Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—All these three Contempt Applications (Criminal) have been registered against same person Shri Rakesh Agarwal, Advocate, practicing in District Judgeship, Bareilly (hereinafter referred to as “Contemnor”) and, hence, all these three contempt matters were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. Shri R. A. Singh, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bareilly, made a Reference dated 10th November, 2005 stating that Contemnor is a party in a large number of civil and criminal cases, revisions and appeals pending in different Courts of Bareilly Judgeship. Contemnor appears in person, moves applications and petitions personally and argues cases personally. Seven cases were received on transfer from Court of Sessions Judge, Bareilly, which are;

(I) Criminal Revision No. 334/2005, Rakesh Agarwal v. State of U.P.

(II) Criminal Revision No. 451/2004, Mukesh Porwal v. State of U.P.

(III) Criminal Revision No. 338/2004, Pankaj Singhal v. State of U.P.

(IV) Criminal Misc. Case No. 01/2005, Mukesh Porwal v. State of U.P.

(V) Criminal Misc. Case No. 02/2005, Pankaj Singhal v. State of U.P.

(VI) Criminal Misc. Case No. 03/2005, Pankaj Singhal v. State of U.P.

(VII) Criminal Misc. Case No. 04/2005, Pankaj Singhal v. State of U.P.

3. Criminal Revision No. 334/2005 ‘Rakesh Agarwal v. State of U.P. was fixed for hearing before Referring Judge on 6th August, 2005. Shri Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate appeared on behalf of one Dr. A.K. Chauhan and filed his Vakalatnama. He also moved an application for summoning record of Criminal Revision No. 337/2005 ‘Rakesh Agarwal v. State of U.P.’ decided on 4.7.2005. This application was allowed and record was directed to be requisitioned fixing 16th August, 2005 for disposal of Criminal Revision No. 334/2005. On passing of order dated 16th August, 2005, Contemnor said that Shri Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate had no locus standi to appear, file Vakalatnama or move application. Criminal Revision No. 334/2005 was filed against order dated 31st March, 2005 passed by Shri Chandra Bhushan Singh, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly on an application moved by Contemnor under Section 156 (3) CrPC against Dr. A.K. Chauhan. In Criminal Revision No. 334/2005 revisionist-Contemnor levelled serious, contumacious and scandalizing allegations against Shri Chandra Bhushan Singh, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly. Some of the allegations contained in memo of revision are as under:

“..... Learned Lower Court has completely lost its free independent and impartial character and is working as a department of Police and instead of controlling the police, is being controlled by the Police and has become only the “Yes Person” of the Police..................

...... The integrity, competence and behaviour of the Learned Lower Court and Police is extremely doubtful.........

.......The learned Lower Court has illegally called the Police Report to disturb, delay and destroy the proceedings and corrupted itself with the corruptest and collusive Police Report.........

........the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrates, have either accepted or attempted to obtain or agreed to accept some gratification for themselves or any other person, in consideration of their concealing an offence or of their screening the named accused from legal punishment for any offence or of their not proceeding against any person for the purpose of brining them to Legal Punishment.

......The Learned Lower Court has illegally issued copies of the complaint to the named accused, and thereby corrupted the proceedings of their Hon’ble Court.

......The Learned Lower Court has illegally allowed the counsel of the named accused to participate in the proceedings against all the provisions of CR.PC and thereby corrupted its proceedings and thereby illegally benefited the accused.

......The Learned Lower Court has informed the named accused regarding the pendency of the above mentioned complaint in the CJM’s Cour