Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Original Criminal Miscellaneous (DB) No.9 of 2010 ========================================================== The State Of Bihar .... .... Petitioner/s Versus Rajendra Upadhyay S/o Prayag Upadhyay, Vill.- Khopira, P.S. Pawana, Distt. Bhojpur presently residing Near Arrah Bazar Samati, East of IOC Tower, Bhojpur at Arrah .... .... Contemnor ========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mr Namrata Mishra, GP 17 Mr Alok Ranjan, AC to GP 17 For the Respondent/s : Mr. Pramod Kr. Singh, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH) Date: 09-08-2012 As indicated in the last order, the parties have already been heard in length but since it was thought just and proper to hear the alleged contemnor in person, hence we decided to hear him before passing the final judgment and directed for his personal appearance. The contemnor has appeared in person. He has explained that series of litigation started because his daughter had to lodge a criminal case under Section 498A and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act against her husband and his relations. According to him, after the said case was lodged on 25.4.1999 the Patna High Court OCR. MISC (DB) No.9 of 2010 dt.09-08-2012 2/ 8 in-laws of his daughter gained over the police and attempted to make her case weak and therefore, she filed complaint before the Magistrate and her statement and statement of witnesses were recorded under Section 164 CrPC. According to him, order was passed by the Magistrate for recording such statement on 29.5.1999. Before the statements could be recorded on 31.5.1999, in the night of 30.5.1999 police came to his house and arrested him and his son. For this a criminal case was lodged by his daughter on 31.5.1999 before the CJM, Bhojpur. Allegedly, the police left his son but implicated him in a false case under [STATUTE] bearing Nawadah PS Case No.123/99 dated 30.5.1999 and he was sent to jail on 31.5.1999. He was granted bail when the prosecutrix in the case under [STATUTE] allegedly made statement before the Magistrate that the case was false. 2. The alleged contemnor admitted that he had written the letter under reference dated 6.3.2010 and brought the same, affixed with stamps, on the record of the sessions case. His defence is that Presiding Officer of the sessions court who has made the reference for present contempt proceeding had caused mental agony and humiliation to him and in his perception the Presiding Officer was protecting the concerned police officers and, therefore, he rejected the prayer of the contemnor for discharge Patna High Court OCR. MISC (DB) No.9 of 2010 dt.09-08-2012 3/ 8 from the case. He also claimed that he was not aware of the niceties of the law that he should have sent the complaint to the higher authorities and should not have brought it on record of the concerned sessions court. He has further submitted that he wanted his version and documents to be available on record and, therefore, he filed the contemptuous petitions before the sessions court. He has tendered apology and has pressed that it be accepted because his act was not deliberate or intentional. 3. This contempt proceeding was initiated on receipt of letter of Shri Panchanan Sharma, ADJ II, Ara along with original record of Miscellaneous (Contempt) Case NO.1/ 2010 of his court which were forwarded by the District and Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Ara for initiation of the instant proceeding against the Contemnor, Shri Rajendra Upadhya, an accused of Sessions Trial No.95/ 2009 under [STATUTE] . The letter of the Addl. District and Sessions Judge II, Bhojpur, Ara dated 8.7.2010 is to the effect that letter or petition of the contemnor dated 6.3.2010 was written and filed with a view to lower down the prestige of the sessions court and hence, notice had been issued to him in the Miscellaneous (Contempt) Case No.1/2010 initiated by the concerned sessions court and after concluding the proceeding in that case reference was made to this Court. The records received Patna High Court OCR. MISC (DB) No.9 of 2010 dt.09-08-2012 4/ 8 from the court concerned include the letter dated 6.3.2010 which was filed by the contemnor in the court below and thus made public. The letter bears the signature of the contemnor and admittedly he has sent that letter to higher authorities and also brought the same on the record of the Sessions Trial No.95/ 2009. 4. Learned counsel for the State drew our attention to various paragraphs of the letter dated 6.3.2010 particularly paragraphs at internal page 4, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, 19 and 20 to highlight that repeatedly the contemnor has alleged that the court had gone into collusion with police authorities including the concerned Deputy Superintendent of Police and one Advocate and was protecting them and had passed orders for that purpose after ignoring the truth. It was shown that throughout the letter there was repeated statement that the court had rather deliberately ignored the relevant records and had committed irregularity by concealing the truth. 5. According to learned counsel for the State, the statements made in the letter written by the contemnor are clearly contumacious as they tend to scandalize and lower the authority of the court. It was further submitted that it was with a view to interfere with the due course of the judicial proceeding so that concerned court may not proceed with the matter. Patna High Court OCR. MISC (DB) No.9 of 2010 dt.09-08-2012 5/ 8 6. On behalf of the contemnor a defence was taken that the letter is in the nature of a complaint against the Presiding Officer of the concerned court made to the High Court and the other higher authorities and hence, it is immune from the charge of contempt by

Applicable IPC Section: 376

Statute Text:
Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Rape. Whoever, commits an offence punishable under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 376 and in the course of such commission inflicts an injury which causes the death of the woman or causes the woman to be in a persistent vegetative state, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, or with death.