Chattisgarh High Court
Court On Its Own Motion In Re ... vs Rajwardhan Singh, Advocate on 29 June, 2022
1
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Reserved on 8.4.2022
Order delivered on 29.6.2022
CONTR No.3 of 2021
Court on its own Motion in Re Reference made by the Judicial
Magistrate, First Class Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh
----Petitioner
VERSUS
Rajwardhan Singh, Advocate District Court Ambikapur, District Surguja,
Chhattisgarh, R/o. Deviganj Ward Jaisawal Chitra Mandir, Behind of
Talkies, Nagar Ambikapur, Thana and Tehsil Ambikapur, District
Surguja Chhattisgarh
------Respondent
For State : Mr.Sunil Otwani, Additional Advocate General with
Mr.Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent : Dr.N.K.Shukla, Senior Advocate with Mr.Manoj
Paranjape, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal &
Hon'ble Smt.Justice Rajani Dubey
C.A.V. Order
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. Smt.Aditi Thakur, First Civil Judge Class-II, Ambikapur, District Surguja
has referred this reference under Section 12 read with Section 15(2) of
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter called as 'Act of 1971')
further read with Rule 350 (1) of the High Court of Chhattisgarh
(Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter called as
'Rules of 2007') after holding preliminary inquiry under the Rules of
2007 stating inter-alia that conduct of the respondent/contemner in
Court proceeding dated 27.2.2021 prima facie falls within the category
of criminal contempt as defined under Section 2(c) of the Act of 1971
and therefore, cognizance be taken under Section 12 read with
Section 15(2) of the Act of 1971.
2. After receipt of record, this Court by order dated 02.12.2021 finding the
case to be worth consideration, took cognizance of criminal contempt
and issued notice to the respondent/contemner for his appearance
before this Court and accordingly, in response to the notice so issued,
the contemner has appeared and firstly filed preliminary reply on
16.12.2021 regretting for proceeding dated 27.2.2021 and further
stated that he did not want to tarnish the image of the Court and only
an outcome of heat of moment, the incident happened and he has
tendered his apology, which was also reiterated in additional reply
dated 14.1.2022 and further in para-6 of reply so filed, he has
undertaken that this incident will not be repeated in the near future and
tendered his unconditional apology.
3. However, detailed additional reply supported by affidavit to the
reference on behalf of the respondent / contemner has been filed on
2.4.2022, in which the respondent / contemner has stated that
averments made in reference by the said Court are not true, valid &
correct and same is not maintainable in law and order-sheet dated
27.2.2021 on the basis of which the reference has been made has also
been disputed by the respondent / contemner by stating that the
learned trial Judge has levelled incorrect and untrue allegations against
him and order-sheets were ante-dated and were prepared after many
days of so called incident and even he has not been given sufficient
opportunity for filing his reply and explanation in his defence to the
show-cause notice issued by the said Judge/Court. Therefore, the
present contempt proceeding initiated and referred by the learned trial
Court/Judge is not tenable in the eye of law and closure of his
opportunity of hearing on 27.3.2021 by the said Court was in violation
of principles of natural justice and no case is made out for reference
under Section 15(2) of the Act of 1971 against the respondent /
contemner for alleged contempt. It has been alleged that the learned
trial Judge has manipulated the order-sheet. Therefore, he be
discharged from the case by exonerating him from the charges of
criminal contempt under Section 12 of the Act of 1971. Additional
statement has also been made in the shape of paras-6 to 16.
4. Dr.N.K.Shukla, learned Senior Counsel with Mr.Manoj Paranjape,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent / contemner, would
submit that reference as made by the learned Judge under Section 12
read with Section 15(2) of the Act of 1971 taking the aid of Rule 350 (1)
of the Rules of 2007 is not at all maintainable as preliminary enquiry
has not been conducted in accordance with Rule 350(2) of the Rules of
2007 and no reasonable opportunity of hearing has been granted to
the respondent herein. He would rely upon the judgment of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court in the matter of In Re: (Under Contempt of
Courts Act) v. Indra Datt Nayak 1. Learned Senior Counsel would
further submit that contempt jurisdiction has to be invoked sparingly
and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and material
available on record, no case for initiating contempt proceeding is made
out in the light of decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of
Prashant Bhushan and another, in Re 2. Learned Senior Counsel
would also submit that the contemner has outstanding practice of 20
1 1994 M.P.L.J. 126
2 (2021) 1 SCC 745
years in trial Court and he has excellent track record and he has
discharged his professional obligation strictly in accordance with law as
an Advocate and he has tendered his unconditional apology that the
same will not be repeated in the near future. Therefore, contempt
proceedings be dropped and rule issued be discharged.
