Jharkhand High Court
Dr. Sanjay Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 December, 2022
-1- Cr.M.P. No. 524 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 524 of 2021
with
I.A. No. 11216 of 2022
Dr. Sanjay Kumar ..... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Suman Kumari ..... ... Opposite Parties
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : In person.
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Prashant Kumar Rai, Advocate.
------
10/ 07.12.2022 The conduct of this petitioner with regard to I.A. No. 11216 of
2022 shall be dealt with before parting with the final order.
2. Heard the petitioner, who is appearing in person, Mr. Pankaj
Kumar Mishra, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Prashant Kumar Rai,
learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2.
3. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal
proceedings including the First Information Report, in connection with
Jamua P.S. Case No. 298 of 2020, registered for the offence under
Sections 341, 323, 494 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section
3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Giridih.
4. The First Information Report was lodged on the basis of the
written report of the informant namely Suman Kumari and the prosecution
story in brief is that the marriage of the informant was solemnized with the
petitioner on 28th January, 2007 and out of the wedlock, two children are
there with the informant and the age of the son is 13 and the daughter is of
7 years. Further alleged that her husband and the petitioner herein posted
at RIMS Hospital as the post of Deputy Superintendent and stay there.
Further alleged that her husband sent the informant and her children to her
parental house after mental and physical torture and about last six years
the informant is staying at Mirzaganj with her parents. Further alleged that
in the mean while informant's husband solemnized another marriage with
one Priti Kumari, daughter of Surendera Saw, resident of Village-
Malakpur, P.S.-Itkhori and District-Chatra on 13.03.2019 during her alive.
Further alleged that when the informant asked about the second marriage
-2- Cr.M.P. No. 524 of 2021
with the petitioner when she saw both together as wife and husband, then
it was alleged that her husband started assaulting her and also abused her
with filthy language and clearly asked Rs. 20 lacs as dowry from her to
bring from her father, if she want to stay with the petitioner and when the
informant refused to fulfill the demand of dowry then he was again
assaulted and abused. And further with the aforesaid allegations the
informant requested to the officer in charge to enquire about the matter
and take proper legal recourse against the petitioner husband and
accordingly, a first information report be lodged under Sections 341, 323,
494, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act registered as Jamua P.S. Case No. 298 of 2020 against the
petitioner.
5. The petitioner, who is appearing in person submits that three
FIRs have been lodged against him by the O.P. No. 2, the first FIR is Tisri
P.S. Case No. 38 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. No. 831 of 2011, the
second FIR is Bariatu P.S. Case No. 429 of 2013 corresponding to G.R.
No. 6748 of 2013 and the third FIR is Jamua P.S. Case No. 298 of
2020(challenged in the present case). He submits that Tisri P.S. Case No.
38 of 2011 has been challenged in Cr.M.P. No. 1940 of 2019 and Bariatu
P.S. Case No. 429 of 2013 has also been challenged in Cr.M.P. No. 1938
of 2019 before this Court. The Cr.M.P. No. 1938 of 2019 was admitted for
hearing and stay was granted in favour of the petitioner, vide order dated
01.12.2020 and the Cr.M.P. No. 1940 of 2019 was dismissed by the said
order. He further submits that the order dated 01.12.2020 passed with
respect to Cr.M.P. No. 1940 of 2019 was challenged before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Cr.) No. 7327 of 2021, wherein, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has stayed that part of the order. He further submits that
the cases were not being decided by the learned Court, High Court and the
Supreme Court and he is being harassed by the courts.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Prashant Kumar Rai, learned counsel
appearing for the O.P. No. 2 draws the attention of the court to the counter
affidavit, filed on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 and submits that during the
pendency of the criminal proceedings and without obtaining the divorce
from his first wife, this petitioner has performed another marriage. He
-3- Cr.M.P. No. 524 of 2021
submits that the certificate, issued from the Temple of marriage and the
photographs of marriage are annexed as Annexure-1 and Annexure-2
series respectively and looking into the same, prima facie, it appears that
the marriage has been solemnized, which is being disputed by the
petitioner, who is appearing in person. However, this is the subject matter
of trial, as the same is disputed question of fact.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 further submits
that due to conduct of this petitioner, as he has abused, assaulted and
manhandled the O.P. No. 2 that's why, she has been compelled to live with
their two children, who have born out of the wedlock, along with her
parents. He further submits that petitioner has paid the maintenance
amount and the same has been admitted by the petitioner, who is
appearing in person, in view of the maintenance, awarded by the learned
family court. He draws the attention of the court to the I.A. No. 11216 of
2022 and submits that the contents therein are contemptuous. He further
submits that this petitioner is in habit of scandalizing the court. He earlier
filed identical I.A. before the Division Bench in F.A. No. 47 of 2019 and
the Division Bench has accepted his apology with condition that in future
he will not repeat the same.
