.^(I-AC^. x.-. :•?- ^ ?.^L^ ••"* 'v .^" HIGH C^URT<)F^HiATnSQARH AT BfiLASPUR DIVTESION BENCai CORAM: HON'BLEMR. T.P.SHARMA& HON'BLE MR. R. L. JHANWAR. JJ. CONTBMPT CASE (CMMINAL1 N0. 2/2010 " Naresh Chandra, S/o LaEfe J^R. Sondhi, Aged abQut 68 years, R/»; mG-27, Padmiiabhpur, Distt? Dyrg (C.G.). -:. ••;;"-,..-.. . pEynnoNBR VERSUS CONTEMNOR Prasant Tiwari S/o SBri P.K.C. Tiwari, Advocate, aged about 40 Yrs. R/o Ctaikhali, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.). CONTEMPT PETTnON UNDER ARTICU; 215 OF THE c(»reTTnmoNOF INDIA KEauo IIIBTH SECTION is (21 (w TOIE GONTEMPTOF COURTACT. 1971. Presenfc- ShriVaibhav Shukfa, Advocate for the-petitioner. ^; ORAL-<JUD<aaUENT (Passedon 11/03/a010) , ^ The followingiudgment of theCourt roas passedliy T.P. Sharma. J:- . 1 Heard. ,. ! : • .\'. 1-'.:'" ^ !-'Y /.1:; 2 Leamed counsel fbr fhe petitioner submtts that ciiminal coiite!ript . has been committed by fhe respondent in the Court pf Addltional District Judge, F.T.C. Rajnandgaon in civil suit -No. t7A/QZ. ^ Addittonal District Judge,^F/T.C. Rajiiaadgaon has meirtioneiyaae% ;^ fact amounting to erimiaal contempt and its ordeF-sIieet dated 26/3/2009. ' !t';'l ""^. v< 3 Leamed counsel for the petitioner furfher submits that as held ui case of P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shanker And Others1. High Court is competent to take suo-motu cognizaace ofthe crimtaal contempt commltted by fhe respondent. Relevant paras reads as foUows:- 54. A conjomt peruscilof the Act andrules makes it cteccr that, sofar as this Court fe concemed, action for contempt •may be taken by the court on ite ou/n motton or pn the motion of the Attomey Genercd (or Solidtor General) or of any other person urith his consent in wrcting. There is no diffuulty where the court or the Attomey-Cenercd choose to move in the matter. But when this is not done cmd. a private person deswes that such action should be taken, one of three courses fe open to fwn. He may plcuce the infomwtion in his possession before the caurtand request the caurtto tafce action : (viSeC.K. Dcfphtary v. O.P. ©upta cmd Sarkar v. Misra); he may place the information before the Attamey Genercd andrequest him to take ciction; orhe may place the mforinationbefore the Attomey General and request him topermit him tomovethe court. 61 thepresent case, the petitioner cdleges that he has faS.edin the latter two caurses-Wis willbe considered a little kcter-ccnd has moved this 'petctlon' praying that fhis Cawt shautd take suo motu. action. The 'petitlon' _ at this stage, oonstitutes ^ nothing more thcm. a mode of laying the relevant mformation before the Caurt for such action as the Court may Deemflt and no proceedmgs can commence untit and unless the court considers the information before it and deddes to mctiate proceedings. Rule 3 and 4 of the Supreme Court (Contempt ofCourt) Rules cSso envisage a petition onty where the Attomey Genercd or any other (19S8) 3 SCC 167 ^\ 1 >/' ..f person, u/ith his written consen^ moves the Caurt. Rule 5 is d.eccrthat only apetition moved under Ride 3 (b) and (c) is to beposted before the courtforpreUmmciry hecaing. The form of a crimm.al misceUcineous petctian styling the informant as the petitioner and certcan other persons as respondents is incippropriate for merely kidging the relevant information before the court under Rule 3 (a). K would seem ,thcct the proper title of such a proceedtng should be ' Inre........ (the aUeged contemner)' (see: Kccr v. Chief Justice though that decision related to an appeal from an order ofoonwctmnfar contempt by the High Court). The form in which this request has to be sought and considered in svch cases has also been taiiched upon by the Delhi High Court m AmlKuTmxr Oupta v. K Subba Rao. This case, at the outset, pointed out that the information had been erroneausly nwnbered by the ojpce qfthe Court as crimm.al OrigincdNo. 51 of 1978 and comduded with the foUowing obseruations: The offwe is to tafce note that m futu.re yany informcctwn is todged evenin theform ofapetction invitmg ffas Caurt to take action under the Contempt ofCourts Act or Artide 215 of the Constftutton, where the informant is not one of the persons named in section ISofthe scdd Act, it shauld not be styled as a petition and should npt be placedfar adnwssion on the judicwd side. Such a petition shauld be plaoed before the Chiefjustice for orders in chccmbers and the Chief Justice may decide etther by himselform consultation wtth the other Judges ofthe Court whether to take any cognvscm.ee of the informatwn. The Offvse fe dvected to stnke off fhe mfonnation as "GnminaE Origmal N0. 51 of 1973° andtofUe U. I think that the direction given by the Delhi High Caurt sete out the proper procedure in such cases and may be adopted, at least in future, as a proactive direction aras a rule, by this Cowt and other High Cqurts. Hawever, a petition havmg been fUed and sinvlar petitions hcwmg perhaps been entertcdned eccrlier in several courts, I do not suggest that this petition shautd be disimssed on this ground. 4 In ttie present case as reqiiired by Rule 350 of the High Coi-irt Rule-2007, Additional District Judge F.T.C. Rajnand^on has not made any reference for initiation of crunmal contempt committed in relation tojudicial proceeding. 5 WIule dealmg witfa the question of taldng suo mofu cognizance for commission of crimmal contempt Apex Court has approved the procediire foUowed by DeUii High Court in case of Anll Kumar Gupta v, K Subba Rao2 , which reads as fbllows- ' 'The offtee is to take note that in. future if any mformatton is lodged even in theform ofapetitxDn mvitingtMs Court to take actfon imder the Contempt ofCaurtsAct orArtide 215 ofthe Canstvtutio/n, where the mformant is not one ofthe persons nccmed in sectian 15 ofthe scdd Act, it shauldnot be styled as a petttlon and shautd not be placed for adrmssion mi the judiaal su3e. Such a peUtton should be placed before the Clvefjusticefororderswtchixn'tbers and the Chief Justice mca/ decide either by himself or in consultatum withthe other judges of the Caurt whether to ILR (1974) I Del 1 ~c" 1^'"'- ^. i&^ ••E3;;i ^'•••,,. take any cognvzance of the infomwtion. The Qffuce is directed to strike off the informcction as 'Crim.inal Original N0. 51 ofl973' andtofUett.' 6 In fhe present case such procedure has not been followed by fhe leamed Additioiial District Judge, F.T.C. Rajnandgaon and he has not made any reference. 7 In view of the above, present petition is not maintainable. Gonsequently, lliis petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. :["' Sd/- ^ • T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhariwar Judge .."^ '•Y.^ .. -;-.' ~' <fc