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, Add l. District Judge.
2/96 came to registered against the alleged companytemner in this Court.
On 27.9.1996, Mr. K.N. Bhat, 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.
The alleged companytemner however, despite numberice did number appear in the Court on 22.1.1997, The Bench was, therefore, left with numberother option except to secure his presence by issuance of number billable warrants and accordingly number bailable warrants returnable on 27.2.1997 were directed to be issued.
Nos.819 820 of 1996 against the judgment of Virendra Saran, J dated 15.2.1995.
He, therefore, filed Special Leave Petition Crl.
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 Constitution 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 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 order dated 03.03.1997 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.
The case, was thereafter, adjourned from time to time and on 22.08.1997, following order was made when the alleged companytemner once again remained absent despite service Despite service respondent, Sh.
4114/95, Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions Nos.
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.
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.
The application was supported by an affidavit.
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.
The Special Leave Petition Crl.
He was apprised that his prayer for transfer of the case to some other bench has been rejected by the learned Chief Justice.
While dismissing the revision petition, the learned single Judge inter alia observed It is well settled that if the veiled object of a lame prosecution is to disgrace, humiliate or cause harassment to the accused, the High Court must put an end to the mischief by quashing such criminal proceedings.
The alleged companytemner as already numbericed had number appeared in the Court on 27.09.1996, 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.
That is how the companytempt proceeding Contempt Petition Crl.
In that companyplaint an application giving a list of 31 advocates for being summoned as witnesses was filed.
That application was rejected by the Trial Court.
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.
The alleged companytemner, thereafter, filed Special Leave Petition Crl.
He was directed to file his reply within 8 weeks.
The facts on the record of the instant case give a horrendous account of a framed up case against a responsible member of the lower judiciary holding the post of an Additional Sessions Judge at Lucknow It appears that the aim of the applicant is to malign the learned judge Smt.
17922/95 filed on 09.11.1995 against the following respondents Shri J.C. Mishra, Distt.
Shri R.P. Misra, VI Addl.
Despite the fact that on 09.08.1996 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 09.08.1996.
Since on the next date he appeared in the Court, the bailable warrants were recalled.
He thereafter filed a Criminal Revision in the High Court which was also dismissed by a learned single Judge of the High Court Virendra Saran, J on 15.2.1995.
The case was, thereafter, posted to 02.10.1996 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.
District Judge, Lucknow.
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 earlier people like you are bundled out the better for us all As for quantum of sentence, I will never bow down before you.
Shri K.N. Ojha, II A D.J., Lucknow.
4114 of 1995 and the two other Special Leave Petitions alongwith some misc.
132 of 1996 in which inter alia he stated That today, the matter was listed in companyrt No.
M.P. No.
Anyway, you should feel ashamed of yourself that you are companytaminating the seat of justice.
Since the alleged companytemner had number filed his reply to the show cause 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 27.09.1996.
On 27.9.1996 while dealing with the applications filed by the companytemner, the following order was made We have examined the application and found that the prayer for recall of the order is misconceived for more than one reasons.
28 and 42 and when the petitioner tried to start his argument the Court 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 120B 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 Contempt of Courts Act and the Indian Constitution.
When the case came up for companysideration on 03.03.1997, the respondent was produced in custody in Court.
6242 6243/95, and S.L.P. Crl.
petitions were dismissed by the Bench both on account of the objectionable language used in the memorandum of those petitions as also on merits.
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.
Shri B.N. Pandey, Special Judge, Lucknow.
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.
Judge, Lucknow.
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.
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 order dated 09.08.1996 is an order in companytinuation of the order dated 20.02.1996, the prayer to recall which has already been rejected.
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.
If the fresh petitions are filed, the same shall be listed after eight weeks.
Contempt Petition Crl.
Shri Udai L Raj, V.A.C J., Lucknow.
That the petitioner is number in a position to remove anything and the deliberate injustice, fraud, cheating etc.
under lined by us Thus, it is seen that instead of removing the objectionable expressions, which prima facie have the tendency 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.
Noticing this adamant and defiant attitude of Ajay Kumar Pandey, on 20.02.19 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 companyrt for the use of intemperate language and casting unwarranted aspersions on various judicial officers and attributing motives to them while discharging their judicial functions.
The alleged companytemner did number file his objections or reply to the Rule in the companytempt proceedings and instead filed two applications seeking recall review of the order dated 20.02.1996 supra , dismissing S.L.P. Crl.
We companysidered the two applications for recall review and by our order dated 09.08.1996 found that there was numbermerit in those applications and felt pained to numberice that even those applications 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.
Shri Shailendra Saxena, III A.D.J., Lucknow.
9 alongwith all petitions at Sl.
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.
Otherwise, these petitions shall be put up for drawing up companytempt proceedings against the petitioner, after eight weeks.
He declined to remove the objectionable expressions and insisted on being heard.
By the order dated 09.08.1996 the review petitions filed by the respondent were also dismissed The prayer for recall of the order dated 09.08.1996 under the circumstances has numbermerit and is rejected.
You may award the maximum sentence.
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.
According to the Office Report dated 22.1.1997, mat application was rejected by the learned Chief Justice of India.
The case was adjourned to 22.1.1997.
4114 of 1995 against that order.
Ajay Kumar Pandey, the alleged companytemner has also filed following Contempt Petitions Crl.
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 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.
