HRISHIKESH SANYAL Vs. APBAGCHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Upon an application by one Hrishikesh Sanyal notice was issued to A.P. Bagchi, a practising lawyer of Allahabad, to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt of Court. The notice has been duly served, and we have beard counsel for both parties. It is necessary to state a few preliminary facts. The parties are related to each other by marriage. The opposite party's younger brother-who died in 1928-had married the applicant's sister, and there are five children of that union, all minors. The mother-who had been appointed guardian of the minors after the death of her husband, died on 24 December 1939. The applicant lives at Benares and the opposite party at Allahabad. On 2nd January 1940, the opposite party applied to the District Judge of Allahabad praying for his appointment as guardian of the minors. He also prayed that he be appointed ad interim guardian and that an inventory of the property in the hands of the applicant be taken. Notice was issued and various steps were taken, which it is not necessary to particularize. On 23 January 1940 the applicant filed an objection, accompanied by an affidavit in which he made various imputations against the character and conduct of the opposite party. He also applied for stay of the inventory proceedings at Benares. Notice was issued, and the proceedings at Benares were meanwhile stayed. On 5 January 1940, the opposite party filed a counter-affidavit in which he traversed the allegations of the applicant and in which he in his turn assailed the latter's character. On 2 March, 1910 the District Judge of Allahabad took up a plea of jurisdiction which had been raised before him and decided that his Court had no jurisdiction to try the case. The application was accordingly returned to the opposite party for presentation to the proper Court, which was held to be the Court of the District Judge of Benares. On 4 March 1940, the opposite party presented his application in the aforementioned Court. Two days later, on 6 March 1940, the opposite party moved the District Judge of Allahabad under Section 476, Criminal P.C., praying that an inquiry be made into certain of the allegations in the applicant's affidavit of 23 January 1940, which he alleged to be absolutely false. Then on 8 March 1940, the opposite party himself preferred a complaint against the applicant before the City Magistrate under Section 500, I.P.C.

(2.) It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the opposite party's application under Section 476, Criminal P.C., and his complaint under Section 500, I.P.C., amount to contempt of Court inasmuch as the opposite party's object was to exert pressure upon the applicant and paralyse him, so to speak, in the prosecution of his objection in the guardianship proceedings, and thus interfere with the administration of justice. For the opposite party it is pleaded that there was no contempt of Court; or if there was it was inadvertent. What we have to determine is whether the acts of the opposite party which are complained of by the applicant were calculated to prejudice a fair trial in the guardianship proceedings before the District Judge of Benares or to exert pressure upon the applicant in respect to those proceedings; and if so, whether they amount to a contempt of Court. In the year 1742 in Read and Huggonson's case (1742) 2 Atk 469 Lord Harkwicke in defining various kinds of contempt said: ...There cannot be anything of greater consequence than to keep the streams of justice clear and pure, that parties may proceed with safety both to themselves and their characters.

(3.) This observation was quoted by Maugham, J. in In re the William Thomas Shipping Co. (1930) 2 Ch 368. More recently Lord Alverstone observed that the essence of the offence is conduct calculated to produce, so to speak an atmosphere of prejudice in the midst of which the proceedings must go on: Rex V/s. Tibbito (1902) 1 KB 77.