Back
2015 Supreme(MP) 811
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
P.K. Jaiswal and D.K. Paliwal, JJ.
Bar Association, Manavar through its President v. Shri Satyendra Singh Tahsildar, Manavar
Contempt Petition (Criminal) No.3 of 2015 (Indore);
Decided on 24.8.2015.
Jerry Lopez for applicant;
A.K. Sethi with Harish Joshi for respondent.
Headnote:Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 -- S.15 -- contempt of Court -- committee not recorded statements of any person present in Court -- no notice given to respondent to submit his reply -- committee without knowing stand of respondent -- submitted his report is in violation of natural justice -- no finding that respondent committed contempt of Court -- no case made out against respondent -- petition dismissed.
Held : It is surprising that the committee has not recorded the statements of any other person present in the Court at the time of hearing. Only the statements of members of Bar Association have been recorded. No any notice has been given to respondent to appear or submit his reply by the investigating team .... It is also pertinent to mention that the report (Annexure P-2) shows that no finding has been recorded how Shri Satyendra Singh has committed the contempt of Court.
U;k;ky; voekuuk vf/kfu;e] 1971 && /kkjk 15 && U;k;ky; dh voekuuk && lfefr us U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr fdlh Hkh O;fDr dk dFku vfHkfyf[kr ugha fd;k && izR;FkhZ dks mÙkj izLrqr djus ds fy, dksbZ lwpuk ugha nh && lfefr us izR;FkhZ dk vk/kkj tkus fcuk && viuh fjiksVZ izLrqr dh] uSlfxZd U;k; ds vfrØe.k esa gS && dksbZ fu"d"kZ ugha fd izR;FkhZ us U;k;ky; dh voekuuk dkfjr dh && izR;FkhZ ds fo#) dksbZ ekeyk ugha curk && ;kfpdk [kkfjtA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ;g vk'p;Ztud gS fd lfefr us U;k;ky; esa lquokbZ ds le; mifLFkr fdlh vU; O;fDr ds vfHkdFku vfHkfyf[kr ugha fd,A dsoy vfHkHkk"kd la?k ds lnL;ksa ds dFku vfHkfyf[kr fd, x,A izR;FkhZ dks mifLFkr gksus] viuk mÙkj vuqla/kku djus okyh Vhe dks izLrqr djus gsrq dksbZ lwpuk ugha nh xbZA ---- ;g Hkh mYys[k djuk vko';d gS fd fjiksVZ ¼vuqyXud ih&2½ nf'kZr djrh gS fd dksbZ fu"d"kZ vfHkfyf[kr ugha fd;k x;k fd dSls Jh lR;sUnzflag us U;k;ky; dh voekuuk dkfjr dhA
1. This contempt petition has been filed under section 10 read with sections 15 and 16 of Contempt of Courts Act.
2. Brief facts are that Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan, Advocate practising at Manawar, District Dhar on 16.7.2014 had appeared before the respondent Tahsildar in the matter of Hari s/o Dharamiya, r/o Vayal and sought time tol file reply. Advocates Shri Himanshu Bhakt, Shri Amit Sharma and Shri Yogendra Singh Tomar were also present in the Court room. The respondent Tahsildar questioned Advocate Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan regarding his power to appear in the case, upon it Advocate Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan has submitted his Vakalatnama, but respondent pointing his finger at Advocate refused to accept the Vakalatnama. Respondent also told that he shall hear the case at 4:00 p.m. and shall accept the Vakalatnama then only and thereafter thrown the Vakalatnama and asked Advocate Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan to get out from the Court room. The respondent also stated that he shall accept the Vakalatnama if he wishes to or he can also reject the Vakalatnama. Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan, Advocate made a complaint against the respondent to the Bar Association, Manawar regarding the aforesaid incident. On receipt of the complaint the Bar Association called a General Body Meeting and it was resolved to constitute a investigating team consisting of Advocate Shri D.D. Patidar, Shri H.R. Patidar, Shri K.C. Patidar, Shri N. Choyal and Shri Siraj Khan to investigate into the matter. The investigating team recorded the statements of witnesses and also sought explanation from respondent, but he did not appear or made himself available before the investigating team. The investigating team submitted its report to the Bar Association, which is marked as Annexure P-2. The respondent too also submitted a complaint dated 16.7.2014 on 17.7.2014 before the Bar Association. The Bar Association, Manawar on consideration of the report submitted by the investigating team and complaint of the respondent concluded that respondent is obstructing the lawyer in carrying out his legal duties during continuance of judicial proceeding, hence, it amounts to criminal contempt and it was resolved by the General Body to institute contempt proceedings. The President of Bar Association, Manawar has applied for consent under section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 from the Advocate General, State of Madhya Pradesh and the Advocate General, Madhya Pradesh vide its DO No.17168 dated 26.9.2014 gave his consent to the President, Bar Association, Manawar for instituting this petition. Thereafter this petition has been filed praying that the respondent has committed criminal contempt of Court by insulting and misbehaving with the Advocate by obstructing the administration of justice, therefore, prayed that he be suitably punished.
3. In reply respondent denied the allegations. It is denied that Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan, Advocate has submitted his Vakalatnama before the respondent and respondent has refused to accept the Vakalatnama. It is further denied that respondent has pointed his finger at Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan, Advocate and told that he shall appear in the matter at 4:00 p.m. and shall submit Vakalatnama then only. It is stated that 16.7.2014 the respondent was hearing the revenue matter in his Court at about 2:45 p.m. Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan, Advocate appeared in the Court and sought time for filing reply till then no Vakalatnama has been filed by Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan, Advocate on behalf of Shri Hari s/o Dharamiya. In the meantime Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan, Advocate started shouting in the Court of respondent. When respondent was taking up some another matter, but complaint of the case and Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan, Advocate had started discussing the matter in a shouting language. Respondent made both of them understand that they will not shout each other in such a fashion and maintain decorum of the Court. On this Shri Jit
