- (1.) The contemner is a practising Advocate. He filed Complaint Case No. 451 of 1994 in the Court of VI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow against Shri Mahesh Giri, Advocate and Ms. Saroj Bala, VII Additional District Judge, Lucknow for offences under Secs. 499/500 I.P.C. Mr. Mahesh Giri, at the relevant time, was the Government Counsel deputed to work for the prosecution in criminal cases in the Court of VII Additional District Judge, Lucknow. It was alleged in the complaint (read with notice which preceded it as also contemner's statement recorded under Sec. 200 Cr.P.C.) that the accused, namely, Mahesh Giri Advocate and Ms. Saroj Bala, VII Additional District Judge, Lucknow had imputed sexual relations between the contemner and Ms. Saroj Bala which had defamed the contemner and, therefore, he prayed that the accused be tried for the said offences. The statement of the contemner was recorded under Sec. 200 Cr. P. C. on 21-9-1994 but it remained inconclusive. The statement was finally recorded on 26-10-1994 and, thereafter, the case was adjourned for enquiry under Sec. 202 Cr.P.C. It was stated that the petitioner moved an application that the witnesses whom the contemner wanted to examine under Sec. 202 Cr.P.C. may be summoned by the Court as almost all of them were practising Advocates and influential persons but the complaint itself was dismissed by the Magistrate on 16-11-1994. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a criminal revision against the aforesaid order in the High Court but it was dismissed on 15-2-1995. Hon'ble Virendra Saran, J. of the Allahabad High Court who disposed of the revision observed, inter alia, as under : "It is well settled that if the veiled object of a lame prosecution is to disgrace, humiliate or cause harassment to the accused, the High Court must put an end to the mischief by quashing such criminal proceedings. The facts of the record of the instant case give a horrendous account of a framed-up case against a responsible member of the lower judiciary holding the post of an Additional Sessions Judge at Lucknow and hence, even if the order of the learned Magistrate dismissing the complaint under Sec. 203 of the Code be not wholly justified in law, it is not a fit case for the exercise of the discretionary revisional jurisdiction. There can be no doubt that the prosecution case unfolded in the complaint and the statement of the applicant is nothing but an intricate web of perfidious fabric. It appears that the aim of the applicant is to malign the learned Judge (Smt. Saroj Bala) and hold her at ransom. The applicant emphatically and repeatedly read out the lewd passages from his deposition while arguing the revision, but the palpably scurrilous, indecent and abominable recitals are not worth reproduction in the judgment. Suffice it to observe that the arguments of the applicant, so vehement and pungent, marked with sarcasm and sneer, do not impart any strength to his case which is inherently unbelievable. They are submissions directed more towards vilification than substantiation of the pivotal points of the case. I was constrained to ask the applicant not to make savage additions to the evidence and show restraint in his colloquy."
(2.) The contemner, thereafter, filed S.L.P.s (Crl.) Nos. 819-20 of 1996 against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 15-2-1995 of Hon'ble Virendra Saran, J. in this Court in which he impleaded only State of U. P. as a pro forma respondent.
(3.) A similar complaint under Secs. 500 and 504 I.P.C. was also filed by the contemner against (1) Shri Prakash Narayan Awasthi, Advocate, (2) Shri R. P. Mishra, Advocate, (3) Shri Vishambhar Singh, Advocate, (4) Shri T. N. Mishra, Advocate, (5) Shri Shrikant Verma, Advocate, (6) Shri Pankaj Sinha, Advocate, and (7) Shri N. C. Pradhan, Advocate in which again it was alleged that similar imputations were made by the aforesaid Advocates between contemner and Ms. Saroj Bala. This was registered as Complaint Case No. 101 of 1995 in which petitioner's statement was recorded under Sec. 200 Cr.P.C. In order to produce witnesses under Sec. 202 Cr.P.C. the contemner gave a list of 31 Advocates, practising at Lucknow, for being summoned by the Court as witnesses but the application was rejected. It was against this Order that the petitioner filed S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 4114 of 1995 directly in this Court. The contemner also, in the meantime, filed Contempt Petition (Crl.) Diary. No. 16199 of 1995 against Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virendra Saran of the Allahabad High Court, Contempt Petition (Crl.) Diary. No. 17021 of 1995 against Ms. Saroj Bala, VII Additional District Judge, Lucknow, Shri Udai Raj V A.C.J.M., Lucknow, Shri R. P. Misra, VI Additional C.J.M., Lucknow and Contempt Petition (Crl.) Diary. No. 17022 of 1995 against Shri J. C. Mishra, District Judge, Lucknow (now Judge of the Allahabad High Court), Shri K. N. Ojha, II Additional District Judge, Lucknow, Shri Shailendra Saxena, III Additional District Judge, Lucknow and B. N. Pandey, Special Judge, Lucknow. All the above matters were listed in Court No. 9 before Hon'ble Dr. Justice A. S. Anand and Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. K. Mukherjee on 15-12-1995 when the following Order was passed : "In all these petitions we find that attack in indecent, wild, intemperate and even abusive language on the named Judges has been made at various places in each one of the petitions. The petitioner, who is an Advocate, has permitted himself the liberty of using such expressions, which prima facie tend to scandalise the Court in relation to judicial matters and thus have the tendency to interfere with the administration of justice. We are inclined to initiate contempt proceedings against the petitioner, but, on his request grant him six weeks' time to delete all the objectionable expressions used in the petitions and file fresh petitions. He shall also remove the other defects, as pointed out in the office report when he files the fresh petitions. If the fresh petitions are filed, the same shall be listed after eight weeks. Otherwise, these petitions shall be put up for drawing up contempt proceedings against the petitioner, after eight weeks.";