Gujarat High Court
Suo Motu vs Diptiben Maheshbhai Thakkar on 5 March, 2015
Author: Ks Jhaveri
Bench: Ks Jhaveri, A.G.Uraizee
R/CR.MA/77/2015 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT) NO. 77 of
2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see
the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as
to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order
made thereunder ?
================================================================
SUO MOTU....Applicant(s)
Versus
DIPTIBEN MAHESHBHAI THAKKAR....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
SUO MOTU for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR KIRTIDEV R DAVE, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE
Page 1 of 3
R/CR.MA/77/2015 JUDGMENT
Date : 05/03/2015
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI)
1. Rule. Mr. Kirtidev Dave, learned advocate appearing for respondent waives service of notice of Rule. With the consent of learned advocates, matter is taken up for final hearing today.
2. The respondent was issued with notice after suo motu cognizance taken by this Court with regard to her conduct in making false and reckless allegations against certain Judicial Officers of the lower judiciary. The charge against the respondent is that the complaint filed by the respondent against the judicial officers was not made in good faith and that the same was not in the nature of complaint but a direct allegation of corruption not supported by any proof or evidence of direct or indirect nature and hence committed criminal contempt of Subordinate Court.
3. In view of the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent, wherein the respondent has tendered unconditional apology and expressed remorse for having made such an application wherein baseless and reckless allegations were made against the Judicial Officers, we are of the view that the respondent deserves to be punished for contempt of court.
4. Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act contemplates punishment upto 6 months or fine upto Rs. 2000/- or both for committing contempt of court. In view of the fact that in the Page 2 of 3 R/CR.MA/77/2015 JUDGMENT affidavit-in-reply respondent has tendered unconditional apology and has also expressed remorse for her contemptuous conduct, we are of the opinion that imposing fine of Rs. 2000/- on respondent instead of sending her to jail would be the just and appropriate punishment. The respondent is punished accordingly. The respondent is directed to deposit the amount of fine with the Registry of this Court within a period of three weeks from today. It is clarified that the respondent shall not repeat such act in future failing which strict action shall be taken against her.
5. In the result, on payment of the aforesaid amount of fine within the stipulated time, the suo-motu contempt proceedings initiated against the respondent are hereby disposed. Application is disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) (A.G.URAIZEE,J) divya Page 3 of 3