ORDER

1. These suo motu proceedings for criminal contempt were initiated in pursuance to a reference sent by Shri Pradeep Kumar Soni, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chhindwara under section 15 (2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1971’) for registration of Criminal Contempt against accused Shri Sudama Baghel s/o late Shri Ratiram Baghel alleging that on 18.1.2020 when he was on remand duty, the respondent/accused being inebriated condition was shouting in the Court premises. While he was going to the Court, the respondent/accused called out in an indecent manner, stopped him and when he objected, the respondent/accused rushed and made gesture to attack him. When he came into the Court room, the accused/respondent continued shouting, threatening, uttering swearing words nearby the Court room. Because of the act of the respondent/accused, he was not able to perform his work. He had submitted an application to the Police Station Kotwali, Chhindwara and after investigation, a complaint was filed before the Executive Magistrate Chhindwara. Medical report shows that the respondent/accused was in inebriated state and talking nonsense. Prior to the aforesaid incident, on 18.11.2019 and 22.11.2019, the respondent/accused did the similar act and the complaints were lodged against him. Therefore, it is alleged that the respondent/accused is in habit of creating nuisance by uttering swearing words and making noise in the court premises and he disrupts the judicial work in the Court. Thus, the Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class has sent a reference praying to punish contemnor Shri Sudama Baghel (Advocate) under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

2. The High Court took cognizance of the reference and documents annexed therewith and found that the respondent had lowered the dignity and authority of the Court. Hence, with the approval of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, the present Criminal Contempt has been registered suo motu against respondent/contemnor Shri Sudama Baghel, Advocate.

3. On notice being issued, the accused/contemnor filed a return denying the allegations levelled against him. It is further submitted that he has been doing practice regularly in the Court since 12.11.1994 and has never misbehaved with any judicial officers and senior members of the Bar. On 17.2.2020 a notice for criminal contempt has been received by him but due to illness, he could not file reply to the same and ex-parte proceedings have been drawn against him. With a view to harass him, a false and concocted story has been developed and the present criminal contempt proceedings have been initiated against him. It is further submitted that the respondent had never consumed liquor nor did he enter into the premises of the Court after consuming liquor. However, he tenders unconditional apology for the act, if any, done by him with a promise that he will never repeat such act or action before any Court of law and has prayed to drop the proceedings.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

5. It is an admitted fact that on 18.11.2019, 22.11.2019 and 18.01.2020, complaints have been registered against the respondent/accused levelling allegation of causing nuisance and obstructing the judicial work in the court. The complaint was duly investigated by the police authorities and the respondent/contemnor was arrested. The medical reports have been enclosed along with the enquiry reports. Allegations levelled against the respondent/accused read as under:

^^¼1½ ;g fd vukosnd }kjk fnukad 18-01-2020 dks tc ;g U;k;ky; vodk'k fnol esa fjek.M M~;wVh ij mifLFkr gksus ds fy;s U;k;ky; ifjlj esa U;k;ky; dh vksj tk jgs Fks] rc vukosnd 'kjkc ds u'ks esa fpYykpksaV dj jgs Fks o 'kkafrHkax dj jgs Fks] ftUgksus bl U;k;ky; ds U;k;k/kh'k egksn; dks vlH;rkiw.kZ rjhds ls fpYykdj] vkokt nsdj jksdk vkSj euk djus ij nkSM+dj geys dh HkkoHkafxek cukdj U;k;k/kh'k egksn; ds ,dne djhc vkdj jkLrk jksdk vkSj /khjs ls U;k;k/kh'k