PRADEEP MITTAL Vs. CHANDRABHAN SINGH RAGHUVANSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference under Section 15(2) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, has been made by the Judicial Magistrate First class, Dabra (Gwalior) for drawing contempt proceedings against Chandrabhan Singh, Station House Officer, Billuoa at present posted as Sub -Inspector Murar, District Gwalior.

(2.) THE facts in nut -shell are that on 15 -4 -98 one Matadeen made an application to the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class that the Station House Officer of Police Station, Billuoa within the jurisdiction of the Court had wrongly detained his two sons namely; Mahesh and Suresh for more than seven days. A report was called from the S.H.O. on 16 -4 -98. Respondent Chandrabhan Raghuvanshi submitted to the Court that Mahesh and Suresh were not kept in detention nor were in the lock up of the said police station. Relying upon the affidavit of Matadeen, the said Judicial Magistrate First Class, issued a search warrant. The said search warrant was given to Shri Anil Parsowal, Advocate for its execution. The said Advocate went to make the enquiries and found that Mahesh son of Matadeen was lodged in the lock up of the police station. The said Advocate, after executing the warrant brought Mahesh son of Matadeen in the Court of V.S. Patidar, Judicial Magistrate First Class on 17 -4 -98 where the statements of Mahesh, Suresh and of constable Om Prakash of Police Station, Billuoa were recorded. At the time of the execution of the warrant, Mahesh was found in the lock up, while Suresh was found staying outside the lock up but within the police station premises. According to the reference, 505 entries were found in the daily Rojnamcha but entry relating to lodgment of Mahesh was missing. Mahesh stated in the Court that he was kept in the lock up since 8 -4 -98. The fact that Mahesh was found in lock up was stated by constable Om Prakash.

(3.) COPIES of the documents and the statements etc., were supplied to the respondent and his explanation was sought. The contemner submitted his unconditional apology before the Lower Court but however did not deny the material facts. The learned Judicial Magistrate finding the explanation to be dissatisfactory, referred the matter to this Court alongwith the report of Chandrabhan dated 16 -4 -98, report on the search warrant, statement of Mahesh, show -cause notice issued to the respondent and reply of the respondent. The reference was received in the High Court on 16 -11 -98. On 16 -11 -98, this Court issued notice to the respondent calling upon him to appear in person and show -cause as to why he be not punished for committing contempt of the Court. This Court also directed that alongwith the notice, a copy of the reference be also annexed. The contemner alongwith his counsel Shri A.K. Shrivastava appeared in the Court on 26 -10 -99. Finding that there was a typographical mistake in describing the respondent, this Court ordered that the correct description of the respondent be given by substituting Chandrabhan Singh Raghuvanshi in place of Rudrabhan Raghuvanshi, On 16 -11 -99, the respondent submitted his reply alongwith seven documents and his own affidavit. Before anything could be done in the matter, under the covering letter No. 3488 dated 16 -11 -99 received in the High Court on 17 -11 -99, the learned District and Sessions Judge, Gwalior submitted the memorandum/letter No. 553 dated 1 -11 -99 sent by the said Judicial Magistrate First Class/Second Civil Judge Class II, Dabra Shri Pradeep Mittal to this Court. In the aforesaid letter dated 1 -11 -99, Shri Pradeep Mittal, Second Civil Judge, Class II, Dabra reported to this Court that on 1 -11 -99, respondent Chandrabhan Raghuvanshi came in his Court room when he was busy in conducting C.S. No. 310 -A/94 (Gomabai v. Prem Narain). According to the complaint, respondent was shouting in the Court and threatened the Court that by registering the contempt matter, judge has not done good, he had come back to police station Pichora, and would sec the Judge; he had set right the Magistrates. On this, according to the complaint, the learned Judge requested the respondent to conduct himself properly and use proper language, on which, showing utter in difference the respondent left the Court by intimidating the Judge. Every body present in the Court including the staff was stunned by his behaviour. With the complaint, learned Judge had annexed true copies of the proceedings dated 1 -11 -99 recorded in C.S. No. 310 -A/94 (Gomabai v. Prem Narain) wherein the learned Judge in presence of the plaintiff's Advocate Shri M.P. Sharma had recorded the incident. On 1 -11 -99 the learned Judge recorded the statement of Pradeep Kumar Shrivastava, Court Reader. The said Pradeep Kumar Shrivastava on oath supported the allegations made by the learned Judge. Nathu Singh Kuchwaha, the deposition writer was also examined by the learned Judge and he also supported the incident.