-.-•"J HIGHCOURT QF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CrimTnaLContemBt Case Np.,3 oi2002 PETITIONERS: ACCUSED/: 1. Ranveer Singh Shastri aged about 81 years S/o Late Shri Baieshawar Prasad Singh 2, Rahul Singh aged aboHt 46 years^on of Shri Ranveer Singh Shastri ; ^ Both resjdents 6f :884 New Shanti£<Nagar P.S. Civil Lines, Raipur C.G, ; , ^;; ' Versus .." ^ 1,';:':; :^ •::;"—'. .,, Shri Vijay Kumar ;Shrivastava District:^ iSession&Judge,,RaipurC,(3.'.:^ (Contemnor) {Application under Section 10oftheContempt of Court&Acf, 1^(71} Rresent: None presehtforthe petitioners. None present for thecespondent. Divjsion Bench;: - Hon'ble Wr. T.P. Sharma and Hoh'ble Mr. IVIanindra hflohan ShrivastavaLJJ ORALORDER (8-11-201 Q) T.P.Sharma, J: - '^..';' .;';•,.••:1"-!'^.^^\ :-'^. 1. We Itave perus.ed the petition filed under Sectiori 10 of the Coi'itempt of CourtsA(Sf?3;9It(forshorf'theAct');' - 2. By this petition, the pefitioners have prayed for initiatipn of Qontempt proceedirig against judicial officer posted as District & Sessions Juelge, Raipur, who has passed order dated 19-2-2002 in a judicial proceeding (anticipatory baH prpceeding). As per the contents ofthe petition; the responclent/judicjal officer has not acted in judicial manner and has ; commitfed contempt ofhisown coLfrt.'and while dealing with regufar bail pfthe appiieantswhen'.tfieywereynderpFetective order, the responclent hereih has taken them into custQjdy aridthereby committeEl contempfof . his'Qwn.court.,,'l"ttl<.'-" '•.",;.-.. ",; '•• ' - .:.': -..-', .•.-,.^..^ ••: 3. This is petition for initiation ofcontempt pi-OGeeding under sub-section (2) pf Section 15 of the Act. In the present case, motion has not been made by the Advocate General. The petitioners herein have not filed this 88 N ;cua^ '^r^ SS3/ ^.^.•^^ petition with the consent in writingto the Advocate General, butthey' have prayed fortaking suo mofuaction againstthe contemnor. 4. While dealing with the question of taking suo motu eognizance for the enminal contemptin appropriate cases, theSupreme Court in the matter of S.K. Sarkar v. V.C. Mjsra1 observed as under: - "In the case of crimihal contempt, not being contempt committed in theface of the court, we are ofthe opinion thatit wpuld lighten the burden of the court, without in any way interfering with the sanctity of the administration ofjustice.jf actionis taken on a motion by some otheragency. Such a courseof action would give considerabl6 assurance tothe individuai charged "' and the public at large. Indeed, some High Courts have alreadymaderulesfortheassociationoftheAdvocate- General in spme categories ofcases at least." 5. While dealing with, the same question the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Anil kumar Gupta v. K. Sybba Rao has observed that a petition forsuo motocoritemptshould be placed beforethe Chief Justice for orders in Chambers and the Chief Justice may decide either by himselfor in consultation with the otherjudges of the Court whether to take any cognizance of the information or not. The High Court of Delhi conelyded the proceeding with the following observations: "The office is to take note that in fufure if any- information is lodged even in the form of a petition inviting this Court to take action under the Contempt of CourtsAct orArticle 215ofthe Constitution,where the informant is notone ofthepersons named in Section 15 of the said Act, itshould not be styled as a petition and should not be placed for admission on the judicial side. Such a petitioh should be placed before the Chief Justice for orders in chambeFS and the ChiefJustice may deeide either by himself or in consultation with the other judges of the Coyrt whether to take any cognizance of the information. The office is directed to strike off the information as "Criminal Original No.51 of 1973"andtofileit." 1! .! ! , ' ' ! ', . • ~-.. 