- (1.) HEARD Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned Special Counsel for the High Court, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. Sri Anil Tiwari and Sri Yogesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the contemner.
(2.) THE proceedings of criminal contempt of courts have been initiated against the contemner Om Prakash son of Sri Vidya Ram Yadav, r/o 1/433 Suhag Nagar, district Firozabad on the basis of the reference letter dated 31.10.2013 of Sri Satya Prakash, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 9 Firozabad duly forwarded by the District Judge, Firozabad through his endorsement letter No. 2122/I -2013 dated 16.11.2013 with a prayer that the proceedings of criminal contempt of Courts may be initiated against Sri Om Prakash.
(3.) THE following facts have been mentioned in the reference letter dated 21.10.2013. "(1)That the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Firozabad has been hearing the arguments in Sessions Trial No. 753/2008 u/s 147,148,149,307,120 -B IPC P.S. South District (Firozabad) in discharge of the legal duties as per law and its due procedure. According to him, final hearing in the Sessions Trial was started by him on 19.1.2013 and he heard the arguments of the Government Counsel. In that case, the High Court has directed to dispose of the matter within six months. Thereafter, the complainant Sri Om Prakash Yadav, on 25.1.2013 filed against me an application No. 7 of 2013 on oath, to the effect that accused Ashok Dixit has sold his land worth crores of rupees and hence he did not expect any justice from his court; and it was prayed that the said Sessions Trial be transferred to some Senior and honest court. On it, the Additional and Sessions Judge, Court No. 9 had no objection and the District and Sessions Judge transferred it to the court No.1 of Additional District and Sessions Judge on 19.2.2013. This order of the District and Sessions Judge was challenged in the Hon'ble High Court in the Transfer Application (Criminal) No. 117 of 2013 and the Hon'ble High Court dismissed on 24.9.2013, the said order of the District and Sessions Judge. Hence, in pursuance of the Hon'ble High Court's order, dated 7.10.2013 and day to day hearing started in his court which, as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court, is to be completed by 7.11.2013. Sri Satya Prakash Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 9 Firozabad has further put forth some facts relating to the complainant Sri Om Prakash Yadav as follows: (2A) That after 7.10.2013, on 15.10.2013, an application on oath was filed in the court of District and Sessions Judge against him in which at the para 3 of the affidavit, it has clearly been mentioned that the accused Ashok Dixit has higher connection, is a professional offender is rich, a history sheeter and is a hardcore criminal; and as per his plan, he, by putting wrong facts before Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kalimullah Khan that the whole trial was completed before him while from 19.6.2012 to 4.1.2013 only three witnesses have been evidenced while by setting order for disposal of the case within a month's time period has been given in pursuance whereof, the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, is dispensing the judicial work in connivance with the accused persons. At para 6 of the affidavit, aforesaid, it has clearly been mentioned that a deal of Rs. Seven Crores with Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 9 has been done for acquitting the accused Ashok Dixit and Sanjay Dixit on the plea of Alibi. On it, the District and Sessions Judge, asked for my explanations; and I, in turn, denying the allegation imposed on me, submitted my reply/explanations thereto on 21.10.2013 wherein I have also requested for moving contempt of court proceedings against the said complainant Sri Om Prakash Yadav. (2B) That the complainant Om Prakash Yadav filed the second complaint application on 18.10.2013 in the court of the referencer Presiding Officer with the file no. 511/B, the copies whereof have been sent to Hon'ble the Chief justice Supreme Court of India, Hon'ble the Chief Justice, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Hon'ble Administrative Judge, Firozabad, Hon'ble Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, the District Sessions Judge, Firozabad, Hon'ble Chairman, Human Right Commission, New Delhi. In this application also, by stating the former complaint, it has been requested by the appellant Om Prakash Yadav that due to probable deal of Rs. seven crores, he would not get justice from the present court and that in these circumstance, the present court do not hear his case. From the above complaint application, it is clear that the complainant Om Prakash Yadav is mounting pressure on the present court for not disposing of the case in the stipulated time determined by the Hon'ble High Court. Whereas the order of Hon'ble court for day -to -day hearing is binding on each party and is to be completed within a month i.e. till 7.11.2013. (2C) Thereafter, on 28.10.2013,another complaint application against him was filed before the District and Sessions Judge, regarding passing various orders against the counsel for the appellant, and putting irrelevant remarks in the case file, shattering moral of the counsel, mentioning in the case file the incidents relating to creating uproar by the counsel and thereby putting hurdle in the court proceedings, harassing the complainant by him behaving with him in a biased manner, all this with the connivance of the accused. Sri Om Prakash, the complainant, has also complaint that on his filing application regarding his situation to Hon'ble the Administrative Judge and to the District and Sessions Judge, the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 9 has made up his mind to be biased in favour of the accused and due to all this the words of complainant and his counsels are not give importance and that he has no hope of justice from his court. Hon'ble District and Sessions Judge has sent the copies of the said complaint applications to me and all of them have been said to be false and have been attached with the file and marked as the document no. 5168. (2D) That the hearing by the referencer Presiding Officer in pursuance of the order, dated 24.9.2013, of the Hon'ble High Court is being done on day -to -day basis, but the complainant Om Prakash Yadav is putting intentional and substantial hurdle in the hearing. It is to be mentioned that complainant Om Prakash Yadav's counsel Sri Lakhpat Singh whose contemptuous act has been mentioned in the order sheet dated 11.10.2013 and 22.10.2013 mention of the intentional and substantial act of putting hurdle in the proceedings of arguments has been made in the order sheet dated 24.10.2013. Beside this, in the order sheet, dated 30.10.2013, mentioned has been made of the ruckus created by the complainant Om Prakash Yadav during the proceedings of arguments and thereafter threat was given by the complainant Om Prakash Yadav and his brother Laxminarayan to the Court Moharrir working in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 9 in regard whereof, an application was filed by the said Court Moharrir wherein a contemptuous comment has been made as" The judge himself is not able to bear him." Here, it is also pertinent to mention that the Advocate Abdul Salaam, the counsel of the complainant Om Prakash Yadav, has informed the court that S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 8398/2013, which was filed against the order dated 24.9.2013 of the Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad, has been dismissed on 28.10.2013." Sri Satya Prakash, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Firozabad, has further submitted that the complainant Om Prakash Yadav again and again filing false complaint applications against him during the arguments, intentional and substantial hurdle is put by him and his counsels in the proceedings of the court. He submits also that due to these kind of false, baseless complaints and due to the hurdle put in the discharge of the court work, he, the referencer Presiding Officer has to face and suffer extreme uneasiness, mental affliction and harassment. He has also said that due to aforesaid activities of the complainant Om Prakash Yadav, the dignity of his, the refrencer Presiding Officer, personally, and of his court and moreover of the Hon'ble High Court has been undermined and tarnished.;