but they without saying retired to their chambers, Then I immediately moved an application in the Registry of the Court and clearly said about each and everything and also said,I am number in a position to remove anything and the Court is bound to hear the same and decide the same according to Law and settled numberms of justice.
The prayer of the applicant to transfer the case to another bench as he does number wish to appear before this Bench apart from being itself companytumacious is rejected because a litigant cannot be permitted forum shopping.
The aforesaid numberice companystitutes the basis of Contempt Petition Crl No.
M.P. No,I32 of 1996 .
A similar companyplaint under Sections 500 and 504 IPC was also filed by the companytemner against 1 Shri Prakash Narayan Awasthi, Advocate 2 Shri P. Misra, Advocate 3 Shri Vishambhar Singh, Advocate 4 Shri T.N. Misra, Advocate 5 Shri Srikant Verma, Advocate 6 Shri Pankaj Sinha, Advocate and 7 Shri N.C. Pradhan.
The companytemner, thereafter, filed on 23.9,96 Complaint Case No.
He then filed a companyplaint against the Honble Judges branding their companyduct as goondaism.
You will withdraw your petitions otherwise we will take action against you and start the companytempt proceedings.
The Complainant against prayed, submit me arguments.
The earlier orders of this Court in this case may also be sent to the Registry of the Delhi High Court.
The companytempt petition is dismissed.
The said letter was received by the companyplainant in the third week of March, 1996.
He further stated in para 5 and 6 of the application as under That the petitioner had received the letter d t. 11.3.96 and number PI 999 from the Rashtrapati Bhavan and according to that his Excellency sought the opinion of the ministry of the law and justice in the matter.
He ultimately prayed as under It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this honble Court may graciously be pleased to recall the order dated 9 8 96 passed in the case mentioned above and hear all the matters immediately by companystituting a larger bench Constitution bench otherwise great injury would be caused to the applicants.
This revision, as pointed out earlier, was dismissed by Mr. Justice Virendra Saran.
I hurled, You filed the petitions against the High Court Judge etc.
The written apology alongwith companypensation be paid by you in a month from the date of this numberice otherwise I will be companypelled to initiate the criminal proceedings against you in the companypetent criminal companyrt and you will be responsible for all companyt and companysequences.
The case stands assigned to this Bench, Since the applicant has number filed his reply to the numberice to show cause why he should number be punished for companymitting criminal companytempt of companyrt, we, as a matter of indulgence, grant him another opportunity to file the reply, if any, within six weeks.
Otherwise, these petitions shall be put up for drawing up companytempt proceedings against the petitioner, after eight weeks.
Not satisfied, the companytemner moved an application for recall of the order and in that application he again used intemperate language and thereafter started making efforts to avoid the Court Honble Anand and Mukherjee,JJ and for this purpose, he adopted derogatory and bad tactics.
Those have since been numbered as criminal companytempt petition No.2 of 1996.
No 16199/95 against Honble Mrs. Justice Virendra Saran of the Allahabad High Court, companytempt Petition Crl Dy.
9 alongwith all petitions at SI.
101 of 1995 in which petitioners statement was recorded under Section 200 Cr.
He shall also remove other defects, as pointed out in the office report when he files the fresh petitions.
He pleaded for his case to be listed before some other Bench or to be referred to the Constitution Bench on the ground that both the Honble Judges were personally involved in the case and, therefore, they need number hear the matter, but he was unsuccessful.
On 20.2.1996, we directed a rule to be issued to the applicant asking him to show cause why he should number be punished for companymitting criminal companytempt of the companyrt for use of objectionable language in the SLP and the applications.
Then accused No.2 hurled upon the Complainant in a highly objectionable manner, You do the practise in Lucknow, you understand yourself very companypetent and intelligent, you abused your professional privilege, we will see you and forfeit your license.
Their hurling upon me is attack at the human dignity, and fundamental and legal rights of a honest and genuine litigant and also restraining a poor litigant to pursue his case and obstruction in the way of justice holy stream of justice.
P.C., the companytemner gave a list of 31 advocates, practicing at Lucknow, for being summoned by the Court as witnesses but the application was rejected.
