Hon’ble Ravindra Singh, J.—Heard Sri V.C. Mishra, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vivek Mishra, learned counsel for the contemnors Nakshetra Pal Singh, Advocate and Vijay Pal Singh, Advocate and the learned Government Advocate.

2. In the present case criminal contempt proceedings have been initiated on the basis of reference made by Sri Virendra Kumar, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Saharanpur (hereinafter referred to as Presiding Officer) against the contemnors Nakshetra Pal Singh, Advocate and Vijay Pal Singh, Advocate practising at Civil Court, Saharanpur under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, mentioning therein that on 10.2.2005 the examination-in-chief of P.W. 12 Brijesh Kumar was recorded by the Presiding Officer, in ST. No. 345 of 2001 under Section 460/411, I.P.C., P.S. Chilkana district Saharanpur. After recording the examination-in-chief of P.W. 12, contemnor Nakshetra Pal Singh, Advocate who was appearing on behalf of the accused Sushil and Kulvendra started cross-examining, the witness, who gave the reply. The Presiding Officer asked the contemnor Nakshetra Pal Singh to clarify from P.W. 12 whether he was understanding the meaning of the word Vayan then the contemnor Nakshetra Pal Singh, Advocate and his associate contemnor Vijai Pal Singh, Advocate extended the threats to P.W. 12 Brijesh Kumar in the Court and started shouting by saying that the Presiding Officer was recording a distorted statement of the witness and made allegation against the Presiding Officer that he was having interest in the said case. Then the Presiding Officer asked the contemnors that if they do not want to do this case in his Court, the same may be transferred to some other Court. Thereafter both the contemnors left the Court without cross-examining the witness P.W.12 and due to shouting and extending threat to P.W. 12, the litigants, police personnel, witnesses and other persons attracted to the Court room, in their presence also P.W.12 was given a threat and they caused obstacle in the functioning of the Court proceedings as well as made allegations against the Presiding Officer about his integrity and dutifulness, consequently the authority of the Court was lowered.

3. On the basis of reference made by the Presiding Officer, this Court has taken cognizance and issued notices to the contemnors to show cause as to why the proceedings for criminal contempt be not drawn against them for their alleged act/misbehaviour with Sri Virendra Kumar, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2 Saharanpur, which prima facie, amount to interference with the administration of justice and to lower the authority of the Court.

4. On 11.8.2005 the contenmors have filed an application along with an affidavit mentioning therein that initiation of the proceedings of contempt of Court against the petitioners are barred by proviso of Section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971.

5. Sri V.C. Mishra, Senior Advocate, has given an emphasis to decide the question of ‘maintainability’ of these proceedings, by contending that on the basis of the allegations made in reference, the offence under Section 228, I.P.C. is made out, for which proceedings under Section 345, Cr.P.C. may be initiated against the contemnors by the Court itself. According to the ‘proviso’ of Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 no High Court shall take cognizance of contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of the Court subordinate to it whether such contempt is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code,1860 (45 of 1860).

6. We now proceed to deal with the aforesaid contention in respect of the maintainability of criminal contempt proceedings before this Court in the light of proviso of Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

7. To answer this question, it will be relevant to make quick survey of Sections 2(c), and 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Sec