The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently comprising of a bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimanth and Justice Vishal Mishra the practice of litigants threatening trial court judges with contempt pleas for wrong judicial orders. (Majid Beg & Ors v Tej Pratap Singh)
Facts of the case
The petition was filed seeking initiation of proceedings for contempt against the respondent herein for willfully disobeying the order passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case.
Contention of the Parties
The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondent has violated the aforesaid order. He submitted that the order passed by this Court in paragraph-9 has been disobeyed.
He submitted that even though the impugned order therein dated 10.05.2022 was set aside, the trial judge is proceeding to recall the witnesses and record their evidence.
It was his submission that even though he brought it to the notice of the trial judge, he was told that there was no order to restrain him or summon the witnesses. Therefore, in view of the fact that there is no specific order restraining him not to summon the witnesses, there is no disobedience of the aforesaid order. Therefore, it was pleaded that since the contempt has been committed in disobeying the directions contained in paragraph-9, appropriate action be taken against the respondent.
It was further pleaded that the trial judge had stated that there was no order passed by the High Court directing him not to recall any of the witnesses. What was ordered by the High Court was to decide the matter afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners/accused etc. Therefore, what is being done by the trial judge is in accordance with the directions especially given in paragraph-9. Hence, there is no contempt.
Courts Observation and order
The bench taking note of the contention of the Parties remarked, "on considering the contentions, we are of the considered view that no contempt would arise in this matter.
There is no specific order directing the trial court not to summon the witnesses or anything of the like nature. This Court after setting aside the order dated 10.05.2022 which is an order under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., directed the CJM to decide the matter afresh after granting opportunity. ‘Afresh’ necessarily means from the beginning. Opportunity has already been granted. Therefore, we do not find any willful disobedience as pleaded by the petitioners.
Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground itself."
The bench further observed, "So far as the contentions being advanced are concerned, we do not appreciate the same. Apparently, the plea of the petitioners is that in spite of the order of the Court, the trial judge has disobeyed the same. We have hereinabove held that the same does not amount to contempt. Every order that is passed by a superior court, is liable to be followed by the lower court. Even assuming the case of the petitioners is to be accepted of certain misapplication of the law, that does not amount to contempt."
The bench remarked, "The understanding of the trial court is quite a different issue than disobedience. One has to show that the disobedience is willful to the orders passed by the superior courts. If there is any scope for any interpretation in the directions being issued then that cannot constitute a contempt. In the instant case, the impugned order therein was set aside with a direction to consider the matter afresh. Therefore, the trial court has to consider the matter afresh. As to how that amounts to contempt, we are unable to follow."
The bench dismissing the petition remarked, "Therefore, we are of the view that this is nothing but a pure adventurism by the petitioners in making such reckless allegations against the trial judge. We deprecate such attitude. We do not appreciate that every wrong order passed by the trial court is to be brought under contempt and the concerned judge has to be proceeded against. Trying to threaten the judges with petitions for contempt, in our considered view, is not going to be accepted. Since this matter is arising for the first occasion we have restrained ourselves from taking strict action but only direct a warning to the petitioners to desist from such adventurism.
Petition is accordingly dismissed."
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
