ARUN KUMAR KRISHNARAO BALPANDE Vs. WASUDEORAO KONDBAJI GANAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this criminal contempt petition, the petitioner seeks to invoke the suo motu jurisdiction of this Court to punish the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to 14 for having committed criminal contempt of Courts.

(2.) THE facts as could be ascertained from the petition are that on 28-3-1994, dead body of Smt. Manorama Kamble was found in the house of one Shri Sham Dewani, a practising Advocate. It was first reported to be an accidental death by the said Shri Sham Dewani. The complainant said that Manorama Kamble had died of electrocuction. On post-mortem of the dead body, it was discovered that she died of strangulation by throttling and that she was raped. Therefore, Jaripatka Police Station registered an offence punishable under Sections 302, 376, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The case, though was initially registered against unknown persons, later accused were identified as Sham Dewani, his father and brothers. Incidentally it is necessary to note that the said Manorama Kamble was a maid-servant in the house of Sham Dewani.

(3.) THE first respondent who is an office bearer of the Republican Party of India. had issued press statements and also conducted press conferences which, according to the petitioner, was designed to scandalise and lower the authority of this Court as well as the Courts subordinate to it and the same was also to prejudice and interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings. In paragraph-3 of the petition, the petitioner makes reference to various acts which, according to him, would amount to criminal contempt of this Court. It further states :