In Re v. Santram Rathore

Court No. - 46 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 16 of 2023 Applicant :- In Re Opposite Party :- Santram Rathore Counsel for Applicant :- Suomoto,Sudhir Mehrotra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashok Kumar Rai,Pavan Kumar Pandey,Rajiv Lochan Shukla Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.

¶1Reference in the present case has been made by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,-IInd, Pilibhit dated

12.07.2023 in respect of an incident of the date wherein the contemnor objected to the presence of police personnel in court and made derogatory comments against the Presiding Judge.

¶2Noticing such reference, this court issued notices of contempt to the opposite party by passing the following order on 29.08.2023: "Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Pilipbit has sent reference dated 12.7.2023 to this Court in respect of court proceeding of the same date. It is reported that Case Crime No.194 of 2009 (State Vs. Raj Kumar Rawat), under Section 498-A, 323, 352, 506 IPC read with section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act was listed for cancellation of bail granted to accused Raj Kumar Rawat. The opposite party Santram Rathore was representing the first informant. The opposite party enquired as to why so many police personnel are present in court, on which the presiding officer informed that accused has expressed threat to his life, as he has been roughed up in court earlier also and on his request police personnel have been deployed. The contemnor opposite party got enraged and made highly derogatory comments against the court and also stated that the presiding out has colluded with accused by availing gratification. While this reference was pending, another incident is reported to have occurred in the same court on 26.7.2023, when certain lady advocates as well as students of a law college held a protest outside the court and made derogatory remarks against the presiding officer. The opposite party was apparently trying to pressurize the judicial officer concerned to withdraw the reference made earlier by him. The presiding officer has also reported in his reference that the contemnor made statements in court that he has faced contempt proceedings earlier also and he does not care for the contempt proceedings initiated against him. On the basis of allegations contained in the reference made by the presiding officer, we find that, prima facie, a case for initiating the criminal proceedings under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is made out against the aforesaid person. Issue notice to opposite party Santram Rathore, Advocate, to show cause as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for creating obstruction in the proceedings of the court, misbehaving the court, using abusive and derogatory language, scandalizing the court etc. List after service of notice, on which date reply may be filed through a counsel. Registry while issuing the notices, within a week, will ensure that a copy of the reference written by presiding officer concerned is also sent along with the notice. In the facts of the case and also considering the persistent act of alleged contempt on part of the opposite party contemnor, we restrain the opposite party from entering the court premises or practicing in District Judgeship, till the next date of listing. The contemnor shall also remain present in Court, on the next date fixed in the matter. Sri Sudhir Mehrotra has appeared for the Court and his name will be shown in the cause list, whenever the matter is listed next. The Registry is also directed to handover a complete set of records to Sri Mehrotra, within three weeks."

¶3The Presiding Officer in his reference had also mentioned that twice proceedings for contempt were initiated against the contemnor/opposite party and he had to seek apology.

¶4At the time when the contempt petition was herd, the contemnor sought forgiveness by submitting unconditional apology in the matter. We permitted the contemnor to submit his unconditional apology before the concerned Presiding Judge.

¶5The cotemnor consequently appeared before the Presiding Judge on 26th October, 2023 and submitted his unconditional apology.

¶6Sri Sudhil Mehrotra appearing for the Court has obtained instructions according to which the Presiding Judge is presently functioning as Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IInd. The concerned Presiding Judge has mentioned that contemnor appeared before him on 26.10.2023 at 3.15 p.m. and tendered his apology. The Presiding Judge has shown benevolence and respecting the high values and virtues of the court and for maintaining cordial relationship between bar and bench he has accepted the apology tendered by the contemnor. Since the Presiding Judge accepted the apology tendered by the contemnor, we are not inclined to proceed any further in the present contempt proceedings.

¶7Before concluding, we may note that contempt proceedings were initiated against the contemnor on two previous occasions also and, therefore, this is the third occasion when such an incident has occurred. We, therefore, caution the contemnor to remain careful in future and his conduct will remain under watch of the concerned District Judge for a period of two years. We also make it clear that any further act of contempt on the part of the opposite party will not be viewed with leniency and he shall be dealt with sternly.

¶8Subject to the observations made above, the contempt proceedings are consigned to record.

¶9Copy of this order shall be sent to the District Judge, Pilibhit.

¶10The contemnor shall be allowed to enter the court premises and resume his practice. Order Date :- 20.11.2023 Kumar Manish. (Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.) (Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad