ORDER :

Farjand Ali, J.

Lord Denning in R. v. Metropolitan Police Commisioner, Ex parte Blackburn (No.2) observed that:-

Let me say at once that we will never use this jurisdiction as a means to uphold our own dignity. That must rest on surer foundations. Nor will we use it to suppress those who speak against us. We do not fear criticism, nor do we resent it. For there is something far more important at stake. It is no less than freedom of speech itself.

INTRODUCTION

1. This Court has received the present matter through an official communication transmitted by the Registry of the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, in the form of a U.O. Note. The said U.O. Note encloses a letter dated 14.08.2019 forwarded by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, along with an application dated 08.08.2019 addressed by the Presiding Officer, Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara (hereinafter to be referred as “Presiding Officer”), accompanied by relevant documents and enclosures.

2. As per the contents of the aforesaid communications, it is stated that during the course of hearing of Criminal Case arising out of FIR No. 130/2019 registered at Police Station Mandalgarh for offences under Sections 376, 420, 389, 120-B, 166-A and 509 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred as “IPC”), the Presiding Officer noticed certain acts which allegedly constituting an act of contempt of court. Consequently, a reference seeking initiation of proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act of 1971”) against the non- applicants named therein was made and transmitted through the proper administrative channel. The original reference along with supporting material has thus been placed before this Court for information and for taking further action, as deemed appropriate in accordance with law.

2.1 The matter has been taken up. Notices were issued and the same stand served. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard.

BACKGROUND AND GENESIS OF THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS

3. The present proceedings arose out of allegations that certain police officials (present contemnors) have committed criminal contempt of court on account of statements made by them during an inquiry conducted by an Additional Superintendent of Police.

3.1 The factual matrix, in brief, is that in the principal case allegations were levelled against the accused, namely Mahaveer Prasad Acharya, that he had established relationship with the complainant on the basis of a promise to marry. There are further allegations in the FIR No. 130/2019 against the then SHO, Shri Bhura Ram Khillery, to the effect that victim “M” went to the Police Station to lodge the FIR but the needful was not done instead she was behaved unruly and subjected to abuse. Whereupon, she sent a report to SP Bhilwara on 15.04.2019, the copies of which were sent to DIG, DG, CM, Home Minister and Women Commission, still the FIR was not lodged. Upon receiving the complaint, the learned Magistrate sought a report from Police Station and wherefrom it was informed that no such report got lodged at the instance of the victim in this fact situation.

3.2 The learned Magistrate, upon due consideration of the material placed on record, has proceeded to pass an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., whereby it has been observed that, prima facie, the allegations levelled disclose commission of cognizable offences. It has been specifically noted that offences punishable under Sections 376, 420, 389 and 120-B of the IPC are made out against Mahaveer Prasad Acharya. Furthermore, the learned Magistrate has also recorded a prima facie satisfaction that the role of the concerned SHO is not beyond scrutiny, and that offences under Sections 166-A, 509 and 120-B IPC are also disclosed against him. Consequently, in exercise of powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., a direction has been issued to the SHO concerned to register the FIR and undertake investigati