8. In view of the above and considering the submissions of the
parties, the court has gone through the materials available on record and
also the contents of the FIR and finds that it is an admitted fact that the
O.P. No. 2 is the wife of the petitioner. The three FIRs have been lodged,
which have been brought before the learned Court and the High Court as
well as Hon'ble Supreme Court, where in all these three cases, the
petitioner has been granted interim relief, in spite of that he has alleged
that the proceedings are being delayed by the respective Courts.
9. Looking into the contents of the FIR, it transpires that there
are allegation against the petitioner of torturing and manhandling the O.P.
No. 2 for demanding Rs. 20 lacs as further dowry. There are parameters of
quashing the FIR. The courts are quashing the FIRs, where allegations are
found malicious and without any basis, however, if the allegations are
there and no mala fide is involved in the matter, the courts are not
quashing the FIRs. The case of the petitioner has not come under the
-4- Cr.M.P. No. 524 of 2021
guidelines framed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Haryana & Others Vs. Bhajan Lal & Others, reported in 1992 Supp. (1)
SCC 335.
10. In view of the above, no relief can be extended to the
petitioner, as such, this petition is dismissed.
11. Interim order, granted earlier, stands vacated.
I.A. No. 11216 of 2022.
1. The aforesaid Cr.M.P. was listed on 11.06.2021 and on that
day, learned counsel has argued the matter and the petitioner was directed
to implead the informant as O.P. No. 2 and the matter was fixed for
05.07.2021 and the interim order of petitioner shall not be arrested, was
passed. On 05.07.2021, notice was issued to the O.P. No. 2 and the matter
was fixed for 27.10.2021. On 27.10.2021, Mr. Prashant Kumar Rai has
tendered his appearance on behalf of O.P. No. 2 and he took four weeks
time for filing the counter affidavit in the matter and the time was allowed
and the matter was fixed for 02.02.2022. On 02.02.2022, the O.P. No. 2
took further three weeks time for filing counter affidavit and the time was
allowed and the matter was fixed for 27.04.2022. On 27.04.2022, the
matter was adjourned and directed to be listed on 15.06.2022. On
15.06.2022 the matter was again adjourned with a view to provide an
opportunity to the O.P. No. 2 and the matter was posted for 08.09.2022
and on 08.09.2022 the matter was again adjourned for 07.12.2022 to
enable the petitioner to examine the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of
the O.P. No. 2 that's why, this matter has been listed today.
2. The petitioner, who is appearing in person repeated his
argument about lodging of three FIRs as noted above..
3. How this matter was taken up on priority basis and the
petitioner was provided protection by this court has been discussed above.
The Co-ordinate Bench has already granted relief in one of the FIR,
however, in one case, the relief has not been extended to the petitioner, but
the same has been challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein
that order of the Co-ordinate Bench has been stayed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 draws the
-5- Cr.M.P. No. 524 of 2021
attention of the Court towards the I.A. filed on by the petitioner, which is
I.A. No. 11216 of 2022 and submits that in the said I.A., he has tried to
scandalize the entire judiciary and has not even spared the Judges of the
High Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court including the Trial
court. Learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 submits that this
petitioner has earlier tried to scandalize the court in F.A. No. 47 of 2019,
wherein vide order dated 21.05.2020, the Hon'ble Division Bench has
passed the following order:-
"The appellant in person is present.