6. By relying upon the gforesaid observations of the Delhi High Court, the Apex Court in the matter of P.N. Duda V. P. Shiv Shanker arid others has held that "the direction given by the Delhi High Court sets out the proper procedure in such cases and may beadopted, at least in future, as a practice direction oras a rule, by this Court and other High Courts", and dismissed the petition for taking suo motu cognizance against the :1(1981)1SCC436 2ILR(1974)1 Del1 3 /^ noo^ o £?/ i!.;.' \ (1988) 3 SCC 167 ^5 .^" contemnoron the basis of the petition filedon behalfof private party, and hasconsidered thatthe said petition is nothing morethan an information. 7. While deating with same questjon, the Apex Court in the matter of State of Kerala v. M.S. Mani and others has held that reqyirement of ' .. : _ :. • .': . ' . _ •- .'. '-' ; ~. obtaining prior consent in writing ofAdvocate Generat for making motion by any person other than Advocate General is mandatory and failure to Qbtain prior consent woutd render the motion non-maintainable. Obtaining consent sUbsequently wpuld not cure the initial defect. Para 6 of the said judgment reads thus, "6. The requirement of Consent of the Advocate- General/Attorney-General/Soljcitor-General where any person other than the saidlaw officers makes motion in the case of a criminalcontempt in a High Cotlrt or Supreme CQurt, as the case may be, is not a mere formality; it has a salutary purpose, The said law officers being the highest law offieers at the level of the State/Centre as alsp the officers of the courts are vitally interested in the purity of the administration of justice and in preserving the dignity of the courts. They are expected to examine whether the averments in the proposed motion of a criminal contempt are made vindicating public interest or personal vendetta and accord or decline consent postulated in the said provision. Further, cases found to be vexatjous, malicious or motivated by personal vendetta and not in publicinterest will getfiltered at that level. Ifa motionof criminal contempt in the High Court/Supreme Coyrt is not accompanied by the written consent of the aforementioned law officers, the very purpose of the requiremerit of prior Gonsent will be frustrated. For a valid motion cdmpliance with ^the requirements of, Section 15 of the Act is mandaitory. A motion uncfer Section 15 not in conformity with the provisions of Section 15, is notmaihtainable. 8. While dealing with same question, the Apex Court in the mattef of Bal Thackrey v. Harish Pimpalkhute and others has held that person intending to file Gontempt petitidn is required to obtain consent from the Advocate General before filing the contempt petition and in absence of such consent, the petition is not sustainable under the law. In Bal Thackrey's case, the Apex Court has issued direction for framing of necessary rule or practice direction by the High Courts in terms of Duda • " •' ' '' • •' • ' ' '.'.... '. .'•"' ' • . • ^' ~ •••< case (supra). Para 26 of the said judgment reads as follows: - "26. Before parting, it is necessary to direct framing of necessaryruie or praetice direction by the High Courts .l!.;.' 811 A!. ^ft;;;'1 •t' ~'.lt •••'••"•': J).:i1' (2001) 8SCC-82 5{2005)1SCC254 cn o EU ^y i-< a> ap S' B- O- &. W T %1 sa •-:,'fr'. • *-'^«^>B"'" o o 4». ~^ 9> N5o1§ <tl 3 Q. U) Q. cn •o ow (D Q. y cn ^ sy Q. •31 w cn o3a ai (Q (D w <D 2. 3 01 s- 3fl) p- (C p 6 3!1 tn® X!E (D3 ,-:j- (D §f3 «-<•s (C cn Q. U) cn U) (D Q. ai •o (S o3 m :3- (D 8t •o co fl> (Q 3- jgg S Q. <D^ =? !u- 0) fis (0(0.?- t»- s-(D S. 'S °' o 3 E? 3" = i S' 3"Q:3 SS 1 (Ba. 3: (Q M <Q B) 3 (n :T (O ij (0 •o o3 Q. fl)=! 0) (D EU ^ m Q. s (Qm oi P. 1 i •o p cn o3 o ;c —t. < 1 s- (D 3 U) 3 III 's =••? (D m H s-fn S 01 3 3: <5 -' n> a> S a r-r W :S" =? 2 <tiijl =1 ,s m 3 o 5 2. § i2i i?i 3 T ? < .s: cp (D m cn 3- ? " % o^ ^"a ' (D' -h <C 3 i-i 3 3 a S 3S. s^S- o ° o ? m ai =? 2 w s't® I B) (Q Q > ?•§& Q. 3 (Q (Q D S CB 3^a. (p 3o. .'"=•• •^ =! o5g iai S sS (/> "> '< s-^-s 5j <a- <6 < ro& 2 -y o 3 s'" §i? '•^.CB (D