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

2007 Supreme(MP) 568

2008(3) JLJ 114
(SUPREME COURT)
R.V. Raveendran and Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.
Rajesh Kumar Singh v. High Court of Judicature of M.P., Bench Gwalior
Criminal Appeal No.321 of 2001 : against the order of M.P. High Court, Bench at Gwalior, passed in Contempt Petition (Criminal) No.5 of 2000;
Decided on 31.5.2007.

Advocates:
M.C. Dhingra and Gaurav Dhingra for appellant.

Headnote:(1) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 -- Ss.10, 12 and 14 -- inquiry against the conduct of police officer in Court -- not parallel to any matter pending in Court -- to constitute offence of contempt of Court there must be some act calculated to bring a Court or a Judge into contempt or to lower his authority -- merely holding preliminary inquiry in pursuance of direction from his superiors does not amount to contempt of Court.

       Shri Pradeep Mittal, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dabra, sent a report dated 1.11.1999 to the Inspector General of Police, Gwalior Circle, alleging that one Chander Bhan Singh Raghuvanshi, Station Officer, Pichhore came inside his Court hall and threatened him by stating "you have not done good by initiating contempt proceedings against me before High Court. I am back in Pichhore Police Station and I will see you", and "I have set many Magistrates right and I will see you also". The learned Magistrate complained that it was unbecoming of a police officer to threaten a Judicial Officer in Court and interrupt the Court proceedings and the misbehaviour warranted stern action. [Para 2

       Shri N.K. Tripathi, IG of Police, sent the complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior under cover of letter dated 10.11.1999 with a direction to take necessary action. The subject of the letter stated "Regarding conducting an inquiry and taking disciplinary action against Raghuvanshi". The Superintendent of Police (Shri Pradeep Runwal) in turn forwarded the IG‘s letter along with the Magistrate‘s complaint and its enclosures, to the appellant herein who was at that time the Sub-Divisional Officer (Police), Dabra, under cover of letter dated 17.11.1999, with a direction to personally look into the matter and send a detailed report (vistrit teep). [Para 3

       The appellant submitted a report dated 27.11.1999, in regard to his inquiry, to the Superintendent of Police, recording a finding that the documents and statements disclosed that Raghuvanshi had used unwarranted language in Court which was improper and recommended punishment. [Para 4

       While disposing of the contempt proceedings against Raghuvanshi, the High Court in its order dated 22/29.5.2000, directed notices to be issued to the Inspector General of Police, Gwalior and the appellant, to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt of Court, for having enquired into the conduct of a Judge, without the permission of the High Court. [Para 5

       Held : It is only in pursuance of such directive from his superiors, the appellant held a preliminary inquiry in respect of the conduct of Raghuvanshi. The inquiry was not in regard to the conduct of the Judge. As the inquiry was against Raghuvanshi, the appellant had to give an opportunity to him, to make his statement. He also had to record the statements of persons, whom Raghuvanshi stated were present at the time of the incident. The inquiry by the appellant was a prelude to the disciplinary action against Raghuvanshi. In fact, after the recording of the statements of several witnesses, the appellant submitted a report holding Raghuvanshi guilty of having used unwarranted language in Court and recommending punishment. It cannot, therefore, be said, that recording the statements of Raghuvanshi, and several other persons on the request of Raghuvanshi, in the course of the preliminary inquiry, amounts to holding an inquiry in regard to the conduct of a Judge. [Para 11

       Unless the inquiry by the appellant was a parallel proceeding with reference to a matter pending in Court and unless such parallel proceeding interfered with or, intended to interfere with the pending Court proceeding, there is no interference with administration of justice .... an authority holding an inquiry in good faith in exercise of the powers vested in it by a statute is not guilty of contempt of Court, merely because a parallel enquiry is imminent or pending before a Court. This Court pointed out that to constitute the offence of Contempt of Court, there must be involved some act calculated to bring a Court or a Judge of the Court into contempt or to lower his authority or something calculated to obstruct or interfere with the due course of justice on the lawful process of the Court. Applying the said principle, the act of appellant holding the preliminary inquiry cannot be considered to be contempt of Court. AIR 1970 SC 720 relied on. Order of High Court reversed. [Para 12

       (2) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 -- Ss.10, 14 and 15 -- jurisdiction in contempt not to be invoked unless there is real prejudice -- inquiry held under order of senior officers should not land the inquiry officer in contempt proceedings. 1953 SCR 581 relied on. [Paras 18 & 19

