1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Contempt Petition No.11/2010 ( Smt. Mangala Samuel Bhalerao ..V/s.. Ms. Victoria Simon and 16 others ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. Anupam Desai, Adv. for petitioner. Mr. V.A. Thakre, A.P.P. for respondent no.17/State. CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 25th November, 2010. 1. Heard. 2. According to learned Advocate for the petitioner, the criminal contempt is defined – described in paragraph no.5 of the petition. Said para 5 reads as follows - “05. The members of the illegal advisory committee including respondent no.11 and no.16, fearing exposure of the breach of trust and gross misuse and illegal exercise of power between 17.02.2003 to 31.03.2006 handed over illegal control of the Trust to their collaborators and puppets, the present respondents, on and after 01.04.2006. It is under these circumstances that membership has been refused to the petitioner and certain other members by the respondents, on the ground that the petitioner has approached the court of law against the instant public trust. The 2 respondents issued letter dated 30.06.2010 (the mention of date 30.06.2009 is a typographical error) retuning membership fees. In the said letter it is stated “You are hereby informed that your membership will be decided after legal proceedings are over” Thus, vide letter dated 30.06.2010, the respondents no.1 to 16 have committed criminal contempt of court and lowered the dignity, majesty and supremacy of the judiciary and the rule of law by penalizing the petitioner, who is a law abiding citizen, for having approached the courts of the land to expose the misdeeds of the respondents. It is pertinent to state here that there are no legal proceedings concerning the issue of membership pending in any court of law. The letter dated 30.06.2010 is attached as ANNEXURE 3.” 3. Contents of said para no.5 seen from any angle do not disclose any act amounting to or having any semblance of criminal contempt. 4. Petitioner's grievance does not confirm to the definition of criminal contempt. 5. No cognizance is warranted. 6. Petition is dismissed. Judge Judge Tambaskar.