He makes unconditional apology for the
statements made in I.A. No. 10876 of 2019 and
prays to withdraw the same.
Taking into consideration the facts of the
case, and the mental frame of the appellant when
this Interlocutory Application was filed, we are
inclined to accept the apology and allow the
appellant to withdraw this Interlocutory
Application with a warning to the appellant that
there must not be any repetition of such action by
him. The oral unconditional apology of the
appellant is accordingly, accepted.
This Interlocutory Application is
accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn."
5. Learned A.P.P., appearing for the State submits that the
petitioner has challenged only the FIR and at this Stage, this Court may
not quash the FIR. He further submits that the I.A., filed by the petitioner,
who is appearing in person is required to be dealt with by this court with
iron hands, as there is direct allegation against the petitioner of
scandalizing the entire judiciary.
6. The court has perused the I.A. No. 11216 of 2022. In the said
I.A., the first prayer is made for issuing notice upon Preety Kumari and
also issue direction to the police to produce said Preety Kumari. The
second prayer is made for quashing of the FIR as early as possible in the
interest of justice and to discourage the abuse of the process of law by
someone interested by imposing heavy cost or any other punishment. The
-6- Cr.M.P. No. 524 of 2021
third prayer is also made for conducting the proceeding under camera
recording as well as live streaming as if 3rd eye witness about happenings
inside the court as appellant will argue in person who have bitter past
experience of facing judges misbehaving and speaking lie while sitting on
the chair and falsely implicating appellant. These three prayers have been
made in the said I.A. In the said I.A., it has been further alleged that after
mutual compromise at district level itself and unfortunately then Trial
Judge had acted rashly and negligently and only on second date of protest
petition, he started trial when no one pressed or argued to accept the
protest petition. It has also been disclosed that 7 trial judges failed to
examine 9 prosecution witnesses, where judges have been prosecuting
first party as well as judge, so violating natural justice and perpetuating
unrest and crime in the society. It has further been alleged in the said I.A.
that one Suman Kumari is misusing and abusing the law and process of
the court only to harass the petitioner. It has also been alleged that the
woman must be discouraged by the court in abusing the court by imposing
heavy cost on her or any other punishment otherwise if judges and courts
are happy in being misused and abused by one Suman Kumari, then
petitioner shall also be compelled to take law in his own hand and also
abuse the court in whatever way feasible.
7. On query from the court, the petitioner, who is appearing in
person submits that he has stated all these things hereinabove and he has
been made accused in three cases and he is also facing the trial in all these
three cases. The statement made in the I.A. clearly suggests that this
petitioner is appearing in person making unfounded allegations against the
judges, who are working tirelessly to dispose of the matters.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 has submitted
that he has brought on record by way of counter affidavit that during the
survival of the first marriage, this petitioner has re-married another lady
and the conduct of the petitioner has earlier been discussed by the
Division Bench in F.A. No. 47 of 2019 vide order dated 21.05.2020, which
is already quoted hereinabove.
9. Looking into the order dated 21.05.2020, passed in F.A. No.
47 of 2019 (supra), it is crystal clear that he has made apology before the
-7- Cr.M.P. No. 524 of 2021
Division Bench, which was accepted with a warning to the appellant / this
petitioner that there must not be any repetition of such action by him, in
spite of that he has filed the present I.A. This is not happening for the first
time of disparaging remarks and aspersions deliberately and repeatedly
made allegation against Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as
High Court and learned Trial Courts, which amounts to bring down the
image of judiciary in the estimation of public and to bring administration
of justice into disrepute. Once this has been brought to the knowledge of
the Court, the court is bound to deal the same with iron hands.
