Madhya Pradesh High Court
In Reference (Suo Motu) vs Shri Krishna Kumar Raghuvanshi on 15 May, 2023
Author: Chief Justice
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
CONTEMPT PETITION CRIMINAL No. 5 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
IN REFERENCE (SUO MOTU)
.....PETITIONER
AND
SHRI KRISHNA KUMAR RAGHUVANSHI S/O
LATE SHRI SHANKAR SINGH RAGHUVANSHI
VILLAGE CHHEEND DHAM, TEHSIL BARELI
DISTRICT RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI ANIL KHARE - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MS KRATIKA
INDURKHYA AND SHRI ARVIND SONI - ADVOCATE)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 12.04.2023
Pronounced on : 15.05.2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, coming
on for pronouncement this day, the Court passed the following:
ORDER
These suo motu proceedings for contempt were initiated in
pursuance to a reference sent by Shri S.P.S. Bendela, Additional District
Judge, Bareli under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 5/17/2023
1:52:17 PM
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1971') for registration of a civil as
well as criminal contempt against the accused Krishna Kumar
Raghuvanshi son of late Shri Shankar Singh Raghuvanshi and Shri Sumer
Singh son of Shri Dhannu Lal for flouting the order dated 11.07.2019
passed in the Regular Civil Appeal No.27-A/2018 directing them to
deposit the amount received as donation from the devotees in the Bank in
the name of trust. The Additional District and Sessions Judge Bareli,
District Raisen has further submitted that the contemnor Shri Krishna
Kumar Raghuvanshi committed criminal contempt as after the order
dated 11.07.2019 passed in the Regular Civil Appeal No.27-A/2018, he
has circulated a letter in the social media (Whatsapp) maligning the
image, reputation and prestige of the Court causing adverse impact in the
due process of the judicial proceedings in view of the judgment passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Het Ram Beniwal and others
vs. Raghuveer Singh, reported in 2017 Cri.LJ 175. Thus, the
Additional District and Sessions Judge has sent a reference praying to
punish contemnors Shri Krishna Kumar Raghuvanshi and Shri Sumer
Singh Raghuvanshi under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
2. The facts in nutshell are that the accused Krishna Kumar
Raghuvanshi filed a Regular Civil Appeal No.27-A/2018 in the Court of
1st Additional District Judge, Bareli against the judgment and decree
passed by the 2nd Civil Judge, Class-I, Barela in Regular Civil Suit
No.25-A/2016 dated 04.12.2018. During the pendency of the appeal, the
respondents filed a compromise application and the Additional District
Judge decreed the appeal in terms of the settlement arrived at between the
parties. On 29.07.2019 one Shri Yashpal Singh Raghuvanshi made an
application before the Additional District Judge under Section 15 of the
Act of 1971 alleging that the respondents have violated the decree of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 5/17/2023
1:52:17 PM
Court, on the basis of which, an M.J.C. No.12/2019 was registered. The
statements of the witnesses have been recorded and the documentary
evidence has been produced before the Court. The respondents denied the
allegations leveled against them. Vide order dated 09.05.2020, it has been
observed that the respondents have violated the conditions Nos. 5 and 6
of the decree, which amounts to civil contempt under the Act of 1971. It
has also been pointed out that respondent - Krishna Kumar sent a
complaint against the Additional District Judge, Bareli alleging misuse of
his office and adopting corrupt practice. During the enquiry in the
application filed by applicant Yashpal Raghuvanshi, the respondent
Krishna Kumar admitted the fact that he has sent a complaint to the High
Court. On being asked to file a reply with regard to Article A-05, he
refused to do so. It has also been mentioned in the reference that
respondent Krishna Kumar circulated in Whatsapp, a letter (Article A04)
written to the Ministry of Law and Legislative Affairs, Government of
Madhya Pradesh stating that he has complained regarding corruption and
misuse of powers by Shri S.P.S. Bundela, Additional District Judge,
Bareli. The Bar Association of Bareli also resolved that a criminal
contempt be instituted against the non-applicants.