       (3) Penal Code, 1860 -- S.228 -- Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S.345 -Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 -- S.10 -- police officer misbehaving in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class -- Magistrate can take action under S.228 IPC or may punish him under S.345, CrPC r/w S.228 IPC -- if act does not fall under either of the provisions, reference may be made to High Court. [Para 11

       ¼1½ U;k;ky; voeku vf/kfu;e] 1971 && /kkjk 10] 12 rFkk 14 && iqfyl vf/kdkjh }kjk U;k;ky; esa vkpj.k dh tk¡p && U;k;ky; esa yafcr fdlh ekeys ds lekarj ugha && U;k;ky; dk voeku xfBr djus ds fy, U;k;k vFkok U;k;k/kh‘k ds voeku djus dk vFkok mldk izkf/kdkj de djus dk dksbZ lqfopkfjr dk;Z gksuk vko‘;d gS && mlds ofj"Bksa }kjk funs‘k ds vuqlkj ek= izkjafHkd tk¡p U;k;ky; ds voeku dh dksfV dk ugha gksrkA

       Jh iznhi feÙky] U;kf;d eftLVªsV izFke Js.kh] Mcjk us iqfyl egkfujh{kd] Xokfy;j o`Ùk dks fjiksVZ fnukad 1-11-1999 ;g vfHkdFku djrs gq, Hksth fd panzHkku flag j?kqoa‘kh] Fkkuk vf/kdkjh fiNksj muds U;k;ky; ds dejs ds Hkhrj vk;k mudks ;g dgrs gq, /kedk;k] ^^rqeus mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k essjs fo:) voeku dk;Zokgh izkjaHk dj ds vPNk ugha fd;kA eSa fQj fiNksj iqfyl Fkkuk vk x;k gw¡ vkSj eSa rqEgsa ns[k yw¡xk** rFkk ^^eSusa dbZ eftLVªsVksa dks Bhd dj fn;k gS] vkSj eSa rqedks Hkh ns[k yw¡xkA** fo}ku eftLVªsV us f‘kdk;r dh fd fdlh iqfyl vf/kdkjh }kjk U;k;ky; us /kedh nsuk vkSj U;k;ky; dh dk;Zokgh esa ck/kk Mkyuk vuqfpr gS vkSj bl nqO;Zogkj ds fy, dBksj dkjZokbZ gksuk pkfg,A ¿ iSjk 2

       iqfyl egkfujh{kd Jh ,u-ds- f=ikBh us og ifjokn] i= fnukad 10-11-1999 }kjk ds lkFk vko‘;d dkjZokbZ djus ds fy, funsf‘kr djus ds fy, iqfyl v/kh{kd] Xokfy;j dh vksj HkstkA i= ds fo"k; esa fy[kk x;k Fkk % ^^j?kqoa‘kh ds fo:) tk¡p lapkfyr djus vkSj vuq‘kklfud dkjZokbZ djus ds ckjs esa**A iqfyl ifjokn rFkk mlds mikca/kksa ds lkFk ,rfLeu~ vihykFkhZ dks tks rRle; mi[kaM vf/kdkjh ¼iqfyl½ Mcjk Fkk] i= fnukad 17-11-1999 ds lkFk ;g funs‘k nsrs gq, Hkstk fd og ekeys dh Lo;a tk¡ djs vkSj C;kSjsokj ¼fof‘k‘V Vhi½ HkstsaA ¿ iSjk 3

       vihykFkhZ us ;g fu"d"kZ fudkyrs gq, fd mikc) nLrkostksa vkSj dFkuksa ls izdV gqvk gS fd j?kqoa‘kh us U;k;ky; esa vokaNuh; Hkk"kk iz;qDr dh tks vuqfpr Fkh] viuh tk¡p ds ckjs esa iqfyl v/kh{kd dks fjiksVZ fnukad 27-11-1999 izLrqr dh vkSj naM dh flQkfj‘k dhA ¿ iSjk 4

       j?kqoa‘kh dh voeku dk;Zokgh dk fuiVkjk djus ds i‘pkr~ mPp U;k;ky; us vius vkns‘k fnukad 22@29-5-2000] iqfyl egkfujh{kd] Xokfy;j vkSj vihykFkhZ dks ;g dkj.k crk, tkus dh lwpuk dk funs‘k fn;k fd mPp U;k;ky; dh vuqKk fcuk mUgksaus ,d U;k;k/kh‘k ds vkpj.k ds ckjs esa tk¡p lapkfy fd, tkus ds fy, mUgsa U;k;ky; ds voeku ds fy, D;ksa nafMr ugha fd;k tk,A ¿ iSjk 5

