Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—This criminal contempt application has been registered on reference dated 21.7.2011 of Sri Deepak Yadav, Civil Judge (Junior Division), (Purvi), Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘Reference Officer’) stating that on 20th July, 2011 at about 2.15 p.m. Suits’ Clerk, Sri Rajmani Pandey put up record of Original Suit No. 1818 of 2003 (Siddh Nath v. Shanti Devi) alongwith application C-93. Written argument and a number of case laws were annexed with application C-93 which related to disposal of application 6-C, which had already been disposed of by Court concerned on 20.12.2010 pursuant to High Court’s order dated 12.11.2010. Consequently, Reference Officer disposed of application C-93 in accordance with Rule 28 of General Rules (Civil) and ordered return of aforesaid written argument and case laws annexed to the said application. Contemnor thereupon hurled abuses by making allegations of bribery and corruption against Reference Officer and alleged that written argument and case laws annexed to application C-93 have been ordered for return so that evidence of corruption against him may not come on record. Contemnor also threatened Reference Officer of dire consequences when he would come out of Court after Court hours. Actual allegations made in reference by the Reference Officer as contained in paras 3-4 read as under:

^^3& ;g fd fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk mDr vkns'k dks i<+us ds ckn tksj&tksj ls 'kksj epk;k x;k rFkk U;k;ky; ij dbZ vkjksi yxkrs gq, xkfy;ksa dk iz;ksx fd;k x;k vkSj dgk x;k fd rqe ugha pkgrs fd rqEgkjh csbZekuh QkbZy ij vk;s] rks rqe csbZeku gks] ?kwl[kksj gks] nyky gksA iSlk ys&ysdj dke djrs gksA ckgj fudyks eSa rqEgs ns[k ywaxkA vkt rd ,slh Hkz"V vnkyr ugha ns[khA rw ns[k D;k jgk gS] dkxt ij uEcj Mky vkSj QkbZy ij j[k ns fQj eSa rq>s ns[krk gwWA

“3. That after the said order having been read by the learned counsel, a loud noise was made by him, several allegations were levelled against the Court with the use of expletives and it was stated by him that he (Reference Officer) does not want his dishonesty to come on record; you are dishonest; bribe-taker and broker. You use to work by taking moneys. Come outside and I will see you. I haven’t yet seen such a corrupt Court. What the hell are you looking on? Put the number on the paper and place it on the file; then I’ll see you).

4& ;g fd fo}ku vf/koDrk dkQh jksdus ds ckotwn fpYykrs jgs ml le; u;s oknksa dh lquokbZ dk dk;Z gks jgk Fkk tks bl ?kVukdze ,oa 'kksj xqy ds dkj.k ugha gks ldkA U;k;ky; dh dk;Zokgh cqjh rjg ckf/kr gqbZ gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk dk ;g d`R; U;k;ky; voekuuk dh ifjf/k esa vkrk gSA^^

4. That the learned counsel continued to shout despite intense intervention. At that time, hearing of new cases were in progress which could not be done on account of this episode and commotion. The Court proceedings came to be severely interrupted. This act of learned counsel falls within the purview of Contempt of Court.” (English Translation By the Court)

2. This Reference has been forwarded by District Judge, Allahabad vide endorsement dated 21.7.2011. The matter was examined on administrative side and Hon’ble The Chief Justice took a view vide order dated 23.8.2011 that proceedings for criminal contempt be initiated against Contemnor in accordance with Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act 1971’), hence it was placed before the Court having determination of criminal contempt.

3. On 15.9.2011 this Court issued notice to Contemnor to appear in person on 17.11.2011 and show-cause why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him.

4. Contemnor put in appearance on 17.11.2011 and sought time to show-cause which was allowed granting three weeks’ time. Thereafter on 15.12.2011 when Contemnor did not appear, this Court issued bailable warrant against him. The Contemnor then filed an application, requesting to hold inquiry by CBI. This matter was examined by Court on 26.7.2012. Court found that Contemnor has made rec