KALPESH SATYENDRA JHAVERI,J. - (1.) The present criminal contempt petition has been filed alleging that the reply to a correspondent given by one of the respondents undermines the dignity of the court. The following parties have been arrayed as respondents in the contempt petition:- 1. Smt. Vasundhra Raje Scindhiya, Chief Minister Of Rajasthan State, R/o Civil Lines, Jaipur. 2. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary Home, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Advocate General Of Rajasthan, Office Of Advocate General High Court Compound, Jaipur.
(2.) It is noteworthy that filing of such petition requires prior approval by the learned Advocate General of the State. The matter came up for the consideration before this Hon'ble Court on 02.04.2018 and the following order was passed: "Time is granted to remove the defects. The matter to come up on 12th April, 2018. No further time will be granted."
(3.) On 02.04.2018 the petitioner has filed the order dated 27.03.2018 passed by learned Advocate General of the State by which learned Advocate General has rejected the application of the petitioner which reads as under: "In the matter of application filed by Poonam Chand against Smt. Vasundra Raje and Anr. Under Contempt of Courts Act. ORDER 27.3.2018 I have gone through the application dated 13.11.2017 filed by Shri Poonam Chand Bhandari. Since the annexure referred in the application was with the application and as such he was intimated about the removal of defect. Subsequently, Shri Poonam Chand Bhandari filed application dated 14/12/2017 and 23/01/2018 alongwith photo copy of the newspaper cutting published in "Dainik Bhaskar" dated 27.10.2017. Shri Poonam Chand Bhandari was also heard in person on 9.3.2018. During the course of hearing, he made it clear that news-paper cutting referred hereinabove is the only enclosure [document] in support of his application dated 13.11.2017. The application states the background in which the extracted statement is alleged to have been made by Smt. Vasundhara Raje and it is alleged in the application that same version was given by Mr. Gulab Chand Kataria, which was published in newspapers, however, the applicant has placed anything on record to support this allegation against Shri Gulab Chand Kataria. In such circumstances, it is to be seen whether such statements as alleged to have been made and published in Dainik Bhaskar tantamounts to criminal contempt. It would be appropriate to mention that the Criminal Laws [Rajasthan Amendment] Ordinance, 2017 was sought to be replaced by the Criminal Laws [Rajasthan Amendment] Act, 2017 for which the Criminal Laws [Rajasthan Amendment] Bill, 2017 was introduced in the Rajasthan State Legislative Assembly. As per the newspaper cutting, Smt. Vasundhara Raje alieged to have made the said statement in response to a question. The question and its alleged response are reproduced as under:- The applicant has referred the provisions of sections 154, 190, 200 and 156(3) of Cr. P.C., 1973 in support of his contention but it is misinterpretation of law. As per provisions of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., 1973 the courts are supposed to adjudicate the matter before reference under Section 53 is made and as a matter of facts many such complaints on investigation turn out to be reported baseless or false. The alleged statement extracted above and purportedly made by Smt. Vasundhara Raje simply refers to the statistical facts of complainants making large number of complaints which were referred under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., 1973 were found to be false and it is comment upon the courts. As such, the contention of the applicant that the alleged reply purportedly made is meant to undermine the dignity of courts in the State and scandalize or tend to scandalize and lower down the authority of courts is totally misplaced and misconceived. The contention of the applicant does merit any consideration and deserves rejection also for the reason that the alleged statement purportedly made have to be read in the context of the Bill introduced in the Assembly and its professed objects and reasons which clearly state that the Bill has been introduced for protection of honest public servants. The alleged reply is also to be seen in the context of such replies allegedly given and published in the same news item and in isolation. One of such question and alleged reply thereto purportedly made is reproduced as under:- From the above, it is absolutely clear that Smt. Vasundhara Raje has expressed complete faith in the judiciary and denied any interference in any manner. It is, therefore, clearly evident that the purported statement, allegedly made does in any manner scandalize or lower or tend to scandalize or lower the authority of any court. Hence, I do find any merit in the application and the same is, therefore, rejected. Sd/- [N.M.Lodha] Advocate General;