       vfHkfu/kkZfjr % j?kqoa‘kh ds vkpj.k ds ckjs esa laf{kIr tk¡p] vihykFkhZ us dsoy vius ofj"Bksa ds funs‘kksa ds vuqlj.k esa lapkfyr dhA tk¡p eftLVªsV ds vkpj.k ds ckjs esa ugha FkhA D;ksafd tk¡p j?kqoa‘kh ds fo:) Fkh] vihykFkhZ }kjk mls viuk dFku djus dk volj fn;k gh tkuk pkfg, FkkA mlds }kjk mu O;fDr;ksa ds dFku vfHkfyf[kr djuk Hkh vko‘;d Fkk ftudh j?kqoa‘kh us ?kVuk ds le; mifLFkfr crkbZ FkhA vihykFkhZ }kjk j?kqoa‘kh ds fo:) vkuq‘kklfud dkjZokbZ fd,tkus dh izLrkouk FkhA oLrqr%] lkf{k;ksa ds dFku vfHkfyf[kr djus ds i‘pkr~ vihykFkhZ us j?kqoa‘kh dks U;k;ky; esa vokaNuh; Hkk"kk iz;qDr djus dk nks"kh vfHkfu/kkZfjr djrs gq, naM dh flQkfj‘k djrs gq, fjiksVZ izLrqr dh FkhA blfy,] ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd izkjafHkd tk¡p ds nkSjku j?kqoa‘kh vkSj j?kqoa‘kh dh izkFkZuk ij vU; fofHkUu O;fDr;ksa ds dFku vfHkfyf[kr fd, tkuk U;k;k/kh‘k ds vkpj.k ds ckjs esa tk¡p ds lerqY; gSA ¿ iSjk 11

       tc rd vihykFkhZ }kjk dh xbZ tk¡p] U;k;ky; esa yafcr fdlh ekeys ds lanHkZ esa lekarj ugha gks vkSj tc og ,slh lekarj dk;Zokgh U;k;ky; esa yafcr dk;Zokgh ls U;k;ky; esa yafcr dk;Zokgh esa gLr{ksi ugha gks vFkok gLr{ksi vk‘kf;r ugha gks] U;k; iz‘kklu esa dksbZ gLr{ksi ugha gSA ---- dksbZ izkf/kdkjh dkuwu }kjk mlesa fufgr ‘kfDr;ksa ds iz;ksx esa ln~Hkkoiw.kZ dksbZ tk¡p djrk gS bl dkj.k U;k;ky; ds voeku dks nks"kh ugha gks tk,xk fd dksbZ lekarj tk¡p fdlh ds le{k gksus okyh gS vFkok yafcr gSA bl U;k;ky; }kjk fufnZ"V fd;k x;k gS fd U;k;ky; dk voeku xfBr gksus ds fy, U;k;ky; ;k U;k;ky;ds U;k;k/kh‘k dk voeku djus vFkok mldks izkf/kdkj dk âkl djus dk dksbZ lqfopkfjr dk;Z varoZfyr gS ;k U;k;ky; dh fof/kiw.kZ izfØ;k esa U;k; ds lE;d~ vfHkxe esa ck/kk Mkyus vFkok gLr{ksi djus dk dqN lqfopkfjr gksA mDr fl)kar ykxw djus ij] vihykFkhZ }kjk izkjafHkd tk¡p dh tkuk] U;k;ky; dk voeku ugha ekuk tk ldrkA , vkb vkj 1970 ,l lh 720 voyafcrA mPp U;k;ky; dk vkns‘k myVk x;kA ¿ iSjk 12

       ¼2½ U;k;ky; voeku vf/kfu;e] 1971 && /kkjk 10] 14 rFkk 15 && voeku dh vf/kdkfjrk dk vkJ; rHkh ysuk pkfg, tc rd fd dksbZ izfrdwy izHkko ugha gks && ofj"B vf/kdkfj;ksa ds vkns‘k ds v/khu dh xbZ tk¡p && ds dkj.k tk¡p vf/kdkjh dks voeku dk;Zokgh esa Q¡lk;k ugha tkuk pkfg,A 1953 ,l lh vkj 581 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 18 ,oa 19