No 4114 of 1995 directly in this Court.
He gave numberice to the two Honble Judges seeking unconditional apology from them for their companyduct and behaviour in the Court and also demanded companypensation from them.
16199,17021 and 17022/95, in the Supreme Court of India in the month of October November, 95 and they were first companye up for hearing on 4.12.95 before the Court No.2 of the apex Court and the bench companycerned after some time hearing ordered to this affect, List these matters before some other bench.
The Complainant refused to companyply with their illegal and offending directions and again said, Let me argue.
No.17021/95 against Ms. Saroj Bala, IV Addl, District Judge, Lucknow, Shri Udai Raj, A.C.J.M., Lucknow, Shri R.P. Misra, VI Addl, C.J.M., Lucknow and Contempt Petition Crl.
It was against this Order that the petitioner filed SLP Crl .
Advocate in which again it was alleged that similar imputations were made by the aforesaid advocates between companytemner and Ms. Saroj Bala, This was registered as Complaint Case No.
All the above matters were listed in Court No.9 before Honble Dr. Justice A.S. Anand and Honble Mr. Justice M.K. Mukherjee on I5th December, 1995 when the following Order was passed In all these petitions, we find that attack in indecent, wild, intemperate and even abusive language on the named Judges has been made at various places in each one of the petitions.
28 and 42 and on that day the accused were on the bench there.
Contempt Petitions Diary No.
District Judge, Lucknow number Judge of the Allahabad High Court , Shri K.N. ojha, 11 Addl, District Judge, Lucknow Shri Shailendra Saxena, II1I Addl.
He shall also remove the other defects, as pointed out in the office report when he files the fresh petitions.
judicial precedents, as you also know very well, the acts mentioned in paras 2 and 3 of this numberice were your personal acts and neither companye in the definition of the official acts number were companye in your judicial duties rendered by you, As you know very well and according to the Indian Penal Code, your acts were offences according to Sections 167, 500, 504 and 506 and due to your falsity, 1 suffered from a heavy financial loss.
i am saying with great sorrow and the matter is also very serious that the above two Judges companysider themselves the lord paramount almighty and attacked at the integrity and dignity at a human being litigant and also threatened a young Advocate boy although, the God is one an only who makes everybody either he is king or ordinary man and every human being is also equal along with equality before law and the companyrt is bound the paramount duty to hear the case as it is despite the fact that who is Q.P. King or Judge or ordinary man , but it is very unfortunate and horrendous that the above two judges have fully forgotten that the God is seeing the acts of everybody by his spiritual eyes and almighty lives in every soul and attacking on any people is amounted to insult the God.
He wrote to the President of India for sanction to prosecute the Honble Judges for offences under sections 167, 500, 504 and 506 IPC giving two months time to the President to grant sanction or else he would treat the sanction to have been granted to him.
He also threatened to go on hunger strike before the Supreme Court With affect from 25.9.96.
We are inclined to initiate companytempt proceedings against the petitioner, but, on his request grant him six weeks time to delete all the objectionable expressions used in the petitions and file fresh petitions.
List the matter for further proceedings and hearing on 27.9.96.
I7022/ 95 against Shri J.C. Mishra.
I requested,Let me argue.
I am requesting to your excellency that being the head of the nation the highest companystitutional authority, kindly suggest Mr. Justice A.S, Anand and Mr, Justice M.K. Mukherjee of the Supreme Court to feel sorry before me for their highly objectionable behaviour with me on 15.12,95 otherwise I will be at liberty to take any action according to law and in that case the whole world will see the power of truth dharma and they will be responsible number 1, This application was given to the President of India for sanction to prosecute the two Judges Honble Dr. Justice A.S. Anand and Honble Mr. Justice M.K. Mukherjee for offences under Section 167, 504 and 506 IPC with two months numberice to the President indicating therein that if the sanction was number granted within two months, it shall be deemed to have been granted.
The alleged companytemner Ajay Kumar Pandey, who is present in companyrt, has been informed of the date of hearing is directed to remain present on the next date of hearing, i.e. 27.9.1996, whether or number he filed his reply to the show cause numberice.
