IMPORTANT POINT
The High Court cannot initiate contempt proceedings if the conduct is already being addressed under criminal law, to avoid prejudicing the ongoing trial.

ORDER :

VIVEK RUSIA, J.

This Contempt Reference is registered on a reference sent under section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the Act of 1971) read with section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act seeking punishment of Jai Kishore Rajoriya Sub Inspector, Cyber Cell, District-Datia (hereinafter referred to as the contemnor), arising out of the order dated 11-2-2020 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra, District-Gwalior (hereinafter referred to as the learned Judge) in MJCR No. 23/2020 (State of M. P. vs. Jai Kishore Rajoriya).

Brief facts of the case which led to send this reference are reproduced as under :—

2. That on 9-1-2020 at about 11.50 a.m., learned referral judge was giving necessary instructions to the civil reader in a pending civil case. At that time, the contemnor Jai Kishore Rajoriya Sub Inspector, who was a witness in SC DOCT No. 16/2016 (P.S. Antari vs. Raghuraj and Ors), appeared before the Court. The learned judge asked him how he was appearing late at 11.50 a.m. By showing a contemptuous gesture, he replied, “It is not late at 11.50 a.m.” The Court asked him that when he was required to be present in the Court at 11.00 a.m., how it is not late at 11.50 a.m. Upon hearing, he became infuriated and in an enraged voice, said, “I also have ADJ in my family, I know the way the ADJ Court works. There is no need to ask me questions in respect of my being late.” When the learned judge warned him that a complaint could be made to his S.P. in respect of his arriving late in the Court and about his such a conduct, Sub Inspector, Jai Kishore Rajoriya pointed finger towards the Court and said, “Your complaint would be made to Shri Vishal Mishra ji and to your District Judge. I have never been asked so far in any ADJ Court for being late at the time of evidence. I am not going to tolerate this.” The learned judge warned him that his conduct falls in the category of insult of the Court and causing interruption in the proceedings of the Court and same is punishable under section 228 of the Indian Penal Code. Yet, the contemnor Jai Kishore Rajoriya did not restrain himself and in the presence of witnesses and advocates, showed utmost unruliness and created scene in the Court.”

3. After the aforesaid incident, a proceeding under section 345 of Criminal Procedure Code was initiated against contemnor in respect of the offence under section 228 of the Indian Penal Code. Entire certified copy of the order sheets of the case SC DOCT No. 16/2016 are filed as Annexure-I along with this Reference. The medical examination of the contemnor was carried out and thereafter he was given time till 2.30 p.m. to submit reply to the notice issued under section 345 of Criminal Procedure Code. At about 1:40 p.m. Dr. S. L. Mahore, the Medical Officer examined him and only blood pressure of the contemnor was found on higher side, but no consumption of liquor was found. He submitted a reply at 3:30 p.m. The reply was not found satisfactory by the Judicial Officer. Thereafter, he sent a second reply to the notice issued under section 345, Criminal Procedure Code on 9-1-2020 through post accompanying a complaint against the Court. According to the learned Judge, no valid explanation was given by him in the reply and there was no need to give second reply as the proceeding initiated under section 345 of Criminal Procedure Code had already been dropped. The second reply is nothing but to cause insult, annoyance and intimidation to the Court.

4. Later on, a preliminary enquiry was set out in this case under Rule 5(b) of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Contempt of Courts Proceedings) Rules, 1980. The statements of Court’s staff were taken which are filed collectively as Annexure-VIII to Annexure-XV along with the Reference memo. All have affirmed the aforesaid incident and the conduct of the contemnor. Apart from the aforesaid conduct, the respondent/contemnor called the local media persons in the Co