Poonam Chand Bhandari @APPELLANT@Hash Smt. Vasundhra Raje Scindhiya

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:-

Smt. Vasundhra Raje Scindhiya, Chief Minister Of Rajasthan State, R/o Civil Lines, Jaipur.

State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary Home, Secretariat, Jaipur.

Advocate General Of Rajasthan, Office Of Advocate General High Court Compound, Jaipur.

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 12thApril, 2018. No further time will be granted.â€​

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 & 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 not

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 & 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 not placed

anything on record to support this allegation against Shri Gulab Chand Kataria. In such circumstances, it is to be seen whether such statemnts 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:-

Þegkjk""Vª ds ckn jktLFkku yksdlsodksa dks cpkus ds fy, fcy yk jgk gSA fojks/k gqvk rks vkius bls izoj lfefr dks lkSai fn;kA vkjksi gS fd ;g fcy

Hkz""V yksdlsodksa dks cpkus ds fy, gS\

yxkrkj f'kdk;rsa fey jgh Fkha fd 156¼3½ dk nq:i;ksx gks jgk gSA geus fjdkWMZ ns[kk rks djhc 73 Qhlnh ekeys >wBs fudysA ,sls ekeyksa esa

izdj.k ntZ gksus ls dbZ izfrf""Br] bZekunkj yksd lsodksa dh izfr""Bk ij vkap igqaphA eukscy Hkh VwVkA dkedkt izHkkfor gqvkA gekjh ea'kk

nksf""k;ksa dks cpkus dh ugha gSA loky mBs gS blfy, geus bls izoj lfefr dks lkSaik gSAß

The applicant has referred the provisions of sections 154, 190, 200 and 156(3) of Cr. P.C. in support of his contention but it is misinterpretation of law.

As per provisions of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. the courts are not 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. were found to be false and it is not 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 not 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 not in isolation. One of such question and alleged reply thereto purportedly made is reproduced as under:-

ÞD;k fcy dksVZ ds vf/kdkj {ks= esa gLr{ksi ugha gS\

gekjh U;k;ikfydk esa iwjh vkLFkk gSA dksbZ gLr{ksi ugha gSA ehfM;k lfgr lHkh izko/kkuksa ij fopkj&foe'kZ djus ds fy, izoj lfefr dks lkSaik gSA

egkjk""Vª ds fcy ls lacaf/kr izko/kkuksa ij Hkh ppkZ gksxhA

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 not in any manner scandalize or lower or tend to scandalize

or lower the authority of any court. Hence, I do not find any merit in the application and the same is, therefore, rejected.

Sd/-

[N.M.Lodha]

Advocate General 4. Again the matter came up on 12.04.2018 and the following order was passed:

“After arguing the matter, party in person himself requests for time to produce on record material that the statement made by the respondent no. 1

is contrary to facts.â€​

The learned Advocate General has rejected the application filed by the petitioner, the defects could not be cured.

Again the matter came up before this Hon’ble Court on 24.05.2018 and following order was passed:-

“Neither Advocate nor party in person is present, list on 5.7.2018.

During the course of arguments it is alleged by the petitioner that subsequently he himself has moved some proceedings against one of us (Mr.

Justice K.S. Jhaveri) for alleged criminal contempt. We have our own doubts whether this thing has affected this matter or not and we were not

inclined to issue notice even in this contempt proceedings at any stage.

In our considered opinion, the petitioner is in habit of filing public interest litigations and frivolous proceedings for getting publicity. He wants to

malign the judiciary and/or public authority at any cost. This is his habit throughout which is known to all in the High Court Bar and State of Rajasthan

and in this practice he maligns the public authority at large if the issue raised by him is not accepted. Even on 12th April, 2018, we expressed our

reservation that there is nothing in the matter tantamounting to contempt committed by the respondents.

The main contention of the petitioner earlier before the Court was that the legislation which has come into force is derogatory to the judicial

officers. In our considered opinion, on 12th April, 2018, we opined that it will be open for the petitioner to challenge the amended provisions of the Act

which came into force by any legislation and it does not amounting to contempt.

9.1.Moreso when he alleges criminal contempt, the stringent proof is required to be made.

9.1(a). Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines criminal contempt as under:-

2(c).criminal contempt means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any

matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which

(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers ortends to lower the authority of, any court; or

(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interferewith, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or

(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructsor tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner;

1.(b). S.15. Cognizance of criminal contempt in other cases.

(1) In the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in Section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its

own motion or on a motion made by

(a) the Advocate-General, or

(b) any other person, with the consent in writing ofthe Advocate-General,

(c) in relation to the High Court for the Unionterritory of Delhi, such Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official

Gazette, specify in this behalf, or any other person, with the consent in writing of such Law Officer.

(2) In the case of any criminal contempt of asubordinate court, the High Court may take action on a reference made to it by the subordinate court on a

motion made by the Advocate-General or, in relation to a Union territory, by such Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the

Official Gazette, specify in this behalf.

(3) Every motion or reference made under thissection shall specify the contempt of which the person charged is alleged to be guilty.

Explanation- In this section, the expression “Advocate-Generalâ€​ means

(a) in relation to the Supreme Court, the AttorneyGeneral? or the Solicitor-General;

(b) in relation to the High Court, the AdvocateGeneral of the State or any of the States for which the High Court has been established.