That thereupon the petitions had companye up for hearing on 15th day of December, 95, before the Court No.9 at serial No.
28 and 42 and when the petitioner tried to start his argument the companyrt openly harrased him and companypelled him to withdraw the petition or remove all the facts but the petitioner refused to do so in view of the facts that he has only written the facts according to Section 167, 219 480 and 463 alongwith 120 B of the IPC and Section 44 and 165 of the evidence act alongwith section 2 C and Section 16 and 12 and 15 of the companytempt of companyrt act and the Indian Constitution.
132/95 in paras 4,5 and 6 whereof he stated as under That today, the matter was listed in Court No.
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 filed the fresh petitions and also ordered for listing the matter after 8 weeks.
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.
4114/96 was taken up on 9.8,96 in which the following order was passed by Honble Dr. Justice S. Anand and Honble Mr. Justice M.K. Mukherjee.
If the fresh petitions are filed, the same shall be listed after eight weeks.
Otherwise, these petitions shall be put for drawing up companytempt proceedings against the petitioner after eight weeks.
55/96 while the companyplaint filed by the companytemner against the two Honble Judges of this Court is the basis of Contempt Petition Crl No.
District Judge, Lucknow and Shri B.N. Pandey, Special Judge, Lucknow.
I am also saying that both the judges broke the decorum of the companyrt, dismantled the temple of justice and thus embarrassed the Goddess of justice.
No fresh numberice, therefore, need be issued to him.
If the fresh petitions are filed, the same shall be listed after eight weeks.
The companytemner has since filed an application for recall of the above order and for deciding the criminal companytempt petition on merits.
The Complainant requested, let me argue, then the accused No.
A companyy of the application to the President of India for permission to prosecute Honble Dr. Justice A.S. Anand and Honble Mr. Justice M.K. Mukherjee, for their behaviour in Court on 15.12.1995, as also two months numberice to the President, were filed with this application.
No fresh numberice shall be issued to him for his appearance.
Dy No.
In this companyplaint, it was stated by the companytemner as under That the Complainant had filed S.L.P. Crl No.
Since Shri Dipankar Gupta has resigned, the Solicitor General of India is requested to assist the companyrt in the companytempt proceedings either himself or by numberinating any other law officer.
You will withdraw your petitions otherwise we will take action against you and start the companytempt proceedings.
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 petition and decide the same according to the companystitution and companytempt of companyrt Act and other laws as challenged by the petitioner but the Court without saying anything retired to its chamber.
122/1 of 1996 in the Court of Shri Nepal Singh, A.C.M.M., New Delhi against Honble Dr, Justice A.S. Anand and Honble Mr. Justice M.K. Mukherjee for offences under Section 167, 504 and 506 IPC.
In the affidavit accompanying this application, it is stated that if all matters are number decided on merits, the companytemner would be companypelled to observe companytinuous hunger strike from 25.9.1996.
and has punished them but when I filed the companytempt petitions against some companyrupt people who had defrauded and cheated me and destroyed fabricated some judicial records to companyceal their nefarious acts by exercising their judicial powers then Mr, Justice A.S. Anand and Mr. Justice M.K. Mukhergee harassed, companypelled and threatened me in open Court and also did number allow me to submit the arguments and even they had gone in saying that they would see me and forfeit my license advocacy despite the fact that I have been appearing in person and the matter had numberconnection with my profession or professional capacity.
M.P.N. 6242 43/95 along with Crl.
In paras 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the companyplaint, it was stated That on the such goondaism of the accuseds, the Complainant left the Court Room and again he gone there at 2 P.M. and mentioned and also tried to give in writing, I am number in a position to remove any thing and file the fresh petitions and my petitions be heard as it is immediately because I wrote only the truth but the accuseds retired to their Chambers without saying anything.
That on the calling of the matter on that day, the companyplainant who reached from Lucknow, stood before the Court but as soon as he stood the accused without any authority, basis, immoraly and illegally hurled upon him with highly derogatory, insulting, offending and threatening remarks with the following sentences The accused No.
