STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. PRAVINKUMAR SUMJIBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A synopsis presented by the Bar Association of Morbi to this High Court has been treated as an application for Criminal Contempt against the respondents as they have made allegations, in judicial proceedings, against the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Morbi and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Malia. On perusal, prima facie, it transpired that respondents attempted to scandalise Court and, therefore, suo motu action had been initiated under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for the sake of convenience and brevity).

(2.) In this matter, in all there are 12 respondents. Initially, when the matter was placed for first orders, while admitting notice was also issued against some of the respondents, who, in response thereof, appeared through their respective Advocates and filed affidavit-in-reply.

(3.) In order to appreciate the nature of allegations made against the judicial officer, it will be worthwhile to have a look at the past litigation wherein one of the respondents, viz., respondent No. 1, Pravinkumar Shamjibhai Patel, was involved. Respondent No. 1 is the husband of Vinaybala, daughter of Harjibhai Merja. Respondent No. 2 is the brother-in-law of respondent No. 1, that is, husband of sister of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 3 is the wife of respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 4 is an Advocate practising at Rajkot whereas respondent No. 5 is the father of respondent No. 1 and father-in-law of respondent No. 2. Respondent Nos. 6, 7, 9 and 12 are residents of the locality where respondent No. 2 is residing whereas respondent No. 8 is a peon working in Consumer Protection Council, Rajkot. As stated in the beginning, that there are 12 respondents as shown in cause title but in fact there are 10 respondents only as names of two respondents are repeated, i.e., name of respondent No. 3 is repeated at Sr. No. 10 and that of 9 is repeated at S. No. 11. Therefore, after perusing records and hearing learned Advocate and verifying from the persons who were present before the Court, we ordered for deletion of names of respondent Nos. 10 and 11.