of the contents of the petition would show that in para No. 2, the petitioner has apparently alleged allegations against the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dera Bassi, wherein it has been so stated that the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dera Bassi is not inclined to pass an order but is only inclined to give adjournment. Thereafter, in para No.4 it is stated that the petitioner is being harassed by the actions of the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dera Bassi.

However, a perusal of the orders passed by the learned SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Dera Bassi, which have been annexed with the present petition would show that on 15.07.2023, which is about three months ago only, the report of the Station House Officer was received on an application under Section 156 Cr.P.C. and on the request of learned counsel for the complainant/applicant i.e. petitioner herein, the matter was adjourned to 22.08.2023 for consideration. Thereafter on 22.08.2023, on the request of learned counsel for the complainantpetitioner, the matter was again adjourned to 16.09.2023 for consideration. Thereafter on 16.09.2023 again, the matter was adjourned to 07.10.2023 for consideration on the request of learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner and now the said matter is posted for hearing on 18.11.2023. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on 07.10.2023, the file was not available with the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dera Bassi and the matter was heard but instead of passing an order the same was adjourned to 18.11.2023.

This Court after perusing the contents of the petition, the orders passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dera Bassi and hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner is of prima facie view at this stage to consider as to why not appropriate proceedings be initiated against the petitioner in accordance with law. Therefore, notice is issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why criminal contempt proceedings be not initiated against him for making such allegations against the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dera Bassi, which is not supported by the record.

The petitioner is directed to be present in Court on the next date of hearing.

Adjourned to 14.11.2023.”

3. On 14.11.2023 as the explanation of the respondent was not found proper, the Single Bench directed the initiation of proceedings of criminal contempt and thereafter, CROCP was listed before the Division Bench.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent had legitimately sought recourse to judicial remedy under Section 482 C