STATE Vs. HARIHAR SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SRI Jagdish Singh, Judicial Magistrate Kasia made a report to this Court and requested that Sri Harihar Shukla Advocate Kasia, be punished for committing contempt of his court. In due course this Court issued notice to Sri Harihar Shukla, requiring him to show cause why he should not be (punished for committing contempt of Judicial Magistrate's court. On 17th September 1975, Sri Shukla filed an affidavit denying that he did anything which amounted to contempt of Judicial Magistrate's court. The Magistrate concerned was accordingly asked to send his comments with regard to facts stated in Sri Shukla's affidavit. The Magistrate has sent his comments in that regard.

(2.) FACTS as they emerge from the report of the Magistrate, affidavit of Sri Shukla and Magistrate's comments thereon, in brief are that on 1412-1972 Sri Harihar Shukla lodged a first information report at. police station Turkpatti, Facts stated in that report made out that Qashirn and others had committed an offence under Section 379, I. P. C. In due course the police investigated the case and submitted a final report, Sri Shukla filed an objection before the court praying that the anal report submitted 'by the jollier 'be not accepted, On 14th June 1973. Sri Jagdish Singh. Judicial Magistrate Kasia disapproved the final reports and, acting under Section 190 (1) (c) of the Cr. P. C. took cognizance of an offence under Section 395, I. P. C. and summoned the accused Qashim and others for 25th of July 1973. He also directed the Assistant Public Prosecutor to conduct the case. Qashim and others went up in revision before the Sessions Judge Deoria and objected to the aforesaid order passed by the Magistrate. . Sessions Judge Deoria, by his order dated 25th September 1973, rejected the revision application holding that the Magistrate had ample" power to take cognizance of the offence under Section 190 (1) (c) of the Code and that the discretion exercised by him in asking the A. P. P. to conduct the case could not be interfered with. Thereafter, on 30-12-1973, the Magistrate issued summons requiring the accused persons1 to appear before him on 30-1-1974. As on that date the accused did not appear he fixed 21st February 1974 as the next date and issued bailable warrants for their airest. It appears that as neither the summons nor the warrant issued by the Magistrate were received 'back and none of the accused appeared before the court on the 2lst February 1974, the Magistrate fixed 30th March 1974 as the next date for appearance of the accused and repeated the order already made by him on 30th January 1974. One of the grievances of Sri Shukla is that inasmuch as the Magistrate had taken cognizance of an offence under Section 395, I. P. C. , he. should have, instead of issuing summons in the first instance, issued warrants for the arrest of the accused. When the accused did not appear before the Court even on 30-3-1974, the Judicial Magistrate issued non-bailable warrants and fixed 24th May 1974, as the next date in the case. Again the accused did not appear before the court on 24th May 1974 and the Magistrate repeated his order dated 30-3-1974, At this stage Sri Shukla requested the Magistrate to proceed. against the accused as provided in Section 87/813, Cri. P. C. but the Magistrate did not agree to it. He has since explained that he did not agree to initiate proceedings under Section 87/88, Cr. P. C.-as no report on the warrants already issued by the court had been received by that time. However, on 30th August 1974, 14, out of 15 accused persons appeared before the Magistrate and moved an application stating that earlier Sri Shukla had filed a report against them under Section 379, I. P. C. and on finding that there was no case against them, the police had submitted a final report. They claimed that they had been falsely implicated because of. party faction and prayed that the warrants issued against them be cancelled and they be released on executing personal bonds. They moved one more application praying that in future they be permitted to appear before the court through their counsel. "the same day the Magistrate made an order cancelling the warrants and directing that the 14 accused be released on executing personal bonds of Rs. 1,000 each. He also permitted them to appear in court through a counsel. Fifteenth accused appeared in court on 7th September 1974 and he also moved similar application? and obtained similar orders. Thereafter on 7th October 1974 the Magistrate fixed 25th November 1974 as the date on which the complainant was to produce his evidence.

(3.) ON 25th of November 1974 Sri Harihar Shukla moved an application before the Magistrate alleging that despite the orders made by the court, the accused had been avoiding to appear before it at one and1 the same time. Even after orders for the issue of non-bailable warrants had been made and although all the accused had not appeared their application for permission to appear through counsel had been accepted even without requiring them to furnish bail. The accused1 had started saying that their lawyer and parker were connected with some important minister and that is why these facilities had been extended to them. The accused further gave out that theirs was the only case where, despite the issue of bailable warrants, and even though they had not appeared before the court at one and the same time, they had not been required to furnish hail. The accused were also saying that despite the police case, they had been permitted to appear through a counsel and the court had. instead of committing them to Sessions asked the complainant to produce his evidence. The accused were taking improper advantage of the order passed by the court and apart from maligning the Minister they were trying to defame the Court. The accused were also saying that the discretion exercised by the court was arbitrary and were making all sorts of irresponsible statements. They were also trying to intimidate the witnesses. Sri Shukla therefore made the following prayer: