[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Jagabandhu Das (Dead) .... Election vs Sanjib Kumar Mallick & on 16 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ELPET No.29 of 2024
Jagabandhu Das (Dead) .... Election
Petitioner
None
-versus-
Sanjib Kumar Mallick & .... Respondents
others
Mr. G. K. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate
Being assisted by
Mr. Pratin Tejasman, Advocate
Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, ASC
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
ORDER
16.04.2026
Order No.
29. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. This Court vide order dated 12.09.2025 in I.A
No.152 of 2024, arising out of ELPET No.29 of 2024,
directed the Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Orissa to
register an FIR against Dr. Subash Mohapatra upon
finding prima facie materials disclosing commission of a
cognizable offence, more particularly, offence of
impersonation as an Advocate, as Mr. Mohapatra,
despite being granted ample of opportunities, failed to
produce his Enrolment Certificate as a lawyer before this
Court.
3. Pursuant to the said order, FIR No.387 of 2025 was
registered by the Lalbag Police Station, Cuttack on
20.09.2025. Subsequently, Dr. Subash Mohaptra was
arrested by the Investigating Officer on 03.12.2025 and
after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has
been submitted before the competent Court on
29.01.2026. As per the order dated 12.09.2025, a copy of
the said charge-sheet was also sent to the Registrar
(Judicial) of this Court by the IIC, Lalbag Police Station,
Cuttack UPD vide letter dated 24.03.2026, which was
placed before this Court.
4. On perusal of the charge-sheet dated 29.01.2026, it
is ascertained that the Investigating Officer, during the
course of investigation, has examined various witnesses,
collected documentary materials, and thereafter
submitted the charge-sheet alleging commission of
certain offences under the penal law. Since, the matter is
now sub-judice before the learned SDJM(S), Cuttack,
this Court considers it appropriate to refrain from
making any observation on the merits of such criminal
prosecution.
5. Notwithstanding the pendency of the aforesaid
criminal proceeding, this Court is required to consider
whether the conduct of Dr. Subash Mahaptara in ELPET
No.29 of 2024, wherein he was representing the Election
Petitioner as an Advocate before this Court without
possessing a valid Enrolment Certificate, warrants
initiation of a criminal contempt proceeding against him
specifically, when the Investigating Agency, upon due
investigation, has submitted charge-sheet against him
recording prima facie satisfaction that, the name of Dr.
Subash Mohapatra does not find place on the rolls of
the Bar Council of Delhi.
6. The term 'Criminal Contempt' has been defined
under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,
which reads as follow;
"(c) "criminal contempt" means the publication
(whether by words, spoken or written, or by
signs, or by visible representations, 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;"
7. So far as the procedure for initiation of contempt is
concerned, Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971, as relied upon by Mr. Agarwal, learned Sr.
Counsel, provides for a summary procedure in cases of
contempt committed in the face of the Supreme Court or
High Court, where the Court directly perceives the
impugned conduct and proceeds in accordance with the
procedure prescribed therein. However, the present case,
being founded upon materials collected during
investigation so also reflected in the charge-sheet, cannot
be said to involve contempt committed in the face of the
Court so as to attract Section 14 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971. Rather, the allegations falling within
the ambit of criminal contempt are required to be dealt
with in accordance with the procedure prescribed under
Chapter XVII of the Rules of the High Court of Orissa,
1948, read with Sections 15 and 18 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971.
8. At this juncture, reference may be made to Section
15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which clarifies
that, cognizance of criminal contempt may be taken by
the Supreme Court or High Court either suo motu or on
a motion made in accordance with law. Further, Section
18 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Rule
7(a) of Chapter-XVII of the High Court Of Orissa Rules,
1948, makes it abundantly clear that, all proceedings
relating to criminal contempt shall be heard by a
Division Bench of the Court.
9. The nature and scope of Criminal Contempt under
Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act,1971 have
been elaborately explained by the Supreme Court in S.K.
