STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. VIRENDRA SINGH PARIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This reference u/S. 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act has been made by Shri U. C. Mishra, J.M.I.C. Sidhi against Shri Virendra Singh Parihar, Advocate, Sidhi in so far as he attempted to intimidate Shri M. C. Soni, J.M.I.C., Sidhi by filing criminal complaint against him for alleged offences committed by Shri Soni punishable u/S. 217/219 and 166, IPC. Section 166 provides punishment against public servant disobeying law with intent to cause injury to any person. Section 217 provides punishment against public servant disobeying direction of law with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture. Section 219, IPC provides punishment against public servant corruptly making report contrary to law in judicial proceedings.

(2.) The complaint dated 10-10-96 filed by the contemner against Shri Soni and co-accused Abhiramsingh Tiwari S.D.P.O. was that a private complaint filed by this contemner against one N. K. Shrivastava for various offences u/Ss. 201, 203, 204, 217, 218 was heard by Shri M. C. Soni J.M.I.C., Sidhi and after statement of the complainant u/S. 200, Cr. P.C. Shri Soni directed it to be sent to area police officer for report. The accused No. 2 Abhiramsingh Tiwari was area S.O. A large number of adjournments were granted for awaiting report but the S.O. did not send the report. Action was not taken by the Magistrate against S.O. even after show cause notice and S.O. did not send the report even after show cause notice. Ultimately the Magistrate Shri Soni, after hearing the arguments as to maintainability of the complaint, dismissed it after about 2 years on the ground that the sanction for prosecution was required against M. K. Shrivastava accused who was an executive engineer. The allegations were that this order was passed mala fide in order to protect the accused and the Magistrate as also the S.O. Abhiramsingh were in conspiracy so that no report was made by the S.O. to the Magistrate and the respondent-Shrivastava was protected. So both have acted mala fide.

(3.) This complaint of the present contemner against Magistrate Shri Soni as also Abhiramsingh was dismissed by order dated 2-11-96 by Shri Ravindrasingh, J.M.I.C., Sidhi, on the ground that Shri Soni was protected under the provisions of S. 3 (1) of the Judges Protection Act, 1985. The complaint against Abhiramsingh was also dismissed holding that no sanction was obtained against him under Section 197, Cr. P.C. which was essential as the allegations were in respect of acts done by the Magistrate in his capacity as a Judge and the S.O. in his capacity as public servant. The allegations made in the complaint were that these officers had attempted to protect respondent- Shrivastava dishonestly and mala fide.