IN REFERENCE Vs. RAVI SHYAMNANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present contempt proceedings have been initiated against the contemner on a reference being made in this regard by the Second Civil Judge Class-II and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sagar, Dr. (Smt.) Rekha Markam in view of the contemptuous conduct of the contemner during the proceedings of Civil Suit No. 4A/2014 on 22.04.2015. The proceedings were initiated by the aforesaid Judicial Magistrate by suo motu registering an MJC on the same date i.e. 22.04.2015 and while doing so also obtained signatures on the order sheet of Advocates Shri Anshuman Agrawal, Shri Suneet Verma, Shri Kishore Agrawal, Shri Raja Bhaiya Bhatt, (DW) Shri Pushpendra Ahirwar, Civil Reader Neerja Choubey and Criminal Reader Ku. Anjum Parveen who were present in the Court when the incident occurred. The Magistrate issued notice to the contemner giving him an opportunity to file his reply as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him and if he so desired, to appear and record his statements and cross examine the witnesses. The relevant part of the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, dated 22.04.2015 in the MJC suo-motu registered by her recording reasons for initiating proceedings against the contemner is as follows :

(2.) The contemner did not appear personally but filed a written reply and, therefore, the Judicial Magistrate on the basis of the statements of the aforementioned persons who were present in Court and on finding the reply filed by the contemner to be unsatisfactory held that the conduct of the applicant amounted to a criminal contempt and, accordingly, by recording the aforesaid conclusion in her order dated 08-06-2015 forwarded the matter to the High Court for initiating contempt proceedings against him. The reference was sent by the JMFC, Sagar on 12.08.2015 and was forwarded by the District Judge, Sagar to this Court by his memo dated 17.08.2015 pursuant to which notices were issued to the contemner by this Court on 23.09.2015.

(3.) It is pertinent to note that while framing charges against the contemner we have already considered the aforesaid facts to reject his contention that the reference was barred by limitation and we find support for the view taken by us from the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Pallav Sheth Vs. Custodian, 2001 7 SCC 549.