Madhya Pradesh High Court
Radhe @ Radheshyam Pathak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 March, 2023
Author: Sheel Nagu
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No.5017 OF 2021
(RADHE @ RADHESHYAM PATHAK & ANR. Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated: 27/03/2023
None for the appellants.
Shri Pramod Kumar Pandey - Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
______________________________________________________________
State counsel seeks and is granted two weeks time to file reply/objection
to I.A. No.21212/2022, which is third repeat application u/S.389(1) of Cr.P.C.
for suspension of sentence moved on behalf of appellant No.2 Rahul @ Vicky
Dixit.
Matter be placed before Registrar (J-II) who shall be at liberty to grant
further two weeks time for State to file reply/objection.
In case, no reply is filed within the aforesaid period of 30 days, the case
be listed before appropriate Bench for hearing on I.A. No.21212/2022.
In respect of a call given by the M.P. State Bar Council asking the
members of the Bar in the State of M.P. to abstain from Court work w.e.f.
23.03.2023, the Division Bench of this Court took suo moto cognizance of the
situation in WP. No.7295/2023 (In Reference (Suo Moto) vs. Chairman, State
Bar Council of M.P. & Others) and passed order on 24.03.2023, the operative
portion of which is reproduced below for ready reference and convenience:-
"18. Under these circumstances, since the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has been violated and keeping in mind the interest of the
poor litigants, we deem it just and necessary to issue the following
directions:-
(i) All the advocates throughout the State of Madhya Pradesh are
hereby directed to attend to their court work forthwith. They shall
represent their clients in the respective cases before the respective
courts forthwith;
(ii) If any lawyer deliberately avoids to attend the court, it shall be
presumed that there is disobedience of this order and he will be faced
with serious consequences including initiation of proceedings for
contempt of court under the Contempt of Courts Act;
(iii) If any lawyer prevents any other lawyer from attending the court
work, the same would be considered as disobedience of these directions
and he will be faced with serious consequences including initiation of
proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act;
(iv) Each of the judicial officers are directed to submit a report as to
which lawyer has deliberately abstained from attending the court;
(v) The judicial officers shall also mention the names of advocates who
have prevented other advocates from entering the court premises or
from conducting their cases in the court;
(vi) Such advocates shall be dealt with seriously which may even
include proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act as well as being
debarred from practice.
The Registry is directed to ensure that all the respondents are
served with the notice of this petition as well as of this order
forthwith.
Post after service of notice."
Despite writ of mandamus having been issued by Coordinate Bench on
24.03.2023, counsel for appellants Shri Ajay Kumar Jain, Shri Manoj
Kushwaha and Shri Rishabh Singh, despite being authorized by appellant
vide Power of Attorney, are abstaining from Court work.
This prima facie amounts to disobedience of the writ of mandamus issued
on 24.03.2023 in WP. No.7295/2023.
Accordingly, Registry is directed to issue show cause notice to Shri Ajay
Kumar Jain, Shri Manoj Kushwaha and Shri Rishabh Singh to explain
before the next date of hearing as to why proceedings for contempt be not
initiated against them for disobedience of order passed by the Division Bench on
24.03.2023 in WP. No.7295/2023.
Registry is further directed to maintain a separate file qua the contempt
notice.
List after two weeks.
(Sheel Nagu) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge
Sateesh
Digitally signed by SATEESH KUMAR SEN
Date: 2023.03.31 11:11:14 +05'30'
Adobe Reader version: 11.0.8