5. Mr.Sunil Otwani, learned Additional Advocate General with Mr.Soumya
Rai, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, would submit that
considering the material available on record, prima facie it is a case
where the contempt jurisdiction has rightly been invoked by this Court
for proper administration of justice as the act of the respondent /
contemner tends to undermine the dignity and authority of the Court
and contemptuous statement which has been made before the trial
Court on 27.2.2021 is calculated to malign the image of the Court
/Judge, as such, it is a case where the contempt jurisdiction has
appropriately been invoked and apology tendered by the contemner is
not just & proper, as such, preliminary objection deserves to be
rejected.
6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered
their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the
records with utmost circumspection.
7. This Court by order dated 02.12.2021 took cognizance of contempt
and finding prima-facie case, issued notice to the respondent /
contemner. In reply / additional reply, preliminary objection as to
maintainability of criminal contempt reference has been raised stating
that no inquiry contemplated by Rule 350(2) of the Rules of 2007 was
conducted before referring the matter to this Court and he has not
been afforded proper opportunity of hearing.
8. The High Court in exercise of its Rule Making Power has framed the
Rules of 2007 for taking cognizance for consideration of the reference
made by subordinate Court under Section 15(2) of the Act of 1971.
Rule 350 of the Rules of 2007 is relevant which is extracted
hereinbelow for sake of convenience:-
"350.(1) Reference under Section 15(2) of the Act may be
made by subordinate Courts either suo motu or on an
application received by it.
(2) Before making a reference the subordinate Court shall
conduct a preliminary enquiry by issuing a show cause
notice accompanied by copies of relevant documents, if
any, to the contemner and after receiving the reply, if any,
of the show-cause notice the Subordinate Court shall write
a concise reasoned order of reference indicating why
contempt appears to have been committed."
9. The respondent / contemner is said to have committed contempt on
27.2.2021, pursuant to which, preliminary inquiry proceeding was
initiated by registering MJC No.3/2021 in compliance with Rule 350(2)
of the Rules of 2007 and by order dated 19.3.2021, the respondent /
contemner was issued show-cause notice along with copy of order-
sheet dated 27.2.2021 fixing the date for hearing dated on 27.3.2021.
Order-sheet dated 19.3.2021 states as under:-
19.03.2021 इस न्ययाययालय मम ललबबित व्यवहयार वयाद क्रमयालक-
237 ए/2009 (गगुरूचरण ससलह एवल अन्य बवरूद्घ हरवलश ससलह एवल अन्य) मम
पयाररत आददेश बदनयालक 19.03.2021 कदे पररपदेक्ष्य मम असधिवकया शश्री रयाजवधिर न
ससलह कदे बवरूद्घ न्ययाययालय कया अवमयाननया असधिबनयम 1971 ककी धियारया 12
सहपबठित धियारया 15 (2) कदे तहत बवबवधि आपरयासधिक पकरण पलजश्रीबिद्घ बकयया
जयावदे ।
मयाननश्रीय उच्च न्ययाययालय छतश्रीसगढ, बबिलयासपगुर दयारया
न्ययाययालय कया अवमयाननया कयायर वयाहश्री कदे सलबिलधि मम बिनयायदे गयदे बनयम- 2007 कदे
बनयम- 350 मम अधिश्रीनस्थ न्ययाययालय दयारया न्ययाययालय कया अवमयाननया
असधिबनयम 1971 कदे तहत कयायर वयाहश्री बकयदे जयानदे कदे पपूवर पयारलबभिक जयालच ककी
आवश्यकतया बितयाई गई हहै ।
अततः उपररोक पयारलबभिक जयालच कदे पररपदेक्ष्य मम असधिवकया शश्री
रयाजवधिर न ससलह करो कयारण बितयाओ सपूचनया पत्र पदेबषित बकयया जयावदे । कयारण
बितयाओ सपूचनया पत्र कदे सयाथ व्यवहयार वयाद क्रमयालक -237 ए/2009 (गगुरूचरण
