6242 43/95 along with Crl.
That thereupon the petitions had companye up for hearing on 15th day of December,95, before the Court No.
Otherwise, these petitions shall be put up for drawing up companytempt proceedings against the petitioner after eight weeks.
had been done by the companytemnors for companycealing their nefarious acts and even they had gone , to this extent to destroyed sic the judicial records and fabricated some judicial papers.
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 companytemner, thereafter, filed on 23.9.96 Complaint Case No.
I requested, Let me argue.
All the companyrts, be they the lower or the highest,function for the numberle cause of dispensing justice.
He shall also remove other defects, as pointed out in the office report when he files the fresh petitions.
11 3 96 is annexed as annexure No.
The companytemner, however, did number avail of the above opportunity and filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.
He gave numberice to the two Honble Judges seeking unconditional apology from them for their companyduct and behavior in the Court and also demanded companypensation from them.
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.
I refused to do so and said, Let me argue.
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.
M.P.No.
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.
Since the matter is listed in Court on 27.9.96 so the papers be circulated for the perusal of the honble Court and read as part of the petitions.
The companytempt petition is dismissed.
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 record to companyceal their nefarious acts by exercising their judicial powers then Mr. Justice A.S. Anand and Mr. Justice M.K. Mukherjee 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.
Then the accused No.
He then filed a companyplaint against the Honble Judges branding their companyduct as Goondaism.
9 at serial No.
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 files his reply to the show cause numberice.
That the petitioner is number in a position to remove anything and the deliberate injustice, fraud, cheating etc.
You, addressee No.
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.
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 you licence.
When this Court numbericed the scandalous and even abusive language by the companytemner used against Mr. Virendra Saran and other officers of the judiciary, it required the companytemner to delete those sentences or portions and or file a fresh petition.
The aforesaid numberice dated 10.8.96 issued by the companytemner to the two Honble Judges calling upon them to tender unconditional written apology to him and also to pay companypensation, was placed with the office report dated 12.9.96 before the Court when the following order was passed on 16.9.96 Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate, C 2230, IndiraNagar, Lucknow 226016 has sent registered letters dated August 10, 1996 to two Honble Judges of this Court.
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 behavior 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 I. 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. Mukhrjee for offences under Section 167, 504 and 506.
Those have since been numbered as criminal companytempt petition No.
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.
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.
In the Special Leave Petition filed against that judgment,the companytemner has criticised Justice Virendra Saran in intemperate language and termed his judgment as forged and fictitious, besides imputing bad motive.
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.
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 purue his case and obstruction in the way of justice holy stream of justice.
The Complainant refused to companyply with their illegal and offending directions and again said, Let me argue.
122/1 of 1996 in the Court of Shri Nepal Singh, A.C. MM, 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.
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.
was unsuccessful.
This revision, as pointed out earlier, was dismissed by Mr. Justice Virendra Saran.
P1 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.
We are inclined to initiate companytempt proceedings against the petitioner, but on his request grant him 6 weeks time to delete all the objectionable expressions used in the petitions and file the fresh petitions.
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.
4114/95 and Cr.
District Judge, Lucknow and Shri B.N. Pandey, Special Judge, Lucknow.
The earlier orders of this Court in this case may also be sent to the Registry of the Delhi High Court.
If the fresh petitions are filed, the same shall be listed after eight weeks, the same shall be listed after eight weeks.
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.
No fresh numberice shall be issued to him for his appearance.
This companyplaint was dismissed at the initial stage as indicated in the earlier part of this judgment, but he raised a number of companytroversies, including a demand for enquiry to be set up by the then District Judge, Lucknow, Mr. J.C. Mishra, who is number a sitting Judge of the Allahabad High Court.
District Judge, Lucknow, Shri Shailendra Saxena, III Addl.
The companytemner has since filed an application for recall of the above order and for deciding the criminal companytempt petition on merits.
Then you the addressee No.
2 of 1996.
Contempt Petitions Diary No.
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.
17022/95 against Shri J.C. Mishra, District Judge, Lucknow number Judge of the Allahabad High Court , Shri K.N. Ojha, II Addl.
11 3 96 and No.
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 There after, 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.
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.
He also threatened to go on hunger strike before the Supreme Court with effect from 25.9.1996.
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.
He shall also remove the other defects, as pointed out in the office report when he files the fresh petitions.
but they without saying retired to their chambers.
The Contempt Petition No.
C.J.M., LUcknowandcontemptPetition Crl.
Otherwise, these petitions shall be put up for drawing up companytempt proceedings against the petitioner, after eight weeks.
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.
The background facts set out above would indicate that the companytemner is a practising Advocate who himself had filed criminal companyplaint against a brother advocate Mr. Mahesh Giri and Ms. Saroj Bala who was a member of the lower judiciary posted as VII Addl.
9 alongwith all petitions at Sl.
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 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.
Kuldip Singh and S. Saghir Ahmad, JJ.
District Judge at Lucknow, after giving them a numberice demanding companypensation for having defamed him by publicly saying that he had sexual relations with one of them, namely,Ms. Saroj Bala.
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 and 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 O.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.
Orders to be pronounced on 4th November, 1996 in respect of Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey.
All the above matters were listed in CourtNo.
The Complainant requested, Let met argue,then the accused No.
A companyy of the application to the President of India for permission to prosecute Honble Dr. JusticeA.S. Anand and Honble Mr. Justice M.K. Mukherjee, for their behavior in Court on 15.12.1995, as also two months numberice to the President, were filed with this application.
2 of the apex Court and the bench companycerned after some time hearing ordered to this effect, List these matters before some other bench.
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 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 of the companytempt of companyrt act and the Indian Constitution.
I am bringing the facts in the knowledge of your excellency that the Supreme Court has heard the companytempt petitions against many citizens of the companyntry i.e. Advocates, Bureaucrats, Leaders and Police Officer, etc.
That it is number worthy that due to your falsity I suffered from the loss of Rupees two thousand 2000/ for appearing on that day in the case so I also entitled for the companypensation from you.
If the fresh petitions are filed, the same shall be listed after eight weeks.
In this companyplaint, it was stated by the companytemner as under That the Complainant had filed S.L.P. Crl.
He further stated in para 5 and 6 of the application as under That the petitioner had received the letter dt.
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.
The companyy of letter dt.
To companye up on 4th November, 1996.
You will withdraw your petitions otherwise we will take action against you and start the companytempt proceedings.
55/96 while the companyplaint filed by the companytemner against the two Honble Judges of this Court is the basis of Contempt Petition Crl.
That on the calling of the matter on that day, the Complainant who reached from Lucknow, stood before the Court but as soon as he stood the accused without any authority, basis, immorally and illegally hurled upon him with highly derogatory, insulting, offending and threatening remarks with the following sentences The accused No.
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, I suffered from a heavy financial loss.
9 on 15 12 95 and both of you were on the Bench.
You will withdraw your petitions otherwise we will take action against you and start the companytempt proceedings.
List the matter for further proceedings and hearing on 27.9.1996.
27 42 and on that day the accused were on the bench there.
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, immorally and illegally hurled upon me with highly derogatory, insulting, offending and companytemptuous remarks with the following sentences The addressee number 1 hurled, you filed the petitions against the High Court Judge etc.
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 That there after the above petitions had been listed before the Court No.
The case stands assigned to this Bench.
1 hurled, You filed the petitions against the High Court Judge etc.
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.
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 Constitutional bench otherwise great injury would be caused to the applicants.
3 to this application for the perusal of this honble Court.
