( 1 ) HEARD the applicant, Km. Abha Pandey, in person, Sri V. B. Upa-dhyaya, learned Senior Advocate whom we requested to assist us as amicus curiage, and also the learned Government Counsel.

( 2 ) THIS Habeas Corpus petition has been filed by Km. Abha Pandey on behalf of her mother Smt. Usha Pandey, who has been taken into custody in pursuance of the order of the learned A. C. J. M. II. Basti dated 17-1-2001, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 80 of 2001. State v. Usha Pandey, under Section 340, Cr. P. C.

( 3 ) WE have perused the order dated 17-1-2001. It appears that Smt. Usha Pandey had appeared before the learned A. C. J. M.-II Basti on 17-1-2001 in a case under Section 125, Cr. P. C. against her husband Prahlad Pandey. During the hearing she is said to have made derogatory remarks against the learned Magistrate. The order dated 17-1-2001 states:-

( 4 ) IN view of the ahove remarks the learned Magistrate directed that since the conduct of Smt. Usha Pandey amounts to an offence under Section 228, I. P. C. hence action should be taken against her.

( 5 ) IT appears that on the basis of the said report of the A. C. J. M.-II the learned C. J. M. Basti took cognizance on the same day and directed that Smt. Usha Pandey be taken into custody.

( 6 ) WE have perused the record of the case. On the record there is an order of this Court dated 26-4-1990 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 6223 of 1988, under Section 482, Cr. P. C. in which it is stated that inspite of the compromise between Smt. Usha Pandey and her husband in the case under Section 125, Cr. P. C. no payment has been made to Smt. Usha Pandey.

( 7 ) LITIGATION of various kinds has been going on between Smt. Usha Pandey and her husband since 1986, and hence obviously feelings between them are badly embittered, and Smt. Usha Pandey seems to be very much mentally upset. It is probably in those circumstances that she made such derogatory remarks to the learned Magistrate.

( 8 ) THOUGH we certainly cannot find any justification for such baseless remarks against the learned Magistrate, we are of the opinion that it would have been better if the learned Magistrate had ignored them, considering the mental state of Smt. Usha Pandey.

( 9 ) THERE are many things that a Judge should overlook nowadays and it is not necessary that in every such case a Judge must punish for contempt or send a person who makes such accusations against the Court, to jail. Just because someone has lost his/her balance, this does not mean that a Judge should also lose his balance. The Judge must preserve a cool mind and overlook many faults. Todays society is in a turbulent state and many things must be overlooked today by a Judge, even if they could not have been overlooked earlier.

( 10 ) IN this connection Lord Denning in one of his books"the Due Process of Law" writes-"on every Monday morning we hearlitigants in person. Miss Stone was often there. She made an application before us. We refused it. She was sitting in the front row with a bookcase within her reach. She picked up one of Butterworths workmens Compensation Cases and threw it at us. It passed between Lord Justice Diplock and me. She picked up another. That went wide too. She said, i am running out of ammunition. We took little notice. She had hoped we would commit her for contempt of Court - just to draw more attention to herself. As we took no notice, she went towards the door. She left saying: i congratulate your Lordships on your coolness under fire. "

( 11 ) NOW a days, so many things happen in Court but the Judge should preserve his equanimity and even overlook remarks and conduct which may be unjustified. If he does so it will enhance his dignity and respect in society.

( 12 ) IN Rex v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, (1968) 2 QB 150 at 154, Lord Denning observed-"let me say at once that we will never use this jurisdiction as a means to uphold our own dignity. That must rest on surer foundations. Nor will we use it to suppress those who

Click Here to Read the rest of this document