10. All the proceedings have been witnessed by learned lawyers
present in the court including Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Chairman of
Jharkhand State Bar Council, Mr. Nilesh Kumar, who is also Member of
the Jharkhand State Bar Council and Mr. Kumar Amit, Advocate and
others present in the Court.
11. At this stage, the petitioner, who is appearing in person
seeking apology and prays for withdrawal of the I.A.
12. For accepting the apology, the court is required to find out
where the said apology is coming from the core of the heart or not. The
apology means a regretful acknowledgement or an excuse for failure. An
explanation offered to a person affected by one's action that no offence
was intended, coupled with the expression of regret for any that may have
been given. Apology should be unquestionable in sincerity. It should be
tempered with a sense of genuine remorse and repentance, and not a
calculated strategy to avoid punishment. So an apology should not be
paper apology, and expression of sorrow should come from the heart and
not from the pen; for it is one thing to say sorry, it is another to feel sorry.
After abusing in so many words in presence of the all the lawyers, who are
present in the court and when this order was dictated, the said apology was
tendered, which suggests that only to by the time, he is seeking apology,
and this is the second misconduct in spite of the earlier warning of the
Division Bench and to allow him, he will again repeat the same.
13. It is well settled principle that an apology is not a weapon of
defence to purge the guilt of the contemnor. At the same time, the apology
must be sought at the earliest opportunity. The apology tendered by the
-8- Cr.M.P. No. 524 of 2021
petitioner in the instant case is at belated stage is only to escape the
punishment of the court it should not be acceptable. Reference may be
made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.C.
Mehta Versus Union of India & Ors., reported in (2003) 5 SCC 376.
14. In that view of the above and considering that the apology is
not coming from the core of the heart of the petitioner, the apology is not
accepted and the same is rejected.
15. The petitioner, who is appearing is person submits that
initially his tone was high, as he is aggrieved with the facing of trial in
three cases and that's why he has argued in such a way. Such type of
conduct is deserved to be dealt with iron hands and no sympathy to
anyone with a view to avoid repetition of such contempt of others. This
aspect of the matter has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Roshan Lal Ahuja IN RE, reported in (1993) Supp (4) SCC
446, which was considered by the three Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in paras-, 1, 10, 11 and 12, which are quoted hereinbelow:-
1. Permissiveness of the judicial system which
enabled the contemner to file innumerable petitions
claiming the same relief arising out of the same
cause of action undeterred by its refusal, on
various occasions by this Court coupled with the
indulgence and sympathy shown by this Court,
appears to have emboldened the respondent -
contemnor to cast unfounded and unwarranted
aspersions and make scurrilous and indecent
attacks against this Court and its Judges in wild,
intemperate and even abusive language. Narration
of facts to point out the extent to which the
contemnor has abused the process of the Court and
how indulgence and sympathy shown by this Court
has been 'exploited' by him is not only desirable
but necessary to appreciate how and why contempt
proceedings have been initiated against him.
10. The facts are telltale and not in dispute. That
the memorandum of writ petition and the
representation to the President of India contain
scurrilous and indecent attacks on this Court as
well as on the Judges of this Court in intemperate
and abusive language is not denied. The contemnor
has permitted himself the liberty of using language
in the offending documents which not only has the
effect of scandalising and lowering the authority of
-9- Cr.M.P. No. 524 of 2021
the court in relation to judicial matters but also has
the effect of substantially interfering with and
obstructing the administration of justice. The
unfounded and unwarranted aspersions on the
impartiality and ability of the judges of this Court
to render justice has the tendency to undermine the
authority of the court and create a distrust in the
public mind as to the capacity of Judges of this
Court to meet out even handed justice. The image
and personality of the apex court is an integrated
one. The passages in the memorandum of the writ
petition and the letter addressed to the President of
India attack the integrity and fairness of the
Judges. The remarks made by the contemnor are
disparaging in character and derogatory to the
dignity of the Court and besides scandalising the
court in relation to judicial matters have the
tendency to shake the confidence of the public in
the apex court.