3. The High Court took cognizance of the reference and documents
annexed therewith and found that both respondents have violated the
decree of the Court and respondent Krishna Kumar Raghuvanshi leveled
baseless allegations against Shri S.P.S. Bundela, Additional District
Judge of corruption and misuse of his office with a view to scandalize
and lower the dignity and authority of the Court of Shri S.P.S. Bundela,
Additional District Judge, Bareli, District Raisen. Hence, the present
criminal contempt has been registered suo moto against Shri Krishna
Kumar Raghuvanshi.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 5/17/2023
1:52:17 PM
4. Notice was issued and the accused/contemnor filed a return
tendering unconditional apology for inadvertent violation of the order, if
any. It is pointed out that father of the respondent preferred a civil suit
against the State Government and others with respect to the private
temple located at Khasra No.157 admeasuring 0.70 acres at Village
Chind, Tehsil Bareli, District Raisen, which was decreed. It was held that
the temple in question is a private trust of the plaintiffs and the order
dated 31.03.1997 passed by the Registrar, Public Trust, Bareli was set
aside. Owing to difference of opinion between the family members,
another Civil Suit bearing No.25-A of 2016 was filed and vide judgment
and decree dated 04.12.2018, the same was decreed holding the plaintiff
and defendant No.1 and their family members as owners of the private
trust in question, however permitted intervention of the Sub Divisional
Officer (Revenue) owing to the factum 'mandatory involvement'. Being
aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred being RCA No.27-A of
2018 before the Additional District Judge, Bareli, District Raisen. The
same was accompanied with an application under Order XLI Rule 5 of
the Code of the Civil Procedure. The case was not taken up by the
concerning Court and was adjourned and even the application for grant of
interim relief was not considered. Thereafter, an application for
compromise was filed on 08.03.2019. One Vijay Singh filed an
application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On
11.05.2019, learned first appellate court passed an order directing the Sub
Divisional Officer (Revenue) to submit a report with respect to the
compliance of direction contained in para 39 of the judgment and decree
passed by the trial Court dated 17.05.2019. Thereafter, a writ petition
being W.P.No.9949 of 2019 was filed by the respondent herein praying
for a direction to the appellate court for deciding the compromise
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 5/17/2023
1:52:17 PM
application in 08.03.2019. It is further stated about the manner in which
the proceedings of the first appeal were conducted by the first appellate
court resulting in filing of the complaint dated 21.05.2019 by the
accused/contemnor. Thus, no criminal contempt is made out against him.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the
record.
6. It is undisputed that on 21.05.2019, the respondent made a
complaint against Shri S.P.S. Bundela, Additional District Judge, Bareli,
Raisen to the Principal Registrar, which is filed as Annexure R/1-5. The
aforesaid letter is the basic letter on the basis of which reference for
initiation of criminal contempt was made. However, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent/contemnor has made an attempt to justify
his action of making a complaint against the Presiding Officer of the First
Appellate Court and simultaneously tendered an unconditional apology.
