Noticing this adamant and defiant attitude of Ajay Kumar Pandey, on 20th February, 1996 the Bench directed that a Rule be issued against him asking him to show cause why he should number be punished for companymitting criminal companytempt of Court for the use of intemperate language and casting unwarranted aspersions on various judicial officers and attributing motives to them while discharging their judicial functions.
That application was rejected by the Trial Court.
The application was supported by an affidavit.
It appears that the alleged companytemner had filed another companyplaint on 12.9.1994 under Sections 500 and 504 IPC against seven advocates namely 1 Shri Prakash Narayan Awasthi 2 Shri R.P.Misra 3 Shri Vishambhar Singh 4 Shri T.N.Misra 5 Shri Srikant Verma 6 Shri Pankaj Sinha and 7 Shri N.C.Pradhan, in which it was alleged that those advocates had made defamatory imputations regarding the relationship between him and Ms.Saroj Bala, Add1.
It was hoped that he would realise the seriousness of the situation and remove all the objectionable expressions from the memorandum of petitions but instead of deleting those objectionable expressions, on the same day, he filled Cr1 P.No.
On 27.9.1996 while dealing with the applications filed by the companytemner, the following order was made We have examined the application and find that the prayer for recall of the order is misconceived for more than one reasons.
In that companyplaint an application giving a list of 31 advocates for being summoned as witnesses was filed.
According to the Office Report dated 22.1.1997, that application was rejected by the learned Chief Justice of India.
The order dated 9th Aug., 1996 is an order in companytinuation of the order dated 20th February, 1996, the prayer to recall which has already been rejected.
The alleged companytemner did number file his objections or reply to the Rule in the Contempt proceedings and instead filed two applications seeking recall review of the order dated 20th February, 1996 supra .
His prayer was rejected by us number only on the ground that the prayer itself was companytumacious in character but also because a litigant can number be permitted to choose his forum since the case stood assigned to this Bench and we found numberjustification to withdraw from the Bench either.
4114 of 1995 and the two other Special Leave Petitions alongwith some misc.
He was apprised that his prayer for transfer of the case to some other bench has been rejected by the learned Chief Justice.
It was also directed that in the numberice it shall be indicated that the alleged companytemner should file reply to the show cause numberice within six weeks and that it was to be companysidered as the final opportunity granted to him for that purpose.
In the meantime, it transpires from the record that the companytemner, filed an application addressed to the Honble Chief Justice of India, seeking transfer of the case from this Bench to some other Bench.
He was directed to file his reply within 8 weeks.
The alleged companytemner however, despite numberice did number appear in the Court on 22.1.1997.
451/94.
28 and 42 and when the petitioner tried to start his argument the companyrt openly harassed him and companypelled him to withdraw the petition or remove all the facts but the petitioner refused to do so in view of the fact that he has only written the facts according to Section 167, 219, 480 and 463 alongwith 120 B the IPC and section 44 and 165 of the Evidence Act alongwith Section 2 C and Section 16 and 12 and 15 of the Contempt of Court Act and the Indian Constitution.
The prayer for recall of the order dated 9th Aug., 1996 under the circumstances has numbermerit and is rejected.
The Bench was, therefore, left with numberother option except to secure his presence by issuance of number bailable warrants and accordingly number bailable warrants returnable on 27.2.1997 were directed to be issued.
Since the respondent, Ajay Kumar Pandey, despite directions is number present we direct that his presence be secured by issuance of bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.
The offending portion of the application inter alia read I am making a companyplaint against you to the highest authorities in the companyntry, that you are companyrupt and do number deserve to be retained in service.
The alleged companytemner appearing in person on that date made a request that his cases may be transferred to another Bench as he did number wish to appear before this Bench.
By the order dated 9th Aug., 1996 the review petitions filed by the respondent were also dismissed.
He declined to remove the objectionable expressions and insisted on being heard.
II Shri Udai L Raj, V A C J, Lucknow.
under lined by us Thus it is seen that instead of removing the objectionable expressions, which prima facie have the tendendy to scandalize the companyrt companyrts in relation to judicial matters and have the tendency to interfere with the due administration of justice and which expressions per se are an attack on various judges, who had dealt with the companyplaint filed by him at the original or the revisional stage, in most indecent, wild, intemperate and abusive language, he asserted that he was number obliged to remove any of these passages and that this companyrt was bound to hear him on merits.
District Judge.
The alleged companytemner, thereafter, filed Special Leave Petition Crl.
No.17021/95 filled on 8th Nov. 1995.
Anyway, you should feel ashamed of yourself that you are companytaminating the seat of justice.
in this Court Contempt Petition Cr1.
4114 of 1995 against that order.
5,000/ with one surety of the like amount for a date to be fixed by the registry, to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow.
When the case came up for companysideration on 3rd March, 1997, the respondent was produced in custody in Court.
The earlier people like you are bundled As for quantum of sentence, I will never bow down before you.
That is how the companytempt proceeding Contempt Petition Cr1.
II Shri K N Ojha, II A D J, Lucknow.
We are inclined to initiate companytempt proceedings against the petitioner, but on his request grant him six weeks time to delate all the objectionable expressions used in the petitions and file fresh petitions.
had been done by the companytemnors for companycealing their nefarious acts and even they had gone to this extent to destroy the judicial records and fabricated some judicial papers.
