- (1.) Sri Himanshu Bhatnagar, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Baghpat vide his Letter/ Reference dated 01.07.2010 addressed to the Registrar General of this Court, made a complaint against Sri Nahar Singh Yadav, Advocate(hererin after referred to as the 'Contemnor'), practising in Ghaziabad judgeship, that he has got a booklet, titled as 'Smarika Ghaziabad Bar Association 2007-08' (hereinafter referred to as 'Souvenir'), wherein there is an article at page Nos. 20-21, which has been written and got published by Sri Nahar Singh Yadav, Advocate. Its language is shabby, derogatory and contemptuous and tends to lower down authority of this Court. It also caused hindrance in judicial work, therefore, he requested for taking an appropriate action. It is also pointed out that earlier on a reference made by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad, pertaining to an incident dated 17.05.2007, a Contempt Application(Criminal) No. 5 of 2008 was registered against Contemnor and one Sri Shailendra Sharma, in which this Court vide judgment dated 16.02.2010 punished both the contemnors therein and imposed punishment of six months imprisonment and fine of Rs. 20,000/- each.
(2.) In the aforesaid article, written by Contemnor as President, Bar Association, Ghaziabad, the offending part thereof reads as under: 587372-1 "One thing specially I want to say that since long I have been against corruption prevailing in court, on account whereof it is difficult for a poor man to get justice. During my tenure I staked the matter of Sri Himanshu Bhatnagar and in the meeting with Hon'ble Chief Justice I provided evidence of embezzlement/ corruption of crores of rupees committed by him and with sincere efforts of Bar Association, he had been transferred from Ghaziabad for which Bar Association was struggling. But I am feeling very sorry to say that some advocates of Bar Association who had also been Ex-Office bearers of Bar Association tried their level best to defeat the movement started against corruption by Himanshu Bhatnagar and had been conveying every activities of Bar Association to him. I d not wish to name those, because all members of the Bar Association are well aware of their acts in as much as in past also they have been indulged in such activities."
(3.) This Court after registering the present criminal contempt, issued notice on 09.12.2010 to the Contemnor as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him. The Contemnor, after putting appearance, filed objections vide Misc. Application No. 234103 of 2011, raising two objections; firstly that relevant documents were not supplied to him and secondly, questioned the notice on merits. This Court on 18.09.2012 passed following order: "Two objections have been filed, to the show-cause notice issued, by Nahar Singh, Advocate to the show-cause. The objection, which has been termed as Misc. Interim Application, numbered as Misc. Interim Application No. 234103 of 2011, is in two parts. First part alleges non-supply of relevant documents and therefore, denial of full and fair opportunity. Second part deals with the merit of the notice. It would be appropriate that the contemnor or his counsel may peruse the papers, which are on record before this Court today itself. If he so desires, he may obtain photo stat copies of the said documents. He is further at liberty to file additional reply to the show-cause notice within ten days. Objections both on the procedure as well as on the merit to the notice issued shall be considered on the next date. Let the matter come up again on 10th October, 2012.";