He has tried to justify that as the temple in question is a private trust,
therefore, a direction for involvement of the revenue authorities and
putting a lock in the donation box was not called for. Therefore, the
direction issued by the First Appellate Court to the Sub Divisional Officer
(Revenue) was per se illegal, but the fact remains that the reckless
allegation is leveled against the integrity and working of the Presiding
Officer of the First Appellate Court. The language of the letter reads as
under:
^^4- ;g fd i{kdkjks dh vuqifLFkfr esa fcuk fdlh vkosnu ds Jh cqansyk th
}kjk vius in dk nq:i;ksx djrs gq, rFkk i{kdkjksa dks LFkkbZ Nfr igqWp
a kus ds
fy;s Lo;a dh vksj ls vihy izdj.k dh vkns'k if=dk esa varfje vkns'k if=dk
fnukad 11-05-2019 ij vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh ¼jktLo½ dks eafnj esa rkykcanh
fd;s tkus gsrq fu.kZ; fnukad 04-12-2018 dh dafMdk 39 dk ikyu djus gsrq
i= tkjh fd;kA tks Lo;a dh vkns'k if=dk fnukad 04-02-2019 esa fn;s x,
funsZ'kksa dk mYya?ku gSA rFkk O;ogkj U;k;ky; }kjk O;ogkj okn dzekad
04&[email protected] esa ikfjr fMxzh fnukad 31-03-1983 dh vogsyuk dh tk jgh gSA
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 5/17/2023
1:52:17 PM
ftlls Jh cqUnsyk th dk Hkz"V vkpj.k ,oa in dk nq:i;ksx rFkk U;kf;d
dk;Zokgh dk nq:i;ksx Li"V izekf.kr gksrk gSA"
In para 7 of the letter it is mentioned that -
";g fd Jh cqUnsyk th vius drZO;ksa ,oa vf/kdkjksa ds ckgj tkdj euekus <ax
ls vius in dk nq:i;ksx dj jgs gSA ftlls turk dk T;wfMfl;jh ls fo'okl
mBrk tk jgk gSA T;wfMfl;jh dh xfjek dks cuk;s j[kus ds fy;s Jh cqUnsyk
th dk rRdky cjsyh ls VªkalQj fd;k tkdj vkosnu i= ds fcUnqvks ij tkap
fd;k tkuk U;k; fgr esa vfr vko';d gSA"
7. Prior to initiation of the contempt proceedings against the
respondent/contemnor, an enquiry was got conducted by the District
Judge (Vigilance) and the complaint made by the respondent/contemnor
against the Judicial Officer was found to be incorrect. The opinion was
placed before the Portfolio Judge and thereafter to the Hon'ble the Chief
Justice. The same was directed to be closed. However, a decision was
taken to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondent keeping in
view of the letter/complaint which was made by him.
8. The provision of the Criminal Contempt as defined under Section
2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is required to be seen, which is
as under:
"Criminal contempt" means the publication (whether by
words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible
representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any
other act whatsoever which--
(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to
lower the authority of, any court; or
(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the
due course of any judicial proceeding; or
(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or
tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any
other manner;
(emphasis supplied)
From the aforesaid, it is apparently clear that if a complaint
alleging reckless allegation of misuse of powers and corruption against a
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 5/17/2023
1:52:17 PM
Presiding Officer is made, the same falls under the definition of the
'criminal contempt'.
9. By the words as pointed out hereinabove, an attempt is made by the
respondent to scandalize and lower the majesty of the Court and also the
Judicial Officer. The complaint was got investigated and the allegations
were found to be reckless and, therefore, with the approval of the Hon'ble
Chief Justice on 08.08.2020, a decision was taken to initiate a criminal
contempt proceedings against the respondent. He was served with a
notice of the allegation made against him along with relevant material
and also granted opportunity to get his statement recorded before the
authorities. Article-5 marked in the enquiry is a copy of the complaint
dated 21.05.2019. It is not in dispute that proper opportunity of hearing
was granted to the respondent to submit his explanation in the enquiry.
Thus, the procedure which was required to be followed in the enquiry,
was adhered to by the authorities. Therefore, there is no illegality as far as
the procedure adopted in the enquiry is concerned.
10. The sole question for consideration before this Court is as to
whether the words which are spelt out in the complaint made by the
respondent fall under the definition of 'criminal contempt' under Section
2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 or not?
11. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prashant
Bhushan and another, in Reference Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Cri.) 1
of 2020 decided on 14th of August, 2020, reported in (2021) 1 SCC 745
has considered the definition of Section 2(c) of the Act of 1971 and has
held as under:
"It could thus be seen, that it has been held by this Court, that
hostile criticism of judges as judges or judiciary would amount
to scandalizing the Court. It has been held, that any personal
attack upon a judge in connection with the office he holds is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 5/17/2023
1:52:17 PM
dealt with under law of libel or slander. Yet defamatory
publication concerning the judge as a judge brings the court or
judges into contempt, a serious impediment to justice and an
inroad on the majesty of justice. This Court further observed,
that any caricature of a judge calculated to lower the dignity of
the court would destroy, undermine or tend to undermine
public confidence in the administration of justice or the majesty
of justice. It has been held, that imputing partiality, corruption,
bias, improper motives to a judge is scandalisation of the court
and would be contempt of the court."