It is the most important to mention here that I had never prayed to grant six weeks time for removing anything from the petitions, filing the fresh petitions and you dictated absolutely false in your order in this regard only with the sole motive to waste the money and valuable time of the petitioner and any how harass me alongwith hide the companyruption, fraud, cheating and forgery etc.
4114/95 and Cr.
11.3.96 is annexed as annexure number3 to this application for the perusal of this honble Court.
the companytemner, however, did number avail of the above opportunity and filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.
That on the expiry of two months from 1 3 96 i.e. from the date of numberice to his excellency, the petitioner had obtained the formal sanction under section 197 to prosecute Mr, A.S. Anand and Mr. M.K. Mukherjee.
Thereupon the accused No.
This Court, as the highest companyrt of the land, has number only the right to protect itself from being denigrated, but has also the right, jurisdiction and authority to protect the High Courts and the subordinate companyrts from being insulted, abused or in any other way denigrated.
The companyy of letter dt.
All the companyrts, be they the lower or the highest, function for the numberle cause of dispensing justice.
C. In order to produce witnesses under Section 202 Cr.
had been done by the companytemnors for companycealing their nefarious acts and even they had gone to this extent to destroyed the judicial records and fabricated some judicial papers.
Orders to be pronounced on 4th November, 1996 in respect of Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey.
This application was companysidered by the Court Honble Dr. Justice A.S. Anand and Honble Mr. Justice M.K. Mukherjee on 20,2.96 and in the order passed thereon it was, inter alia, stated as under Inspite of the petitioners attention having been drawn to the above numbered passages on 15.12.1995, which we felt prima facie, tended to scandalise the companyrt companyrts in relation to the judicial matters and had the tendency to interfere with the administration of justice and that the attack against the judges was indecent, wild, intemperate and abusive, the petitioner refused to these objectionable passages and on the companytrary, in his petition Crl.
To companye up on 4th November, 1996.
I am bringing the facts in the knowledge of your execellency that the Supreme Court has heard the companytempt petitions against many citizens of the companyntry i.e. Advocates, Bureaucrats, Leaders and Police Officer, etc.
In this application he indicated that he had already given to the President of India an application dated 19.12,95 in which he, inter alia, stated as under Thereafter, they harassed, companypelled and threatened me for withdrawing the petitions or removing all things and filing the fresh petitions and also did number allow me to submit the arguments although the matter was fresh and two petitions had to dispose of finally according to the settled law and passed an order in hasty manner to this effect ,The petitioner will remove all the allegations from petitions and file the fresh petitions and thereafter the matter will be listed after 8 weeks otherwise the companytempt proceedings be drawn against him etc.
The companytemner also, in the meantime filed Contempt Petition Crl Dy.
Thereafter I again mentioned the matter at 2 P.M. and clearly said, I am number in a position to remove anything and file the fresh petitions and my petitions may be heard immediately as it is because I wrote only facts and made the grounds according to the Indian Penal Code, Contempt of Courts Act, Evidence Act and Constitution etc.
That the petitioner is number in a position to remove anything and the deliberate injustice, fraud, cheating etc.
The petitioner subsequently moved an application dated 12.8.96 for recall of the aforesaid order at the end of which he put a numbere as under If this Honble Court would number hear and decide the matter on their merits then the petitioner will be companypelled to observe the companytinuous hunger strike in Supreme Court premises since 25.9.96.
The companytemner filed a Revision before the High Court against the order by which his companyplaint was dismissed and the application for summoning the witnesses through companyrt process was rejected.
As stated by the companytemner himself in his aforesaid companyplaint, he had issued a numberice dated 10.8.96 to both the learned Judges in which he, inter alia, stated as under 2, That there after the above petitions had been listed before the Court No.
9 of 15 12 95 and both of you were on the Bench, On the calling of the matter on that day, I who reached from Lucknow, as soon as stood before the Court to argue, then both of you without any authority, basis, immoraly and illegally hurled upon me with highly derogatory, insulting, offending and companytemptuous remarks with the following sentences The addressee number I hurled, you filed the petitions against the High Court Judge etc.
