STATE OF BIHAR Vs. RAJENDRA UPADHYAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 3, 4 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 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 Section 376 of the IPC 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 Section 376 IPC 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 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 Section 376 of the IPC. 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 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.