ससलह एवल अन्य बवरूद्घ हरवलश ससलह एवल अन्य) ककी आददेश पबत्रकया बदनयालक
27.02.2021 ककी पबतसलबप सललग्न ककी जयावदे और कयारण बितयाओ सपूचनया पत्र
कदे तयाबमलश्री हदेतगु कयाययारलय, मयाननश्रीय सजलया एवल सत्र न्ययाययाधिश्रीश अलबबिकयापगुर ककी
ओर सदे पदेबषित बकयया जयावदे । कयारण बितयाओ सपूचनया पत्र ककी पयावतश्री इस बवबवधि
आपरयासधिक पकरण मम सललग्न बकयया जयावदे।
सयाथ हश्री इस पकरण मम व्यवहयार वयाद क्रमयालक-237 ए/2009
(गगुरूचरण ससलह एवल अन्य बवरूद्घ हरवलश ससलह एवल अन्य) ककी आददेश पबत्रकया
बदनयालक 27.02.2021 ककी सत्यपबतसलबप एवल आददेश पबत्रकया बदनयालक
19.03.2021 ककी सत्यपबतसलबप सललग्न बकयया जयावदे ।
पकरण अनयावदेदक ककी उपसस्थबत/कयारण बितयाओ सपूचनया पत्र कदे
जवयाबि हदेतगु बनयत बकयया जयातया हहै ।
पकरण उपसस्थबत/जवयाबि हदेतगु बदनयालक-27.03.2021
सहश्री/-
(शश्रीमतश्री अबदबत ठियाकगु र)
पथम व्यवहयार न्ययाययाधिश्रीश वगर -2/
न्ययाबयक मसजस्टट दे ट पथम शदे ण श्री
अल ब बिकयापगुर , सरगगुज या (छ०ग०)
In compliance of order dated 19.3.2021, on 27.3.2021 the respondent /
contemner entered into appearance through his counsel Shri
Rameshchandra Shukla and filed an application seeking time to file
reply, which was granted by order dated 27.3.2021 which states as
under:-
27/03/2021 अनयावदेदक शश्री रयाजवधिर न ससलह करो पगुकयार लगयाई गई ।
11:15 बिजदे । अनयावदेदक शश्री रयाजवधिर न ससलह अनगुपसस्थत ।
पकरण मदेरदे समक्ष थरोडश्री ददेर पश्चयातत् पदेश हरो ।
सहश्री/-
(शश्रीमतश्री अबदबत ठियाकगु र)
पथम व्यवहयार न्ययाययाधिश्रीश वगर - 2/
न्ययाबयक मसजस्टट दे ट पथम शदे ण श्री
अल ब बिकयापगुर , सरगगुज या (छ०ग०)
पगुन तःश्च
12:30 बिजदे ।
अनयावदेदक शश्री रयाजवधिर न ससलह करो पगुकयार लगयाई गई ।
अनयावदेदक शश्री रयाजवधिर न ससलह अनगुपसस्थत ।
पकरण मदेरदे समक्ष चयाय कयाल पश्चयातत् पदेश हरो ।
सहश्री/-
(शश्रीमतश्री अबदबत ठियाकगु र)
पथम व्यवहयार न्ययाययाधिश्रीश वगर - 2/
न्ययाबयक मसजस्टट दे ट पथम शदे ण श्री
अल ब बिकयापगुर , सरगगुज या (छ०ग०)
पगुन तःश्च
01:30 बिजदे ।
अनयावदेदक शश्री रयाजवधिर न ससलह ककी ओर सदे शश्री रमदेशचन्द्र शगुक्लया
असधिवकया मय वकयालतनयामया उपसस्थत ।
पकरण आज अनयावदेदक ककी उपसस्थबत एवल कयारण बितयाओ
सपूचनया पत्र कदे जवयाबि हदेतगु बनयत हहै ।
अनयावदेदक ककी ओर सदे उपसस्थत असधिवकया शश्री रमदेशचन्द्र
शगुकलया कदे दयारया एक आवदेदन अलतगर तत् कयारण बितयाओ सपूचनया पत्र कया जवयाबि
पस्तगुत करनदे हदेतगु समय पदयान बकए जयानदे बियाबितत् पदेश बकयया गयया ।
उक आवदेदन पदेश कर, यह बनवदेदन बकयया गयया हहै बक
न्ययाययालय दयारया पदेबषित कयारण बितयाओ सपूचनया पत्र कया जवयाबि पस्तगुत करनदे हदेतगु
एक मयाह कया समय बदयया जयाए, बकलतगु उनकदे दयारया अपनदे तकर मम एक सपयाह कया
समय बदए जयानदे कया बनवदेदन बकयया गयया हहै ।
अबभिलदेख कया पररशश्रीलन बकयया गयया ।
अबभिलदेख कदे पररशश्रीलन सदे दबशर त हहै बक पकरण आज
अनयावदेदक ककी उपसस्थबत एवल अनयावदेदक करो जयारश्री कयारण बितयाओ सपूचनया पत्र
कदे जवयाबि हदेतगु बनयत हहै, बकलतगु अनयावदेदक ककी ओर सदे कयारण बितयाओ सपूचनया पत्र
कया जवयाबि पदेश करनदे हदेतगु एक मयाह कया समय चयाहया गयया हहै , उनकदे दयारया कयारण
बितयाओ सपूचनया पत्र कया जवयाबि पस्तगुत करनदे हदेतगु समय ददेनदे कया उबचत एवल
सदयाबवक कयारण नहहीं बितयायया गयया हहै, अततः आवदेदक करो कयारण बितयाओ सपूचनया
पत्र कया जवयाबि पदेश करनदे हदेतगु एक सपयाह कया समय अथयारतत् बदनयालक
03.04.2021 ककी बतसथ अलबतम अवसर ककी टश्रीप कदे सयाथ पदयान बकयया जयातया
हहै । अनयावदेदक, असधिवकया शश्री रयाजवधिर न ससलह करो बनदरबशत बकयया जयातया हहै बक
उक पकरण ककी आगयामश्री बतसथ 03.04.2021 करो आवश्यक रूप सदे कयारण
बितयाओ सपूचनया पत्र कया जवयाबि पस्तगुत करदे, अन्यथया पकरण मम जवयाबि कया
अवसर समयाप कर, बवसधि अनगुसयार कयायर वयाहश्री ककी जया सकदेगश्री ।
पकरण वयास्तदे जवयाबि हदेतगु बदनयालक-03.04.2021
सहश्री/-
(शश्रीमतश्री अबदबत ठियाकगु र)
