In Reference (Suo Motu) vs Shri Sudama Baghel
2023 Latest Caselaw 8046 MP

                           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. 3 of 2020

                          BETWEEN:-

                          IN REFERENCE (SUO MOTU)

                                                                                              .....PETITIONER

                          AND

                          SHRI SUDAMA BAGHEL (ADVOCATE) S/O LATE
                          SHRI RATIRAM BAGHEL, AGED 53 YEARS, R/O
                          PATHADHANA, CHANDANGAON, TEHSIL AND
                          DISTRICT CHHINDWARA, OFFICE ADDRESS:
                          COURT     PREMISES,   DISTRICT      BAR
                          ASSOCIATION, CHHINDWARA, DISTRICT COURT
                          CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                            .....RESPONDENT
                          (BY SHRI BALRAM KOSHTA - ADVOCATE)

                          -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Reserved on            :      11.04.2023
                          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:




Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 5/17/2023
5:22:25 PM
                                                                2




                                                          ORDER

These suo motu proceedings for criminal contempt were initiated in pursuance to a reference sent by Shri Pradeep Kumar Soni, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chhindwara under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1971') for registration of Criminal Contempt against accused Shri Sudama Baghel s/o late Shri Ratiram Baghel alleging that on 18.01.2020 when he was on remand duty, the respondent/accused being inebriated condition was shouting in the court premises. While he was going to the court, the respondent/accused called out in an indecent manner, stopped him and when he objected, the respondent/accused rushed and made gesture to attack him. When he came into the court room, the accused/respondent continued shouting, threatening, uttering swearing words nearby the court room. Because of the act of the respondent/accused, he was not able to perform his work. He had submitted an application to the Police Station Kotwali, Chhindwara and after investigation, a complaint was filed before the Executive Magistrate Chhindwara. Medical report shows that the respondent/accused was in inebriated state and talking nonsense. Prior to the aforesaid incident, on 18.11.2019 and 22.11.2019, the respondent/accused did the similar act and the complaints were lodged against him. Therefore, it is alleged that the respondent/accused is in habit of creating nuisance by uttering swearing words and making noise in the court premises and he disrupts the judicial work in the Court. Thus, the Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class has sent a reference praying to punish contemnor Shri Sudama Baghel (Advocate) under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

2. The High Court took cognizance of the reference and documents annexed therewith and found that the respondent had lowered the dignity

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 5/17/2023 5:22:25 PM

and authority of the Court. Hence, with the approval of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, the present Criminal Contempt has been registered suo motu against respondent/contemnor Shri Sudama Baghel, Advocate.

3. On notice being issued, the accused/contemnor filed a return denying the allegations levelled against him. It is further submitted that he has been doing practice regularly in the Court since 12.11.1994 and has never misbehaved with any judicial officers and senior members of the Bar. On 17.02.2020 a notice for criminal contempt has been received by him but due to illness, he could not file reply to the same and ex-parte proceedings have been drawn against him. With a view to harass him, a false and concocted story has been developed and the present criminal contempt proceedings have been initiated against him. It is further submitted that the respondent had never consumed liquor nor did he enter into the premises of the court after consuming liquor. However, he tenders unconditional apology for the act, if any, done by him with a promise that he will never repeat such act or action before any court of law and has prayed to drop the proceedings.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

5. It is an admitted fact that on 18.11.2019, 22.11.2019 and 18.01.2020, complaints have been registered against the respondent/accused levelling allegation of causing nuisance and obstructing the judicial work in the court. The complaint was duly investigated by the police authorities and the respondent/contemnor was arrested. The medical reports have been enclosed along with the enquiry reports. Allegations levelled against the respondent/accused read as under:

