[2026:RJ-JP:1629-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Contempt Petition No. 11/2025 In Re-, R/o ----Petitioner Versus Shri Jakir Hussain, Advocate District And Session Court, Kota ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : None Present For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Hasan, Sr. Adv assisted by Mr. Aquif Khan &

Mr. N.U. Qazi Mr. Rajeev Sogarwal respondent-contemnor (present in person)

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA

Order

15/01/2026

1. The instant criminal contempt petition came to be registered on receipt of a reference note dated 22.08.2025 sent by the Presiding Officer, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kota under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

2. A perusal of reference note reflects misdemeanor of an Advocate in the Court. On issuance of notice to the concerned Advocate, he has submitted reply stating inter alia that he has highest regard for the majesty of law and respect to the Courts as well as Presiding Officers and it was only the issue that his way of argument was little persuasive, which was taken as disrespect and scandalizing the Court. The Advocate concerned is present in person and tenders his unqualified apology stating inter alia that if his conduct/manner of argument before the trial court has been taken as misdemeanor or scandalizing the Court, his unqualified apology may be accepted.

3. We find that the concerned Judicial Magistrate was seized with an issue, in respect of release of a vehicle on Supurdagi and the respondent-contemnor Advocate was representing the registered owner of the vehicle and pursuing the application to release the vehicle on Supurdagi, to the registered owner.

4. The Co-ordinate Bench of this High Court, recently while dealing with a D.B. Criminal Contempt Petition No.5/2025: In Re Vs. Advocate Shri Tarachand Sharma and Anr. and D.B. Criminal Contempt Petition No.7/2025: In Re Vs. Advocate Shri Rupendra Sharma and Ors. decided on 23.09.2025, wherein some admonishing attitude of lawyers was referred by the concerned District and Sessions Judge to draw and hold the lawyers liable for criminal contempt, opined in Para Nos.4 and 5 as under:-

“4. We are of the view that the lawyers do not have cases which are personal to them. It is a humble profession which they pursue and while they may take up cause of the public at large. In cases relating to the Judicial Officers, they would also require to understand that even the Judicial Officers do not have any personal view in relation to the cases which come up before them. It is a legal pursuit which follows from both the sides and therefore, there is no occasion of initiating agitation against the Judges, who are sitting on the Bench wholly for the purpose of administration and dispensation of the justice. No Officer has any personal grudge against any lawyers nor any lawyer can be said to have any grudge against the Judge. Sometimes on account of some arguments, a lawyer may erupt but he has to understand that the judiciary is based on the esteem of the Court. The high esteem of the Court is required to be maintained and that is why a lawyer wore such a black coat where there is no other reflection except the pious duty to perform his service in a humble manner.

5. We expect the lawyers to understand this basic principle i.e. “धर्मो(cid:3) रक्षति(cid:7) रतिक्ष(cid:7)ः “, which has been followed since ages.”

Finally after accepting unconditional apology tendered by the advocates, the contempt proceedings were closed.

5. We wish to add something more that an Advocate, who is representing the case of litigants before the Court, is not merely an agent of parties but is an officer of the Court as well and while representing the case of litigant, he/she is expected to expose decent and proper conduct in the court of law and while exerting his best to protect the interest of his/her client, assistance to the Court should be for administration of justice and every endeavor