(c) in relation to the court of a Judicial Commissioner,such Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify

in this behalfâ€​

The criminal contempt has been explained by the Supreme Court in the case of Radha Mohan Lal vs. Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench; (2003)

3 SCC 427 and Haridas Das vs. Usha Rani Banik (Smt.) & Ors.,Apu Banik being contemnor;(2007) 14 SCC 1. In the present matter, the petitioner

has failed to submit any document much less a stringent proof to establish a criminal contempt against any of the respondents.

10.1. The documents annexed are merely a paper cutting and the letters written by the petitioner himself. Neither of the said documents can constitute

any evidence so as to initiate criminal contempt and thus, the criminal contempt petition is highly misconceived and lacks merit. In that view of the

matter, the contempt proceedings does not arise in view of Section 15 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

In our considered opinion, even on 12th April, 2018 we made it clear that this is merely a publicity litigation rather than a contempt proceedings.

The Advocate, petitioner herein is also a regular practitioner before the trial courts more particularly Family Courts and other Courts. The reports

are coming off and on from lower judiciary that Presiding Officers of the lower judiciary are threatened under the guise of contempt proceedings and

he is used to pressurizing them. The same is feeling of the High Court Judges also and it is now his habit to restrain the judges whether of High Court

or the Trial Court from passing orders against his clients.

Earlier also, the Division Bench of this Court in Suo Motu vs.State, D.B. Civil Writ (M) Petition (PIL) No. 2416/2012 vide order dated 24th

September, 2012 issued contempt against the petitioner for obstructing the proceedings of the Court. For ready reference the order dated 24th

September, 2012 is reproduced as under:-

“Despite the order having been passed on 28.8.2012 derecting the respondent no.3 Dainik Bhaskar Group which was the sponsor for the event

which was held in the Central Park at Jaipur, to furnish the names and addresses of the persons through whom various organizations enumerated at

S.No.4 to 10 in the array of parties, were required to be served and time was granted to the respondents for furnishing the names of such individuals,

the respondent no.3 has failed to give the details and names of the persons through whom the respondent nos.4 to 10 (except respondent no.5) are to

be served and consequently the notices could not be issued despite the order of this Court directing issuance of notice on 13.2.2012.

This morning, counsel for the respondent no.3 Sh. Rakesh Chandel who appeared, was asked whether he had complied with the aforesaid orders. In

response to the same, the counsel for the respondent no.3 stated that compliance had been made. We were about to accept the said statement when

we found from the record that the names of the persons had not been submitted and the statement was false. We find that the document which has

been filed, does not contain the names of persons through whom the organizations which are enumerated at S.No.4 to 10 (except respondent no5

which is already represented) are to be served and compliance has thus not been made and a wrong statement has been made before this Court. It is

regretable that such casual approach is made by learned counsel and this matter remains pending on account of this before the Court. We however

granted time to furnish the names after lunch to the counsel. After lunch Sh. P.C. Bhandari appeared and sought time which we are not inclined to

grant without imposing costs.

The counsel for the respondent no.3, while this order was being, dictated, interfered in the court proceedings and obstructed the same during the

dictation of the order and did not permit the court to dictate the order which prima facie amounts to deliberate obstruction of the proceedings of the

court as he would not listed to the request of the court to allow the court to dictate the order.

We are, therefore, constrained to take cognizance of the conduct and behaviour of the learned counsel which prima facie amounts to contempt.

Issue notice to the counsel for respondent no.3 Sh. Poonam Chand Bhandari, as to why proceedings for contempt be not initiated against him for

deliberately interfering with and obstructing the proceedings of the court. Separate Contempt proceedings be registered for this purpose.

For not having complied with the Court's order dated 28.8.2012 and delaying the proceedings and seeking time, adjournment is granted on costs of

Rs.10,000/- to the respondent no.3. The respondent no.3 is directed to file names within three days in compliance of the order dated 28.8.2012.â€​

However, the said contempt proceedings were dropped by the Division Bench in Criminal Contempt Petition No. 10/2012 on 28th  September,

2012 by passing the following order:-

“Mr. Poonam Chand Bhandari has stated that he has utmost respect to the court, he was not having any intendment to cause any obstruction in the

court proceedings or to insult the court. In case, this court felt like that, he is “sorryâ€​ for the same.

In view of aforesaid statement, we are not inclined to pursue the matter any further. The contempt notices stand discharged. Contempt proceedings

are dropped. The contempt petition is disposed off.â€​

It will not be out of place to mention that the advocate petitioner produced forged documents in one of the petition being DBCWP No. 8919/2013

(Shankar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) whereupon this Court passed following order on 9th  January, 2017:-

“Prima facie, the document which has been produced on record (Annexure-1) is not correct. In view of the genuine document which has been

placed as Annexure R/1, there is serious discrepancy in it.

The Registrar General will examine the matter and will take appropriate action under Section 195 I.P.C. Since rejoinder is not filed, it will be open for

the petitioner to file appropriate rejoinder by the next date.

Trial Court will expedite the matter.â€​

1.Inspite of Court request to withdraw the petition and tender unconditional apology, he did not accept the Court suggestion and the Court had no

other option but to direct the Registrar to file a prosecution against him and that criminal case is also pending against him before Criminal Court,

Jaipur. Therefore, he wants to malign the Court for his mis-conduct and omission in the Court proceedings.

The background regarding contempt proceeding against him and conduct of the lawyer is given because he wanted to avoid hearing before this

bench on the ground that he has filed criminal contempt against one of us (Mr. Justice K.S. Jhaveri). We thought it will not be appropriate to surrender

to such pressure. In that view of the matter, we have taken up the matter and decided on merits.

Hence, the criminal contempt petition being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed. The same is dismissed.