12. A Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Baradakanta Mishra vs. High Court of Orissa, reported in (1974) 1
SCC 374 has held as under:
"49. Scandalisation of the Court is a species of contempt and
may take several forms. A common form is the vilification of the
Judge. When proceedings in contempt are taken for such
vilification the question which the Court has to ask is whether
the vilification is of the Judge as a judge. (See Queen v. Gray),
[(1900) 2 QB 36, 40] or it is the vilification of the Judge as an
individual. If the latter the Judge is left to his private remedies
and the Court has no power to commit for contempt. If the
former, the Court will proceed to exercise the jurisdiction with
scrupulous care and in cases which are clear and beyond
reasonable doubt. Secondly, the Court will have also to
consider the degree of harm caused as affecting administration
of justice and, if it is slight and beneath notice, Courts will not
punish for contempt. This salutary practice is adopted by
Section 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The
jurisdiction is not intended to uphold the personal dignity of the
Judges. That must rest on surer foundations. Judges rely on
their conduct itself to be its own vindication.
50. But if the attack on the Judge functioning as a judge
substantially affects administration of justice it becomes a
public mischief punishable for contempt, and it matters not
whether such an attack is based on what a judge is alleged to
have done in the exercise of his administrative responsibilities.
A judge's functions may be divisible, but his integrity and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 5/17/2023
1:52:17 PM
authority are not divisible in the context of administration of
justice. An unwarranted attack on him for corrupt
administration is as potent in doing public harm as an attack
on his adjudicatory function."
From the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
the definition provided under Section 2(c) of the Act of 1971, it is
apparently clear that even an attempt to scandalize or lower the authority
of a Court falls under the definition of 'criminal contempt'.
13. The words which are mentioned in the letter Annexure R/1-5 dated
21.05.2019 on the basis of which the proceedings of the criminal
contempt have been initiated, are questioning the working of the Judicial
Officer and levying allegation regarding corruption and misuse of his
position. The same clearly falls under the definition of 'criminal
contempt' under Section 2(c) of the Act of 1971. The reply/explanation
which has been given by the respondent and the arguments advanced by
the learned counsel for the respondent to justify the action is of no help to
him as there is no explanation for making such reckless allegation against
the Judicial Officer, who in the interest of public at large and just to put a
check on the misappropriation of funds of the temple had directed the Sub
Divisional Officer to put a lock on the donation box. Making allegation
on the Judicial Officer regarding his working, integrity and misuse of his
position, there cannot be any explanation for the same especially in the
event when the complaint made by the respondent was duly investigated
and found to be baseless by the authorities. There is no material placed on
record by the respondent before this Court to show that the allegations
were correct.
14. For the aforesaid reasons, the respondent is held guilty of
committing criminal contempt as defined under Section 2(c) of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 5/17/2023
1:52:17 PM
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and, therefore, is liable to be punished
under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act
15. We have heard Ms. Kratika Indurkhya and Shri Guransh Bhurrak,
learned counsels on sentence. They plead that a sentence of fine alone be
awarded.
16. However, on considering the same, we do not find that only
imposing of fine would be adequate. The accused has made reckless
allegations against the Presiding Judge. We do not think this would attract
the least amount of sentence. At this stage, counsel appearing for
respondents/contemnors prays that the respondents be convicted with
minimum of sentence along with fine. On considering the overall
situation and the prayer made by the learned counsel for the respondents,
we deem it just and appropriate to sentence him to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of ten days along with fine of Rs.2000/- to be
paid by the respondent/contemnor before the Registry of this Court within
seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, failing
which, he is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period
of ten days.
17. Accordingly, the criminal contempt proceedings are disposed off.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
SJ
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 5/17/2023
1:52:17 PM