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 5/17/2023 5:22:25 PM

"1& ;g fd vukosnd }kjk fnukad 18-01-2020 dks tc ;g U;k;ky; vodk'k fnol esa fjek.M M~;Vw h ij mifLFkr gksus ds fy;s U;k;ky; ifjlj esa U;k;ky; dh vksj tk jgs Fks] rc vukosnd 'kjkc ds u'ks esa fpYykpksVa dj jgs Fks o 'kkafrHkax dj jgs Fks] ftUgksus bl U;k;ky; ds U;k;k/kh'k egksn; dks vlH;rkiw.kZ rjhds ls fpYykdj] vkokt nsdj jksdk vkSj euk djus ij nkSM+dj geys dh HkkoHkafxek cukdj U;k;k/kh'k egksn; ds ,dne djhc vkdj jkLrk jksdk vkSj /khjs ls U;k;k/kh'k egksn; ls dgk fd ^^eSa vkids f[kykQ mPp U;k;ky; dks fyQkQk rS;kj dj jgk gwW*a * vkSj U;k;k/kh'k egksn; dks /kedkus yxs rFkk U;k;k/kh'k egksn; ds yxkrkj vukosnd dks ogka ls pys tkus dk dgus ij Hkh vukosnd us jkLrk ugha NksM+kA 2& ;g fd vukosnd }kjk U;k;k/kh'k egksn; ds U;k;ky; d{k esa vk tkus ds ckn Hkh U;k;ky; d{k ds ihNs o ikl yxkrkj xkyhxykSp] fpYykpksVa o lhVh ctk;s tkus o /kedh nsus dk d`R; tkjh j[kk x;k] ftlls fjek.M M~;wVh djrs nkSjku dk;Z laiknu gks gh ugha ik jgk Fkk o U;k;nku ds dk;Z esa yxkrkj O;o/kku mRiUu gks jgk Fkk] ftlds dkj.k ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dh nakfMd vihy dza0 [email protected] /kuiky fo0 e0iz0 jkT; ds ekeys esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 17-01-2020 ds ifjikyu esa Jh ih0vkj0 narkys vf/koDrk }kjk vfHk;qDrx.kksa dh tekur ca/ki= rLnhd djus gsrq dk;Zokgh izLrqr djuh pkgh] ijarq vukosnd Jh lqnkek c?ksy ds }kjk 'kjkc ds u'ks esa mRrsftr gksdj yxkrkj dh tk jgh fpYykpksaV] xkyh cdus o /kedh nsus ds d`R; ls mDr vkns'k ds ifjikyu esa tekur rLnhd gsrq dk;Zokgh izkjaHk gh ugha gks ik jgh Fkh o fjek.M M~;wVh dk dk;Z laikfnr gh ugha gks ik jgk Fkk o U;k;ky;hu dk;[email protected];k;nku ds dk;Z esa ?kksj O;o/kku mRiUu gks jgk FkkA 5& ;g fd blds iwoZ Hkh vukosnd ds }kjk fnukad 18-11-2019 dks U;k;ky; ifjlj esa 'kjkc ihdj mRikr epk;k x;k Fkk] xkyhxykSp dj lhVh ctk;h x;h o vHknz Hkk"kk dk bLrseky U;k;ky; ifjlj esa djrs gq;s 'kkafrHkax dh x;h Fkh] ftlls U;k;ky; ifjlj esa LFkkfir bl U;k;ky;] U;k;ky; ekuuh; lh0ts0,e0 egksn;] ekuuh; ts0,e0,Q0lh0 Jh dqlqegj pdzorhZ] ekuuh; ts0,e0,Q0lh0 lqJh fiz;adk lqeu] ekuuh; ts0,e0,Q0lh0 lqJh va'kqy eaxy] ekuuh; ts0,e00,l0lh0 Jh fiz;ka'kq ikaMs] Jh xq:osUnz gqjekM+s] lqJh fufdrk ok".ks;Z ds U;k;ky;ksa esa U;k;nku ds dk;Z esa muds }kjk O;o/kku mRiUu fd;k x;k Fkk] ftl laca/k esa mDr lHkh U;kf;d eftLVªsV egksn;x.k fNanokM+k ds }kjk ekuuh; lh0ts0,e0 egksn; fNanokM+k ds ekQZr ekuuh; ftyk ,oa l= U;k;k/kh'k egksn; fNanokM+k dks mDr vf/koDrk ds d`R; ds laca/k esa f'kdk;rh vkosndu i= izLrqr fd;s x;s Fks] ftu vkosnuksa ij rRdky laKku ysrs gq;s ekuuh; ftyk U;k;k/kh'k egksn; fNanokM+k ds }kjk bl U;k;ky; ds ihBklhu vf/kdkjh o ftyk jftLVªkj fNanokM+k dks fyf[kr o ekSf[kd :i ls fnukad 18- 11-2019 dks ;g vknsf'kr fd;k x;k Fkk fd mDr vukosnd vf/koDrk ds fo:) iqfyl dk;Zokgh gsrq bl U;k;ky; ds ihBklhu vf/kdkjh dks vf/kd`r fd;k x;k gS rFkk dh x;h dk;Zokgh dk izfrosnu Hkh ekuuh; ftyk U;k;k/kh'k egksn; }kjk vkgwr fd;k x;k FkkA¼layXud dza0 1½

