Back
2000 (2) JLJ 216
R.S. Garg and R.B. Dixit, JJ.
Pradeep Mittal, J.M.F.C. Dabra v. Chandrabhan Singh Raghuvanshi
Contempt Petn. (Cri) No.2 of 1999; Decided on 22.5.2000.
Shri Pradeep Mittal, Second Civil Judge, Class II, Dabra reported to this Court that on 1.11.1999, respondent Chandrabhan Raghuvanshi came in his Court room when he was busy in conducting C.S. No. 310-A/94 (Gomabai v. Prem Narain). According to the complaint, respondent was shouting in the Court and threatened the Court that by registering the contempt matter, judge has not done good, he had come back to police station Pichora, and would see the judge; he had set right the magistrates. On this, according to the complaint, the learned Judge requested the respondent to conduct himself properly and use proper language, on which, showing utter indifference the respondent left the Court by intimidating the judge. [Para 4
A perusal of para-3 would show that taking an exception to the reference made by the complainant the respondent started asserting that the Judge bore personal enmity with the respondent. It is unfortunate that the respondent is levelling such allegations almost after three months of the incident. He does nowhere say that why he did not inform about the wrong/misdeeds of Shri Mittal either to his officers or to the District Judge or any other officer that Shri Mittal was asking him to do the illegal works or was seeking personal favours. [Para 22
The nature of allegations made by him clearly show that to malign the officer he can go to any extent. If this is his conduct in the High Court then one would not be wrong in holding that he did not conduct or behave properly in the Court of Shri Mittal. (Para 24
After finding him guilty, we are of the opinion that he deserves deterrent punishment so that in future it serves as an example to the people who are readily creating false records and may also work as an example against all such persons who try to undermine the authority of a judicial officer and are very conveniently levelling allegations of malice, etc. We convict the respondent and award him three months simple imprisonment. [Para 28
(2) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 -- Ss. 15(2) and 17 – contemners filing forged documents after preparing them in reference under S. 15(2) -- directed to he served with show cause notices for starting contempt proceedings.
We direct the Registry to register a case against Station House Officer, Antri Shri Narendra Sharma, Head Constable Moharir Om Prakash of Police Station Billuoa for helping and assisting the respondent in manufacturing and creating false and forged documents knowing well that the same would be used in the Court. Notices be also issued to the then Inspector General of Police, Gwalior and S.D.O. (P), Dabra as to why without permission of the Court/High Court they proceeded with the enquiry into the conduct of a judge. ‘These persons be issued notice: to show cause, as to why they be not punished for committing contempt of the lawful authority of the Court by creating false and forged documents and by interfering with the Court of Justice.
(Para 29
