Smt. Usha Pandey vs A.C.J.M. II and Others

Heard the applicant. Km. Abha Pandey, in person, Sri V. B. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Advocate whom we requested to assist us as amicus curiage and also the learned Government Counsel.

This Habeas Corpus petition has been filed by Km. Abha Pandey on behalf of her mother Smt. Usha Pandey, who has been taken into custody in pursuance of the order of the learned A.C.J.M. II. Basti dated 17-1-2001, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 80 of 2001. State v. Usha Pandey, u/s 340, Cr. P. C.

We have perused the order dated 17-1-2001. It appears that Smt. Usha Pandey had appeared before the learned A.C.J.M.-II Basti on 17-1-2001 in a case u/s 125, Cr. P. C. against her husband Prahlad Pandey. During the hearing she is said to have made derogatory remarks against the learned Magistrate. The order dated 17-1-2001 states:-

^^Jherh mek ik.Ms; fnukad 17&1&2001 dks le; djhc 11&55 cts U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr gksdj tksj&tksj ls cgl djus yxh rFkk bl U;k;ky; ea dk;Zjr ihBklhu vf/kdkjh] vf/kgLrk{kjh ds rjQ bafxr dj dgus yxh fd ^^bl izdj.k esa esjs uke ls 229 ch izkFkZuk&i= dk veynjken djk nks] rqe cgqr gksf''k;kj curs gks] foi{kh ls feys gq, gks] vkt eS foi{kh ds lkFk&lkFk rqEgsa ugha NksMwaxh A bl U;k;ky; ds ihBklhu vf/kdkjh] v/khgLrk{kjh }kjk euk djus ij Jherh mek ik.Ms; us tksj&tksj ''kCnksa esa ihBklhu vf/kdkjh vf/kgLrk{kjh dh rjQ bafxr dj dgus yxh fd rqEgsa tsy esa cUn djok nwWxh] lkjh eftlVs�lh Hkwy tk;sxh A mijksDr dgrs gq, Jherh mek ik.Ms; us ''kksj epkdj U;k;ky; d{k esa vuki ''kuki cdus yxh ,oa U;kf;d dk;Z esa lkjoku ck/kk Mkyk A ^^mYys[kuh; gS fd Jherh mek ik.Ms; dk mijksDr vfHkdFku lEcfU/kr nkf.Md okn la- Jherh mek ik.Ms; cuke izgykn Fkkuk eq.Msjok vUrxZr /kkjk 125 na- iz- la- dks i=koyh ds vkns''k&i= esa esjs }kjk Lo;a dh gLrfyfi esa vafdr fd;k x;k gS ftldks izfrfyfi 3&d lkFk esa layXu fd;k x;k gS A i=koyh ij miyC/k lkexzh ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd Jherh mek ik.Ms; ds mijksDr �R; ls U;k;ky; ds U;kf;d dk;Zokgh esa cSBS gq, ihBklhu vf/kdkjh ,oa U;k;ky; dk lkak; vieku gqvk ,oa U;kf;d dk;Zokgh esa ljdkjh ck/kk igwWpk A tks Hkk- n- fo- dh /kkjk 228 ds vUrxZr n.Muh; vijk/k gS A vr% Jherh mek ik.Ms; ds fo:) mijksDr vijk/k ds fy, nf.Mr djus ds fy, ifjokn eq[; U;kf;d eftLV�sV] cLrh ds U;k;ky; esa nkf[ky djus dk vkns''k fd;k tkrk gS A**

In view of the above remarks the learned Magistrate directed that since the conduct of Smt. Usha Pandey amounts to an offence u/s 228, I.P.C. hence action should be taken against her.

It appears that on the basis of the said report of the A.C.J.M.-II the learned C.J.M. Basti took cognizance on the same day and directed that Smt. Usha Pandey be taken into custody.

We have perused the record of the case. On the record there is an order of this Court dated 26-4-1990 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 6223 of 1988, u/s 482, Cr. P. C. in which it is stated that inspite of the compromise between Smt. Usha Pandey and her husband in the case u/s 125, Cr. P. C. no payment has been made to Smt. Usha Pandey.

Litigation of various kinds has been going on between Smt. Usha Pandey and her husband since 1986 and hence obviously feelings between them are badly embittered and Smt. Usha Pandey seems to be very much mentally upset. It is probably in those circumstances that she made such derogatory remarks to the learned Magistrate.

Though we certainly cannot find any justification for such baseless remarks against the learned Magistrate, we are of the opinion that it would have been better if the learned Magistrate had ignored them, considering the mental state of Smt. Usha Pandey.

There are many things that a Judge should overlook nowadays and it is not necessary that in every such case a Judge must punish for contempt or send a person who makes such accusations against the Court, to jail. Just because someone has lost his/her balance, this does not mean that a Judge should also lose his balance. The Judge must preserve a cool mind and overlook many faults. Today''s society is in a turbulent state and many things must be overlooked today by a Judge, even if they could not have been overlooked earlier.

In this connection Lord Denning in one of his books "The Due Process of Law" writes-

On every Monday morning we hear liti gants in person. Miss Stone was often there. She made an application before us. We refused it. She was sitting in the front row with a bookcase within her reach. She picked up one of Butterworth''s ''Workmen''s Compensation Cases'' and threw it at us. It passed between Lord Justice Diplock and me. She picked up another. That went wide too. She said, ''I am runing out of ammunition''. We took little notice. She had hoped we would commit her for contempt of Court - just to draw more attention to herself. As we took no notice, she went towards the door. She left saying: ''I congratulate your Lordships on your coolness under fire

Now a days, so many things happen in Court but the Judge should preserve his equanimity and even overlook remarks and conduct which may be unjustified. If he does so it will enhance his dignity and respect in society.

In Rex v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (1968) 2 QB 150 Lord Denning observed -

Let me say at once that we will never use this jurisdiction as a means to uphold our own dignity. That must rest on surer foundations. Nor will we use it to suppress those who speak against us. We do not fear criticism, nor do we resent it. For there is something far more important at stake. It is no less than freedom of speech itself.

It is the right of every man, in Parliament or out of it, in the press or over the broadcast, to make fair comment, even outspoken comment, on matters of public interest. Those who comment can deal faithfully with all that is done in a Court of justice. They can say that we are mistaken and our decisions erroneous, whether they are subject to appeal or not. All we would ask is that those who criticise us will remember that, from the nature of our office, we cannot reply to their criticisms. We cannot enter into public controversy. Still less into political controversy. We must rely on our conduct itself to be its own vindication.

We would like to go further than Lord Denning and say that often the Court should overlook even unfair, malicious and totally unjustified remarks. The person making such remarks often wants publicity for himself and by ignoring them the Court denies him the publicity which he wants.

On the facts and circumstances of the case we set aside the impugned orders dated 17-1-2001, passed by the A.C.J.M.-I, Basil as well as of the C.J.M., Basti and quash the proceedings u/s 228, I.P.C. The petition is allowed. Smt. Usha Pandey shall be released forthwith.

However, none of the observations made in this judgment shall be treated as any adverse remark against the learned A.C.J.M.-II, Basti or the learned C.J.M., Basti and they shall not be placed on their confidential record. We also direct that the case u/s 125, Cr. P. C. must be decided very expeditiously but by some Judge other than the then A.C.J.M.-II, Basti.