IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH, CHIEF JUSTICE &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA CONTEMPT PETITION CRIMINAL No. 8 of 2013 BETWEEN:-

IN REFERENCE (SUO MOTU)

.....PETITIONER AND SHRI SATYA PAL ANAND S/O SHRI SAHIB DATTA MAL ANAND, R/O 120,M JAORA COMPOUND, INDORE, DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT (BY SHRI LAL RAJ BAHORAN SINGH CHAUHAN – ADVOCATE AND SHRI S.S. CHAUHAN – GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reserved on : 03.07.2023 Pronounced on : 10 .07.2023 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on for pronouncement this day, the Court passed the following:

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHALINI

ORDER

These criminal contempt proceedings have been initiated suo muto in pursuance to an order passed by this Court on 03.12.2012 in Writ Petition No.2842 of 2006 wherein this Court observed as under :-

“During course of arguments the petitioner, while criticizing the order dated 17.07.2012 passed by this court, submitted that the order was biased. It is further submitted that the learned Acting Chief Justice who has passed the order was a biased person. Thereupon, when this court pointed out to the petitioner that such a statement is in contempt of the court, he said that the learned judge was a biased person in this case. Inspite of bringing to the notice of the petitioner that this may amount to contempt of court, the petitioner reasserted the statement.

In the circumstances, issue notice to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why proceedings for contempt of Court be not initiated against him. Notice be made returnable within a period of two weeks. Petitioner waives service of notice. The petitioner prays for and is granted two weeks time to file reply.”

2. In pursuance to the order passed by this Court regarding the presence of the respondent/contemnor before this Court, an application being I.A.No.8132 of 2023 for permanent exemption from personal appearance was preferred by the contemnor and looking to the medical ailment and age of the respondent/contemnor, this court vide order dated 03.07.2023 has dispensed with the presence of the respondent/contemnor. 3. On notice being issued to the respondent/contemnor, he has filed a reply. Initially he tried to justify his action but subsequently he tenders his unconditional apology before this Court. It is argued that the respondent is aged about 92 years and is suffering from various ailments. Medical documents to the aforesaid effect are filed to point out the pathetic condition of the respondent/contemnor and his inability to walk or move around. Hence, he has prayed for dropping the proceedings against the respondent/contemnor.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHALINI

4. The question that arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether the argument raised before the Court on 03.12.2012 comes under the preview of definition of ‘criminal contempt’ as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 or not. The relevant provision is as under :-

“Criminal contempt” means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which—

(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner;

The words which have been uttered by the respondent/contemnor virtually amount to attempting to scandalize the image of the court and the functioning of the court. Comments were made against the then Acting Chief Justice stating him