¼1½ U;k;ky; voeku vf/kfu;e] 1971 && /kkjk 15¼2½ rFkk 12 && U;k;ky; ds dk;Zle; ds nkSjku voekudrkZ dk U;k;ky; d{k esa izos‘k && fpYykuk rFkk ihBklhu vf/kdkjh dks /kedkuk && mPPk U;k;ky; esa feF;k vfHkys[k Hkh iLrqr fd;k tkuk & Hk;ksijfrdkjh naM ds ;ksX;A Jh iznhi feÙky] f}rh; flfoy U;k;k/kh‘k] oxZ 2] Mcjk us bl U;k;ky; dks fjiksVZ fd;k fd 1-11-1999 dks izR;FkhZ panzHkku j/kqoa‘kh muds U;k;ky; es d{k esa vk;k tc og flfoy okn Ø- 310&,@94 ¼xksekckbZ fo- izseukjk;.k½ dh dk;Zokgh esa O;Lr FksA ifjokn ds vuqlkj] izR;FkhZ U;k;ky; esa fpYyk jgk Fkk rFkk mlus U;k;ky; dks /kedk;k fd voeku dk ekeyk jftLVªh—r dj U;k;k/kh‘k us vPNk ugha fd;k gS] og iqfyl Fkkuk] fipksjk okil vk x;k gS rFkk og U;k;k/kh‘k dks ns[k ysxk( mlus eftLVªsVksa dks Bhd dj fn;k gSA bl ij] ifjokn ds vuqlkj] fo}ku U;k;k/kh‘k us izR;FkhZ ls mfpr vkpj.k djus rFkk mfpr Hkk"kk iz;qDr djus dk vuqjks/k fd;k ftl ij] furkar ux.;rk n‘kkZrs gq,] izR;FkhZ U;k;k/kh‘k dks vfHkéLr dj ds U;k;ky; ls pyk x;kA ¿ iSjk 4À iSjk 3 ds ifj‘kbyu ls nf‘kZr gksxk fd ifjoknh }kjk fd, x, funsZ‘k ij vkifRrÙk djrs gq, izR;FkhZ us ;g izk[;ku djuk vkjaHk dj fn;k fd U;k;k/kh‘k dh izR;FkhZ ls O;fDrxr ‘k=qrk FkhA ;g nqHkkZX;iw.kZ gS fd izR;FkhZ ,sls vfHkdFku ?kVuk ds yxHkx rhu ekl i‘pkr~ dj jgk gSA og ;g dgha ugha dgrk fd mlus Jh feÙky ds nks"kiw.kZ dk;Z@videZ dks D;ksa tkudkjh vius vf/kdkfj;ksa vFkok ftyk U;k;k/kh‘k vFkok fdlh vU; vf/kdkjh dks D;ksa ugha nh fd Jh feÙky mlls voS/k dk;Z djus dk dg jgs Fks vFkok O;fDrxr vuqxzgksa dh bZIlk dj jgs FksA ¿ iSjk 22À mlds }kjk fd, x, vfHkdFkuksa ds Lo:i ls Li"Vr% nf‘kZr gS fd vf/kdkjh dh fuank djus ds fy, og fdlh Hkh lhek rd tk ldrk gSA ;fn mPp U;k;ky; esa mldk vkpj.k ,slk gS rc ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr djuk xyr ugha gksxk fd Jh feÙky ds U;k;ky; esa mlus mfpr vkpj.k vFkok O;ogkj ugha fd;kA ¿ iSjk 24À mls nks"kh fu"df"kZr djus ds i‘pkr` gekjh jk; gS fd og Hk;ksijfrdkjd naM ds ;ksX; gS ftlls Hkfo"; esa ;g ,sls O;fDr;ksa ds fy, mnkgj.k cu tk, tks rRijrk ds feF;k vfHkys[k l`ftr djrs gSa rFkk mu O;fDr;ksa ds fy, Hkh mnkgj.k cu tk, tks U;kf;d vf/kdkjh ds izkf/kdkj dks ttZfjr djus dk iz;kl djrs gS vkSj cgqr lqfo/kkiwoZd fo}s"k] vkfn ds vfHkdFku djrs gSaA ge izR;FkhZ dks fl)nks"k djrs gSaA ge izR;FkhZ dks fl)nks"k Bgjkrs gS rFkk mls rhu ekl dk lknk dkjkokl vf/kfu.khZr djrs gSaA ¿ iSjk 28À ¼2½ U;k;ky; voeku vf/kfu;e] 1971 && /kkjk 15¼2½ rFkk 17 && voekudrkZ }kjk dwVjfpr nLrkost rS;kj djus ds i‘pkr` /kkjk 15¼2½ ds v/khu funsZ‘k esa Qkby fd, x, && voeku dk;Zokgh vkjaHk djus ds fy, dkj.k crkvks lwpuk dh rkeby djuk funsf‘krA ge jftLVªh dks fufnZ"V djrs gSa fd Fkkuk vf/kdkjh] vkarjh Jh ujsanz ‘kekZ] iqfyl Fkkuk fcykSvk ds gSM dkULVscy eksgfjZj vkseizdk‘k ds fo#)] ;g vPNh rjg tkurs gq, fd mudk U;k;ky; ds mi;ksx fd;k tk,xk] izR;FkhZ dks feF;k rFkk dwVjfpr nLrkost cukus vkSj l`ftr djus es c<+k;k nsus rFkk lgk;rk djus ds fy, ekeyk jftLVj fd;k tk,A rRdkyhu iqfyl egkfujh{kd Xokfy;j rFkk mi[kaM vf/kdkjh ¼iqfyl½] Mcjk dks Hkh bl ckj esa lwpuk tkjh fd tk, fd U;k;ky;@mPp U;k;ky; dh vuqKk ds fcuk mUgksaus U;k;k/kh‘k ds vkpj.k dh tk¡p dh dk;Zokgh D;ksa dhA bu O;fDr;ksa dks bl ckjs esa dkj.k crkus ds fy, lwpuk tkjh fd tk, fd feF;k rFkk dwVjfpr nLrkost l`ftr dj ds rFkk U;k;y; esa gLr{ksi dj ds] U;k;ky; ds fof/kiw.kZ izkf/kdkj dk voeku djus ds fy, mUgsa D;ksa nafMr ugha fd;k tk,xkA ¿ iSjk 29À
Garg, J. -- 1. This reference under Section 15 (2) of Contempt of Courts Act 1971, has been made by the Judicial Magistrate first Class, Dabra (Gwalior) for drawing contempt proceedings against Chandrabhan Singh Station House Officer, Billuoa at present posted as Sub-Inspector Murar, District Gwalior.