11. The tendency of maligning the reputation of
judicial officers by disgruntled elements who fail to
secure an order which they desire is on the
increase and it is high time that serious note is
taken of the same. No latitude can be given to a
litigant to browbeat the court. Merely because a
party chooses to appear in person, it does not give
him a licence to indulge in making such aspersions
as have the tendency to scandalise the court in
relation to judicial matters.
12. Ordinarily, courts of law do not initiate
proceedings to commit a person for contempt of
court where there is mere technical contempt or
where the contemnor satisfies the court that he was
truly repentant for his action. Judgments of the
court are open to criticism. Judges and courts are
not unduly sensitive or touchy to fair and
reasonable criticism of their judgments. Fair
comments, even if, put-spoken, but made without
any malice or attempting to impair the
administration of justice and made in good faith in
proper language do not attract any punishment for
contempt of court. Lord Denning in Reg v.
Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Ex parte
Blacburn, 1968 (2) WLR 1204 made some
pertinent observations in this regard. In the words
of the Master of Rolls:
"Those who comment can deal faithfully with all
that is done in a court of justice. They can say
-10- Cr.M.P. No. 524 of 2021
that we are mistaken, and our decisions
erroneous, whether they are subject to appeal or
not. All we would ask is that those who criticise
us will remember that, from the nature of our
office, we cannot reply to their criticism. We
cannot enter into public controversy. Still less
into political controversy."
However, when from the criticism a deliberate,
motivated and calculated attempt is discernible
to bring down the image of judiciary in the
estimation of the public or to impair the
administration of justice or tend to bring the
administration of justice into disrepute the
courts must sister themselves to uphold their
dignity and the majesty of law. No litigant can
be permitted to over step the limits of fair,
bonafide and reasonable criticism of a judgment
and bring the courts generally in disrepute or
attribute motives to the Judges rendering the
judgment. Perversity, calculated to undermine
the judicial system and the prestige of the court,
cannot be permitted for otherwise the very
foundation of the judicial system is bound to be
undermined and weakened and that would be
bad not only for the preservation of Rule of Law
but also for the independence of judiciary.
Liberty of free expression is not to be confused
with a licence to make unfounded, unwarranted
and irresponsible aspersions against the Judges
or the courts in relation to judicial matters. No
system of justice can tolerate such an unbridled
licence. Of course "Justice is not a cloistered
virtue; she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny
and respectful, even though outspoken,
comments of ordinary men", but the members of
the public have to abstain from imputing
improper motives to those taking part in the
administration of justice and exercise their right
of free criticism without malice or in any way
attempting to impair the administration of
justice and refrain from making any comment
which tends to scandalise the court in relation to
judicial matters.
16. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is in contempt of the
court. Accordingly, the Court takes suo motu cognizance of contempt of
court against the petitioner.
17. The Cr.M.P. No. 524 of 2021 has been dismissed, as discussed
-11- Cr.M.P. No. 524 of 2021
above in para- 9 and 10 (supra). In view of the above, the following order
is being passed:-
(i) Office is directed to register suo motu motion as Suo Moto
Contempt Proceedings in terms of Rule 389 and other
relevant Rules of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001
and under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with
Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for the
purpose of record.
(ii) Office is also directed to issue notice under Section 17 of
the Contempt of Courts Act to the petitioner, who is
appearing in person at the address provided in the petition
as per the Contempt of Courts Act and High Court of
Jharkhand Rules. Notice shall be accompanied by the entire
record of this case including the dismissed Cr.M.P., as well
as the I.A and the counter affidavit filed on behalf of O.P.
No. 2, to be made returnable on 05.01.2023.
(iii) Since every case of criminal contempt under Section 15, is
required to be heard and determined by the Bench of not
less than two Judges in terms of Section 18 of the said Act,
office is directed to place the matter before Hon'ble the
Chief Justice for necessary consideration.
18. In view of above, the aforesaid interlocutory application also
stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
