Judicial authority must be respected, and contemptuous comments undermining it are impermissible, especially when complaints lack genuine victim grievance.

1. Considering the fact that comments placed by the petitioner in the Chat Box during the course of proceedings through Video Conferencing on 06.05.2024 are patently contemptuous and interfere with due course of judicial proceedings to scandalize the Court and undermine authority of the Court, petitioner was directed to show-cause vide order dated 09.05.2024 as to why notice for contempt be not issued and contempt proceedings initiated against him and referred to concerned Roster Bench/Division Bench for consideration in accordance with law.

2. At this stage, it is pertinent to recapitulate that petitioner had preferred an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C . before the learned MM for registration of FIR in respect of rape committed upon his wife by her cousin when she was 16 years of age. Shri Rishabh Tanwar, learned MM declined to exercise the powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C . for ordering investigation and registration of FIR but granted an opportunity to the petitioner/complainant to examine himself under Section 200 Cr.P.C . Aggrieved against the said order, a Revision Petition was preferred by the petitioner before Shri Lokesh Kumar Sharma, learned ASJ which was dismissed vide order dated 10.10.2023. Thereafter, petitioner approached this Court by preferring CRL.M.C.545/2024 for setting aside orders passed by the learned MM as well as learned ASJ, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 23.01.2024 with a cost of Rs.25,000/-.

3. It was observed by this Court that the petitioner, who is an Advocate intends to obliquely use the proceedings and gain some advantage in the pending matrimonial proceedings against his wife, since the wife of the petitioner is under no handicap and did not come forward with any complaint/allegation of commission of offence, as alleged. It was further held that wheels of criminal justice system cannot be permitted to be clogged by frivolous complaints wherein the victim herself does not have a grievance but the same is maliciously filed on her behalf and this may be an agonizing way of harassment not only to the spouse but a person who may be innocently framed and prosecuted.

4. A Review Petition has thereafter been preferred on behalf of the petitioner which is pending consideration, as already noticed in order dated 09.05.2024 passed by this Court. However, during pendency of the same, while the case was not listed on 06.05.2024, comments which are not relevant to the proceedings were made by the petitioner in the Chat Box as noticed in order dated 09.05.2024.

5. An opportunity was granted to the petitioner to respond to the comments placed in the Chat Box on 06.05.2024.

6. The reply filed on behalf of the petitioner is again grossly contemptuous in nature with hardly any relevant explanation for placing the aforesaid comments in the Chat Box on 06.05.2024. The gross mis- conduct of the petitioner can be noticed with reference paragraphs 42 to 44 & 69 placed on record, which conspicuously reflects that petitioner is habitual of making complaints and defaming the Judges of the District Courts, who have dealt with and passed any adverse order, in any proceedings preferred by the petitioner. Paragraphs 42 to 44 & 69 may be quoted for reference, though the entire reply uses intemperate and contemptuous language:

“42. That the Rishabh Tanwar, Metropolitan Magistrate has dismissed the application under section 156(3) CRPC on 24.07.2023 of CC 1248/2023 without single comment on evidences. Then the petitioner has filed a complaint under section 156(3) CRPC and CT Case no.1572/2023, titled as Sanjeev Kumar vs Rishabh Tanwar before the Hon'ble Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, South District, Saket Court against the Rishabh Tanwar under section 156(3) CPRC for misconducting in his duty and favour to the accused persons under criminal conspiracy. Thereafter, Rishabh Tanwar has transfer immediately his job to south district for evading the arrest.

43. That Mr Anoop Kr Mendiratta is guilty fo