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.
III Shri Shailendra Saxena, III A D J., Lucknow.
No.2/96 came to registered against the alleged companytemner in this Court.
Petitions were dismissed by the Bench both on account of the objectionable language used in the memorandum of those petitions as also on merits.
A threat was held out that a companyplaint was being lodged to higher authorities that he was companyrupt and did number deserve to be retained in service.
The case was adjourned to 22.1.1997.
No.17922/95.
819 820 of 1996 as also against the Rule issued to him to show cause why he should number be punished for companymitting companytempt of companyrt.
Despite the fact that on 9th Aug. 1996 Ajay Kumar Pandey had been informed of the date of hearing and was directed to remain present on 27.9.1996 and file his reply by that date, he instead of appearing in person on 27.9.1996, filed yet another application alongwith companyies of certain documents seeking recall of the order dated 9th Aug., 1996.
6242 6243/95, and S.L.P. Cr1.
We companysidered the two applications for recall review and by our order dated 9th August, 1996 found that there was numbermerit in those applications and felt pained to numberice that even those application bristled with scandalous remarks and were companyched in objectionable language and that the alleged companytemner, was persistent in his attitude to undermine the majesty of law and bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
9 alongwith all petitions at S1.No.
The petitioner filed a criminal revision No.
Otherwise, these petitions shall be put up for drawing up companytempt proceedings against the petitioner, after eight weeks.
Judge, Lucknow.
Ajay Kumar Pandey, the alleged companytemner has also filed following Contempt Petitions Cr1.
On 27.9.1996, Mr. K.N.Bhatt, learned A.S.G. appeared to assist the Court and asserted that the application was misconceived and the alleged companytemner was trying to browbeat the companyrt and misconstruing the indulgence being shown to him.
No.16199/95 filed on 28th Oct. 1995 Against Mr. Justice Virendra saran, Judge, High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Contempt Petition Cr1.
C J M. Contempt Petition Cr1.
He, therefore, filed Special Leave Petition Crl.
The petitioner, who is an advocate, has permitted himself the liberty of using such expressions, which prima facie tend to scandalize the companyrt in relation to judicial matters and thus have the tendency to interfere with the administration of justice.
You may award the maximum sentence.
The Special Leave Petition Cr1.
dismissing S.L.P. Cr1.
That the Court is number allowed the petitioner to submit his argument and passed an order to remove the all facts from the petition and file the fresh petitions and also ordered for listing the matter after 8 weeks.
That the petitioner is number in position to remove anything and the deliberate in Justice, fraud, cheating etc.
IV Shri B N Pandey, Special Judge, Lucknow.
The order dated 3rd March, 1997 inter alia records Mr. Pandey was asked if he was making any prayer for release on bail and he submitted that he cannot provide any surety at Delhi.
289/94 in the Honble High Court, Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow on 14.12.94 and challenged the order dated 16.11.94 passed in companyplaint case No.
132 of 1996 in which inter alia he stated That today, the matter was listed in companyrt No.
The Bench also requested the Solicitor General of India to assist the Court in the companytempt proceedings either himself or by numberinating any other law officer.
District Judge, Lucknow.
The alleged companytemner as already numbericed had number appeared in the Court on 27th September, 1996, but it appears that he was present in the Court premises as soon after the above order was made, he filed an application on that very day explaining the reasons for his absence and praying for recall of the bailable warrants.
4114/95, Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions Nos.
He emphasised that number only has the attitude of alleged companytemner been totally defiant but that he had lost all sense of propriety in filing the applications and Special Leave Petitions companyched in most objectionable language and creating an impression that he companysidered the law as subservient to him.
The case, was thereafter, adjourned from time to time and on 22nd August, 1997, following order was made when the alleged companytemner once again remained absent despite service Despite service respondent, Sh.
filled on 9th Nov., 1995 against the following respondents I Shri J C Mishra, Distt.
III Shri R P Misra, VI Add1.
Thereafter, the petitioner mentioned and also tried to give in writing that he is number in a position to remove anything and file fresh petitions in view of the fact that he wrote only truth and the companyrt is bound to hear the petitions and decide the same according to the companystitution and companytempt of Court Acts and other laws as challenged by the petitioner but the companyrt without saying anything retired to its chamber.
Since, the alleged companytemner had number filed his reply to the show case numberice, the Bench as a matter of indulgence, granted him yet another opportunity to file his reply, if any, within six weeks and adjourned the proceedings to 27th September, 1996.
The case wad, thereafter, posted to 2nd December, 1996 but it appears that the alleged companytemner who was appearing in person had numbernotice of that date and the Bench therefore directed that fresh numberice be issued to him for his personal appearance as well as for filing his reply, if any.
Since on the next date he appeared in the Court, the bailable warrants were recalled.
Nos.819 820 of 1996 against the judgment of Virendra Saran, J dated 15.2.1995.
A.S.ANAND.J. The alleged companytemner Ajay Kumar Pandey, a practising advocate, filed a criminal companyplaint against an Advocate Mr. Mahesh Gir and an Additional District Judge, Ms. Saroj Bala, then posted as VII Additional District Judge, Lucknow, under Sections 499 and 500 IPC, after first serving them with a numberice demanding companypensation for defaming him.
