By the Court.—This criminal contempt was instituted against the contemnor Desh Deepak Sachdeva upon a reference dated 21.10.2006 tendered by Sri Suresh Singh Yadav, Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut, for drawing proceedings of criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 on account of the alleged misbehaviour of the contemnor with the Presiding Officer and his scandalous utterances casting aspersions on the functioning of the Court and of the Judge concerned. Notices were issued, upon which the contemnor appeared before this Court and taking notice of the aforesaid facts a division bench passed the following order on 17.1.2007 :

“HON. S.S. KULSHRESTHA,J.

HON. V.K. VERMA,J.

Sri Suresh Singh Yadav, Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut has sent a reference vide letter dated 21st October, 2006 for drawing contempt of Courts’ proceedings under Section 2(C) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 against Sri Desh Deepak Sachdeva party to Misc. Case No. 573 of 1999 (Smt. Neetu Sachdeva v. Desh Deepak Sachdeva) under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure (in short “the Code”) and Original Suit No. 288 of 2004 (Smt. Neetu Sachdeva v. Desh Deepak Sachdeva) under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and also Misc. Case No. 01 and 02 of 2004 (Desh Deepak Sachdeva v. Smt. Neetu Sachdeva) under Section 340 of the Code. It was contended that the alleged Contemner was all time misbehaving with the Presiding Officer as and when the Court’s proceedings were taken. On 6th March 2006 he made endorsement on the order-sheets of Case No. 573 of 1999 and 288 of 2004 which undermined the authority of the Court. It is also said that show-cause notice was given to the alleged Contemnor to explain his alleged misconduct. Instead of explaining his misconduct he reiterated those scandalous allegations and also attributes aspersions on the working of the Court proceedings.

However the alleged Contemner has submitted his unconditional apology before this Court and also represented on whatever endorsement was made. It is unfortunate that he submitted unconditional apologies but preferred to mention the reasons compelling him to show such agony which he suffered.

For long seven years period he is suffering the agony because of the pendency of his case. The counsel from the other side was playing delaying tactics. Not only this at one occasion on 6th March 2006 he became furious and attempted to assault the alleged Contemner and his counsel there in the Court. Even no proceedings were drawn against him by the Court. It has also been contended that despite so many orders by this Court to conclude the case within stipulated time, no heed was paid to it by the learned trial Court.

The alleged Contemner is directed to first tender his apology before Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut within a period of two weeks. List it on 31st January 2007.

17.1.2007"

2. Thereafter several bailable warrants were issued as the contemnor did not appear before this Court and finally non-bailable warrants were issued on 9.2.2015 that could not be executed, upon which a division bench of this Court on 18th April, 2015 issued orders for its execution within 21 days.

3. The contemnor in his affidavit filed today has stated that he was arrested as a consequence of the non-bailable warrants on 3rd May, 2015, and was taken into custody, whereafter he was produced before this Court on 12th May, 2015.

4. The contemnor does not appear to have filed any reply to the earlier show-cause notice and, therefore, vide order dated 12th May, 2015, charges were framed against the contemnor calling upon him to answer the same. He was also granted bail on the same date but could be released on 15th May, 2015. Thus for a period about 13 days he suffered custody as a consequence of the execution of the non-bailable warrants issued against him.

5. Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel for the contemnor, in the presence of the contemnor, has advanced his subm