STATE Vs. KRISHNA CHANDRA AGNIHOTRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition invoking the contempt jurisdiction of this Court for the punishment of the opposite parties for Contempt of Court.

(2.) THE petitioner Anand Kumar Agnihotri is the son of Krishna Chandra Agnihotri, opposite party No. 1, Opposite-parties Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Raj Kumar and Ravindra Nath are the other two sons of Krishna Chandra Agnihotri. The petitioner Anand Kumar Agnihotri instituted Criminal Case No. 603 under Sections 193, 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code against the father Krishna Chandra Agnihotri sometime in July, 1971. This case was transferred to the Court of Sri P. S. Chha-bra, Additional Munsif-Magistrate, 1st Class, Lucknow for trial. The case was still sub-judice, when on October 16, 1971 a Marpit took place between the petitioner and the opposite parties inside their joint house at about 7. 30 A. M. The petitioner lodged a first information report at P. S. Kotwali on the same date, but the record does not show the time at which it was lodged. That first information report is Annexure No. 1 to the rejoinder affidavit. It alleges that at 7. 30 A. M. on October 16, the opposite parties Raj Kumar and Ravindranath threatened the petitioner Anand Kumar with murder and asked him to withdraw the criminal case or else they would actually commit his murder. The petitioner protested and thereupon all the three opposite parties surrounded him inside the inner court-yard and beat him with kicks and fists on his neck, stomach and back. He then went to P. S. Kotwali to lodge a first information report but it was not recorded. Thereafter he went to the S. P. and upon his telephonic direction, it was actually recorded. Upon these facts, the petitioner moved an application before the Additional Munsif-Magis; trate on November 10, 1971 praying that the facts be reported to this Court for punishment for contempt, because a threat to kill and actually beating in order that criminal litigation be withdrawn, prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of judicial proceeding or inter feres or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of justice.

(3.) THERE can be no dispute that the stream of justice has to be kept clear and pure, and unsullied in any manner. A threat to do violence, or the actual doing of violence, to induce or compel a party to withdraw a prosecution, will certainly amount to contempt of court, because it obstructs the even flow of the stream of justice and what has to be decided by a competent Court of law, is sought to be obstructed and stifled and eliminated altogether by show or use of force.