2. The facts in nut-shell are that on 15.4 98 one Matadeen made an application to the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class that the Station House Officer of police station. Billuoa within the jurisidiction of the Court had wrongly detained his two sons namely; Mahesh and Suresh for more than seven days. A report was called from the S.H.O. on 16.4.98. respondent Chandrabhan Raghuvanshi submitted to the Court that Mahesh and Suresh were not kept in detention nor were in the lock up of the said police station. Relying upon the affidavit of Matadeen, the said Judicial Magistrate First Class, issued a search warrant. The said search warrant was given to Shri Anil Parsolwal, Advocate for its execution. The said Advocate went to make the enquiries and found that Mahesh son of Matadeen was lodged in the lock up of the Police Station. The said Advocate, after executing the warrant brought Mahesh Sort of Matadeen in the Court of V.S. Patidar, Judicial Magistrate First Class on 17.4.98 where the statements of Mahesh. Suresh and or constable Om Prakash of Police Station Billuoa were recorded. At the time of the execution of the warrant. Mahesh was round in the lock up, while Suresh was found staying outside the lock up but within the Police Station premises. According to the reference, 505 entries were round in the daily Rojmancha but entry relating to lodgment of Mahesh was missing. Mahesh stated in the Court that he was kept in the lock up since 8.4.98. The fact that Mahesh was found in lock up was stated by constable Omprakash.
3. According to the reference, the respondent/contemner Chandrabhan Raghuvanshi purposely submitted the false report to the Court and thereby committed contempt of the lawful authority of the Court and caused hindrance in the due administration of justice.
4. Copies of the documents and the statements etc., were supplied to the respondent and his explanation was sought. The contemner submitted his unconditional apology before the lower Court but however did not deny the material facts. The learned Judicial Magistrate finding the explanation to be dissatisfactory, referred the matter to this Court alongwith the report of Chandrabhan dt. 16.4.98, report on the search warrant. statement of Mahesh, show cause notice issued to the respondent and reply of the respondent. The reference was received in the High Court on 16.11.98. On 16.11.98, this Court issued notice to the respondent calling upon him to appear in person and show cause as to why he be not punished for committing contempt of the Court. This Court also directed that alongwith the notice, a copy of the reference be also annexed. The contemner alongwith his counsel Shri A.K. Shrivastava appeared in the Court on 26.10.99. Finding that there was a typographical mistake in describing the responden( this Court ordered that the correct description of the respondent be given by suostituting Chandrabhan Singh Raghuvanshi in place of Rudrabhan Raghuvanshi. On 16.11.99, the respondent subrriitted his reply alongwith seven documents and his own aftidavit. Before anything could be done in the matter, under the covering letter No. 3488 dt. 16.11.99 received in the High Court on 17.11.99. the learned District and Sessions Judge, GwaHor submitted the memorandum/letter No. 553 dt. 1.11.99 sent by the said Judicial Magistrate First Class/Second Civil Judge Class II, DabraShri Pradeep Mittal to this Court. In the aforesaid lettcr dt. 1.11.99, Shri Pradeep Mittal, Second Civil Judge, Class II. Dabra reported to this Court that on 1.11.99, respondent Chandrabhan Raghuvanshi came in his Court room when he was busy in conducting C.S. No. 31O-A/94 (Gomabai v. Prem Narain). Acc
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