Sundaram, In Re, (2001) 2 SCC 171. Paragraph 13 of
the said judgment, being relevant, is extracted below for
ready reference;
"13. Criminal contempt is thus vivisected into
two categories. One is publication of any matter
which scandalises or tends to scandalise the
authority of any court etc. Second is the doing of
any act whatsoever which scandalizes or tends
to scandalise the authority of any court etc. If
an act is not a criminal contempt merely
because there was no publication such act
would automatically fall within the purview of
the other category because the latter consists of
"the doing of any other act whatsoever". The
latter category is thus a residuary category so
wide enough from which no act of criminal
contempt can possibly escape. The common
denominator for both is that it scandalises or
tends to scandalise etc. of any court."
10. Further, paragraph 26 of the judgment in Daroga
Singh v. B.K. Pandey, (2004) 5 SCC 26, being germane,
is extracted below;
"26. What is made punishable under Section
228 IPC is the offence of intentional insult to a
judge or interruption of court proceedings but
not as a contempt of court. The definition of
criminal contempt is wide enough to
include any act by a person which would
either scandalise the court or which would
tend to interfere with the administration of
justice. It would also include any act which
lowers the authority of the court or
prejudices or interferes with the due course
of any judicial proceedings. It is not
limited to the offering of intentional insult
to the judge or interruption of the judicial
proceedings. This Court observed in Delhi
Judicial Service Assn. v. State of
Gujarat [(1991) 4 SCC 406] : (SCC pp. 457-
58, paras 42 & 43)
The public have a vital stake in
effective and orderly administration
of justice. The Court has the duty of
protecting the interest of the
community in the due administration
of justice and, so, it is entrusted with
the power to commit for contempt of
court, not to protect the dignity of the
Court against insult or injury, but, to
protect and vindicate the right of the
public so that the administration of
justice is not perverted, prejudiced,
obstructed or interfered with. The
power to punish for contempt is thus
for the protection of public justice,
whose interest requires that decency
and decorum is preserved in courts of
justice. Those who have to discharge
duty in a court of justice are protected by
the law, and shielded in the discharge of
their duties. Any deliberate interference
with the discharge of such duties either in
court or outside the court by attacking the
presiding officers of the court, would
amount to criminal contempt and the
courts must take serious cognisance of
such conduct."
(Emphasis supplied)
11. Having perused the Investigation Report submitted
by the IIC, Lalbag Police Station, Cuttack UPD and the
documents appended thereto, as well as the sequence of
orders passed by this Court from time to time in this
disposed of case, it is emerged that, despite repeated
opportunities and specific directions issued by this Court
to produce a valid Enrolment Certificate, Dr. Subash
Mohapatra failed to do so and continued to represent the
Election Petitioner as an Advocate in ELPET No.29 of
2024. Significantly, pursuant to the direction of this
Court, the Bar Council of Delhi, upon verification of its
records, reported that the enrolment number relied upon
by Dr. Mohapatra, i.e., D/718/2001, bears the name of
one Ms. Geetanjali Sharma and not in his name. Despite
this, Dr. Mohapatra persisted in asserting that the said
enrolment number belongs to him, attributing the
discrepancy to be a purported technical glitch. Such
conduct of Dr. Mohapatra is a deliberate attempt to
mislead this Court, thereby interfering with the due
course of judicial proceedings and obstructing the
administration of justice. Accordingly, this Court is of the
opinion that the said acts of Dr. Subash Mohapatra
prima facie constitute criminal contempt within the
meaning of Section 2(c)(ii) and (iii) of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971.
12. Keeping in view the statutory mandate enshrined
under Section 18 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,
this Court deems it appropriate to direct the Registry to
place the records of the present case, including the FIR,
case diary, and charge-sheet submitted by the
Investigating Officer, before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for
kind perusal and necessary action.
13. So far as the submissions advanced by Mr.
Agarwal, learned Sr. Counsel that the IIC, Lalbag PS,
Cuttack UPD, the Investigating Officer, while submitting
the charge-sheet against Dr. Mohapatra, has not taken
into consideration the additional documents supplied to
him pursuant to the order dated 10.04.2024 of this
Court, it would be open for him to approach the
appropriate forum for redressal of such issue, if any in
accordance with law.
(S.K. MISHRA)
Mona JUDGE