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 5/17/2023 5:22:25 PM

7& ;g fd mDr i`"BHkwfe esa ;g Hkh mYys[k djuk vko';d gS fd fnukad 22- 11-2019 dks Hkh mDr vukosnd vf/koDrk vius 'kjkc ihdj xkyhxykSp dj fpYykpksV djus ds d`R; dks U;k;ky; ifjlj esa tkjh j[ks gq;s Fks] ftl ij ekuuh; lh0ts0,e0 egksn; fNanokM+k us laKku ysrs gq;s dk;Zokgh gsrq mudh vksj ls ,d vkosnu i= Fkkuk dksrokyh fNanokM+k dks izsf"kr fd;k Fkk] ftlds laca/k esa dk;Zokgh djrs gq;s iqu% dksrokyh fNanokM+k dh iqfyl us mDr vukosnd vf/koDrk ds fo:) /kkjk 151 n0iz0la0 lgifBr /kkjk 107] 116¼3½ n0iz0la0 dh dk;Zokgh djrs gq;s mUgs fxjQ~rkj dj dk;[email protected] eftLVªsV egksn; fNanokM+k ds le{k b'rxklk dza0 [email protected]@2019 izLrqr fd;k FkkA mDr b'rxklk dk;Zokgh ds lkFk layXu mDr fnukad ds fpfdRldh; izfrosnu ls Hkh ;gh izdV gksrk gS fd mDr vukosnd vf/koDrk us mDr fnukad dks 'kjkc dk lsou fd;k gqvk FkkA ¼layXud dza0 5] 6 o 7½"

6. Prior to initiation of the contempt proceedings against the respondent/contemnor, an enquiry was conducted by the District Judge (Vigilance) and the complaint made by the Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class was found to be correct and a decision was taken to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondent keeping in view of the repeated acts done by him. The respondent/accused filed a reply denying allegations leveled against him. However, he tenders unconditional apology for the act done by him. He has filed an application (I.A.No.4708 of 2023) for grant of unconditional apology. It is stated in the application that the respondent/contemnor is sorry for such disgusting act and will comply with the order of this court and will never repeat the same again.

7. The provisions 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

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 5/17/2023 5:22:25 PM

(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;

From the aforesaid, it is apparently clear that if any act, to interfere or tends to interfere with or obstructs or tends to obstruct in the administration of justice is made, the same falls under the definition of the 'criminal contempt'. The complaint made against the accused/contemnor falls under all the three categories as defined under Section 2(c) of the Act of 1971.

8. 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 completed by the authorities. Therefore, there is no issue with respect to procedural part of enquiry. The sole question of consideration before this Court is as to whether the act done by the respondent falls under the definition of 'criminal contempt' under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 or not?

9. 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 dealt with under law of libel or slander. Yet defamatory publication concerning the judge as a judge brings the court or

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 5/17/2023 5:22:25 PM

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."

10. 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 authority are not divisible in the context of administration of

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 5/17/2023 5:22:25 PM

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'.

11. The Act done by the respondent/contemnor 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. Allegations of shouting in the court premises, stopping the way of judicial officer, disturbing the court proceedings, abusing the judges using filthy language etc. were found to be correct in the enquiry. Such act is covered under the definition of 'criminal contempt' as defined under Section 2(c) of the Act of 1971. The respondent/contemnor being a lawyer, an officer of the Court has utmost responsibility to maintain the honour and dignity of the court. However, today when the matter was taken up for consideration, he has tendered his unconditional apology and sworn an affidavit along with an application dated 20.02.2023 tendering his apology. The application submitted by him reads as under:

"1. That, the afore mention criminal contempt has been registered against the present contemnor by this Hon'ble Court and the contemnor has been produced before this Hon'ble Court under the custody of police on day of 16 Feb. 2023 as per order dated 09th Feb. 2023 having the reason of non- appearance.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 5/17/2023 5:22:25 PM

2. That, the contemnor humbly seeks for unconditional apology for the act against which such matter has been registered before this Hon'ble Court and make a promise he will never repeat such types of act or action before any court of law. He has understood the same and taught a lesson the results of present incident.

3. That, the contemnor is very much sorry to do its on such disgusting act and want to pardon from its guilty and ready to compliance any order direction terms and conditions which may be imposed on him by this Hon'ble Court."

12. From the records and the inquiry report, it is seen that he has committed similar act on earlier occasions also. There cannot be any explanation for the same especially in the event when the act done by the respondent/contemnor was duly investigated by the police authorities and he was arrested from the court premises. There is no material placed on record by the respondent before this Court to show that the allegations were incorrect.

13. We have heard learned counsel on sentence.

14. Shri Balram Koshta, learned counsel pleads that a sentence of fine alone be awarded.

15. However, on considering the same, we do not find that only imposing of fine would be adequate.

16. For the aforesaid reasons, the respondent is held guilty of committing criminal contempt as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and therefore, is liable to be punished under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. However, looking to the fact that he has tendered unconditional apology in his reply/affidavit/application, coupled with the fact that the learned counsel has also tendered apology on his behalf before this Court in his affidavit

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 5/17/2023 5:22:25 PM

filed on 20.02.2023, this Court deems it appropriate to sentence the respondent to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days and 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. In default of payment fine, he is further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days and will be debarred from practising in the courts of law for a period of 15 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
5:22:25 PM