1 smcp-3-10.sxw dgm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SUO MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION NO.3 OF 2010 High Court on its own motion .... Petitioner vs Shri R.C. Sampat & anr. .... Respondents Mr. A. S. Gadkari, APP for the State. Mr. Sanjay Jain with Mr.Rakesh Misar i/by Mahomedbhai & Co. for respondents. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE : 10th August, 2010 P.C.: Respondent no.1 has filed his reply to the notice issued by this Court. Mr.Jain, the learned counsel for the respondents states that S.C. Suit No. 1816/1998 has been dismissed on 16.03.2009. 2 This suo motu contempt petition came to be registered on the basis of the report submitted by Shri S. P. Kulkarni, Judge of the City Civil & Sessions Court at Mumbai on 03.04.2009 and when it was placed before the learned Single Judge on 13.11.2009, the Registry was directed to place the same before the Division Bench since the contempt, if any, committed is not of disobedience of any order passed. When it appeared before the Division Bench, it ought to be treated as a Reference under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. As per Rule 2 smcp-3-10.sxw 12(b) of Contempt of Courts (Bombay High Court) Rules, 1994, before making a reference the subordinate Court shall hold a preliminary enquiry by issuing a Show Cause Notice accompanied by copies of relevant documents, if any, to the contemnor and after hearing him the subordinate Court shall write a concise reasoned Order of Reference indicating the nature of the Contempt and the person/persons alleged to have committed it. This requirement is not satisfied in the instant case. Even otherwise, as per the learned Referral Judge, the respondents were guilty of not maintaining the statement made by their learned Advocate though it was without prejudice to their rights and contentions in the pending Suit. 3 We have perused the affidavit filed by respondent no.1 and we are satisfied that the respondents deserve to be discharged from the contempt proceeding. 4 Hence, respondents 1 and 2 are discharged and the notices issued to them are recalled. The bailable warrant issued stands cancelled accordingly. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ( B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)