SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(All) 1168

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : SUDHIR AGARWAL AND MRS. RANJANA PANDYA, JJ.
In Re : OMBIR ACJM, HATHRAS ....Applicant
Versus
AJAI KUMAR BHARDWAJ (ADVOCATE) .....Contemnor
(Contempt Application (Criminal) No. 13 of 2015, decided on 24th September, 2015)

Advocates:
Counsel :
A.G.A. and Sudhir Mehrotra for the Applicant; A.B.L. Gaur, Hari Om Khare, P.K. Singh and Vishal Agarwal for the Contemnor.

Headnote:Contempt of Court Act, 1971—Section 2(C)—Criminal Contempt—Reference—Vague allegations have been levelled against ACJM concerned that in collusion with two other judicial officers, he is conspiring to get contemner murdered—It is not stated as to when any such threat was administered or how contemner knows of aforesaid alleged conspiracy etc.—It is not case that any F.I.R. was lodged by contemner in this regard—Allegations are personal and against integrity and character of ACJM—Allegations made by contemner against concerned Presiding Officer ex-facie constitute ‘criminal contempt’ being scurrilous and serious allegations, tend to lower down authority of Court—Punishment of simple imprisonment of six months and fine. [Paras 35, 36 and 56]

       Result; Reference Allowed.

       

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—This criminal contempt application has been registered pursuant to a reference dated 27.9.2014 made by Shri Om Veer Singh, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras (hereinafterto referred as ACJM) which has been forwarded by District Judge, Hathras vide endorsement dated 29.9.2014.

2. The said ACJM is posted in the District Judgeship of Hathras since 21.12.2013. Prior to this he was posted as Civil Judge (J.D.) in Hathras since 18.4.2013. Several instances have been given by ACJM showing that Ajai Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocate (hereinafterto referred as ‘Contemner’) was in the habit of making false complaints against the conduct and character of Judicial Officers as also Court Staff in one or the other way. He (the Contemner) submitting a letter dated 18th of September, 2014 on the letterhead of District Bar Association, Civil Court, Hathras stating as under :

^^1- mDr lh0ts0,e0 }kjk vk;s fnu izkFkhZ dks FkzsfVax o rjg rjg ls Mjk;k /kedk;k tk jgk gS vkSj dgk tk jgk gS fd rwus viuh f'kdk;rsa okfil ugha yh rks fdlh u fdlh Fkkus ls rq>s >wBk QWlok nwWaxk ;k vius ckWMhxkMksZ ls ;k vius Fkkus ds ljfQjs iqfyl okyksa ls ,udkmUVj djok nwWaxkA

2- mijksDr lh0ts0,e0 ls izkFkhZ dks tku eky dk iwjk [krjk cuk gqvk gS vkSj mDr lh0ts0,e0 Jh eujkt flag vius v/khuLFk Jh vkseohj flag ,0lh0ts0,e0 o flfoy tt o0iz0 Jherh fp=k 'kekZ ds ek/;e ls vekuoh; d`R; djkrs gq;s izkFkhZ dh gR;k Hkh djk ldrs gS ;fn izkFkhZ dh gR;k gks tkrh gS rks bu rhuksa dks gh ftEesnkj le>k tkosA

3- vr% Jheku~ th ls izkFkZuk gS fd esjs }kjk dh x;h f'kdk;rksa ij ;fn 'kh?kz vfr'kh?kz dk;Zokgh vey esa ugha yk;h x;h rks izkFkhZ etcwju dzfed vu'ku] vu'ku o vkej.k vu'ku djus dks etcwj gksxkA**

“1. The applicant is being threatened and intimidated every now and then in several ways by the aforesaid C.J.M. by way of holding out a warning that if he did not withdraw his complaints, he would be falsely implicated by any police station or be killed by orchestrating an encounter through his bodyguards or demented policemen.

2. The applicant is under persistent life threats and the said learned C.J.M. Sri Manraj Singh may orchestrate even his murder by occasioning the commission of inhuman activities through his subordinates Sri Omvir Singh, ACJM and Smt Chitra Sharma, Civil Judge (Senior Division). If he is murdered, the threesome of them may be held responsible.

3. Sir, it is, therefore, requested that if earliest action is not taken over the complaints, the applicant will be forced to undertake successive fasts and fast unto death.” (English translation by Court)

3. The ACJM has said that the aforesaid allegations and scurrilous statements made against the Judicial Officers of Court amount to “criminal contempt”.

4. As per the Rules, the matter was examined by a Committee consisting of two Hon’ble Judges and taking the view that various documents contain allegations which prima facie constitute “criminal contempt”, made recommendation dt. 23.2.2015 for placing the matter before the Court having determination of Criminal Contempt. The aforesaid recommendation was approved by Hon’ble the Chief Justice on 17th of March, 2015.

5. The matter came up before Division Bench and on 8th of April, 2015, after being satisfied that there is a prima facie case of “Criminal Contempt” on the part of Contemner, the Court issued notice to show-cause, why the Contemner be not tried for committing ‘criminal contempt’ after framing charge.

6. The Contemner appeared and filed affidavit sworn on 11th May, 2015 stating that the letters etc. which he has sent, were in his capacity as ‘Secretary of Bar Association’ and he was simply conveying the resolution passed by Association, therefore, is not himself guilty of committing any contempt. In brief, the contents of his affidavit are that he is a practising Advocate, elected Secretary of Bar Association and held the said office up to 6th of April, 2015. There were general complainants by the members of Bar Associa




































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top