       ¼3½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 228 && naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 345 && U;k;ky; voeku vf/kfu;e] 1971 && /kkjk 10 && U;kf;d eftLVªsV izFke Js.kh ds U;k;ky; esa iqfyl vf/kdkjh }kjk nqO;Zogkj && eftLVªsV Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 228 ds v/khu dkjZokbZ dj ldrk gS vFkok naM izfØ;k dh /kkjk 345 lgifBr Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 228 ds v/khu mls nafMr dj ldrk gS && ;fn dk;Z nksuksa esa ls fdlh mica/k ds v/khu ugha vkrk gS] mPp U;k;ky; dks funsZ‘k fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¿ iSjk 11

ORDER

Raveendran, J. -- 1. The appellant was the Sub-Divisional Officer (Police), Dabra, Gwalior District, during 1998-99. He has filed this appeal under section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short "the Act"), being aggrieved by the order dated 2.3.2001 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Contempt Petition (Criminal) No.5 of 2000, punishing him with simple imprisonment for seven days and fine of Rs.2,000/-. Factual Background

2. Shri Pradeep Mittal, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dabra, sent a report dated 1.11.1999 to the Inspector General of Police, Gwalior Circle, alleging that one Chander Bhan Singh Raghuvanshi, Station Officer, Pichhore came inside his Court hall and threatened him by stating "you have not done good by initiating contempt proceedings against me before High Court. I am back in Pichhore Police Station and I will see you", and "I have set many Magistrates right and I will see you also". The learned Magistrate complained that it was unbecoming of a police officer to threaten a Judicial Officer in Court and interrupt the Court proceedings and the misbehaviour warranted stern action. The learned Magistrate enclosed a copy of the order-sheet dated 1.11.1999 (recording the incident) and statements of two witnesses to the incident (Deposition Writer and Reader of the Court).

3. Shri N.K. Tripathi, IG of Police, sent the complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior under cover of letter dated 10.11.1999 with a direction to take necessary action. The subject of the letter stated "Regarding conducting an inquiry and taking disciplinary action against Raghuvanshi". The Superintendent of Police (Shri Pradeep Runwa1) in turn forwarded the IG's letter along with the Magistrate's complaint and its enclosures, to the appellant herein who was at that time the Sub-Divisional Officer (Police), Dabra, under cover of letter dated 17.11.1999, with a direction to personally look into the matter and send a detailed report (vistrit teep).

4. As per the said directions, the appellant conducted an inquiry. He recorded the statements of Raghuvanshi, namely M.P. Sharma (President, Bar Association, Dabra), Mahendra Kumar (a litigant), Bal Kishan and Jagdish (Police Constables), Suresh Kumar (Assistant Prosecution Officer) B.S. Thakur, Jaswant Singh Parihar and Mahesh Dubey (Advocates) who stated that they were present at the time of the incident in Court on 1.11.1999 as also Rajendra Prasad Sharma (constable who had accompanied Raghuvanshi). All these witnesses stated that there was no unbecoming conduct or misbehaviour on the part of Raghuvanshi and that he had shown respect to the learned Magistrate. The appellant submitted a report dated 27.11.1999, in regard to his inquiry, to the Superintendent of Police, recording a finding that the documents and statements disclosed that Raghuvanshi had used unwarranted language in Court which was improper and recommended punishment.

5. Long prior to the incident on 1.11.1999, the High Court had initiated contempt proceedings {(Contempt Petition No.2 of 1999) [2000(2) JLJ 216]}, against Raghuvanshi on an earlier reference by Shri Pradeep Mittal, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dabra, in regard to a false report submitted by Raghuvanshi to his Court in April, 1998. The second reference made by the learned Magistrate in regard to the incident of 1.11.1999 was also placed before the High Court, in the pending contempt proceedings. The High Court took note of the second reference on 12.1.2000 and issued a show cause notice to Raghuvanshi. In response to it, Raghuvanshi submitted his reply stating that he had not misbehaved with the Judge. In support of his defence, he produced the inquiry report dated 27.11.1999 submitted by the appellant to the Superintendent of Police along with the statements of the witnesses examined in the inquiry. The High Court disposed of the contempt proceedings against Raghuvanshi by order dated 22/29.5.2000 holding him guilty in respect of both incident














































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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