पथम व्यवहयार न्ययाययाधिश्रीश वगर - 2/
न्ययाबयक मसजस्टट दे ट पथम शदे ण श्री
अल ब बिकयापगुर , सरगगुज या (छ०ग०)
10. After the time was granted to file reply fixing the date for reply on
behalf of the contemner on 3.4.2021, again on that day (27.3.2021) at
3.30 p.m. learned counsel for contemner appeared and filed an
application for transferring his case to some other Court, which was
taken on record and on 3.4.2021 application for transferring his case to
other Court was considered and rejected. Since no reply was filed and
the said Court waited for reply by the contemner to be filed, but no
reply was filed on behalf of the contemner, the trial Court considered
the issue and passed an order making reference to this Court under
Section 15(2) of the Act of 1971 read with Rule 350 (1) of the Rules of
2007.
11.A careful perusal of the proceeding would show that on 27.3.2021 the
contemner appeared through his counsel and sought time for filing
reply and that was granted by the Court though that application was
not supported by affidavit and date was fixed for 3.4.2021 and
immediately thereafter on same date (27.3.2021), though time had
already been granted, yet the contemner filed another application for
transferring his case to some other Court, which was fixed for 3.4.2021
and ultimately, it was rejected on 3.4.2021 finding no merit on that
objection/application for transfer to other Court.
12. The application dated 27.3.2021 filed by the contemner would
show that the contemner submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court and
took a calculated chance by submitting to jurisdiction of the Court and
sought time to file reply and the trial Court accepting his request for
time to file reply, granted time till 3.4.2021 to file reply, but immediately
thereafter on the same date the contemner filed another application for
transferring his case to other Court, which was also not supported by
affidavit, which was rejected on merits on 3.4.2021 and thereafter the
Court considered the issue for making reference and finding the case
worth for reference, made it to this Court.
13. The aforesaid narration of the facts would show that the
respondent / contemner anyhow wanted to protract the preliminary
proceeding and having made an application for filing reply and having
been granted time for filing reply took u-turn by filing another
application for transferring his case to any other Court, which was also
not supported by affidavit, which shows that sufficient opportunity was
granted to the respondent / contemner for filing reply, which he did not
avail and failed to file reply and thereafter right to file reply was closed
and reference was made to this Court. Therefore, his argument in this
regard that no proper preliminary inquiry was conducted and no
opportunity was granted him in accordance with Rule 350(2) of the
Rules of 2007 has no force and preliminary objection in this regard is
hereby rejected. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for
the contemner in the matter of Indra Dutt Nayak (supra) is clearly
distinguishable to the facts of the present case as in that case no
preliminary inquiry was conducted at all.
14. Since detailed reply supported by affidavit has already been filed
and this Court has also taken cognizance of contempt and issued
notice to the contemner, let the matter be listed for final hearing in the
week commencing 11 th July, 2022.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Rajani Dubey)
Judge Judge
B/-
