Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajesh Singhal vs Satyapal Verma on 24 January, 2013
Author: Vineet Kothari
Bench: Vineet Kothari
SBC Misc. Contempt Petition No. 17/12
in
SBCR.Misc. Petition No. 1153/2011
Rajesh Singhal vs. Shri Satyapal Verma
Order dtaed 24/1/2013
1/20
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
ORDER
Rajesh Singhal vs. Shri Satyapal Verma
S.B.CIVIL MISC. CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 17/12
IN
S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 1153/2011
DATE OF ORDER : 24th January, 2013
PRESENT
HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
REPORTABLE
Mr. Varun Goyal, for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Panwar, for the respondent.
BY THE COURT: (ORAL)
1. This contempt petition has been filed by Mr. Rajesh Singhal s/o Sugan Lal aged 43 years by caste Agarwal r/o Jaisal Nagar, Jodhpur against a judicial officer, Mr. Satyapal Verma, ACJM (Paryavaran) Pali purportedly for having committed the breach and disobedience of the orders passed by this Court on 20/7/2011 in S.B.Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1153/2011 - Rajesh Singhal v/s State & anr. (Chandra Bhanu s/o Ghisa Lal - complainant) filed for quashing of standing warrant of arrest against the petitioner by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali.
SBC Misc. Contempt Petition No. 17/12 in SBCR.Misc. Petition No. 1153/2011 Rajesh Singhal vs. Shri Satyapal Verma Order dtaed 24/1/2013 2/20
2. After hearing both the learned counsels, a coordinate bench of this Court while disposing of the criminal misc. Petition no. 1153/2011 under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which was directed against the order dated 25/6/2011 passed by Sessions Judge, Pali in criminal revision petition no. 61/2011,whereby, the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 24/8/2009 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate issuing standing arrest warrant against him came to be rejected. While disposing of the misc. Petition, the coordinate bench of this Court directed that since the petitioner was absconding, he may surrender before the court below on or before 8/8/2011 and in case he so surrenders on or before 8/8/2011 and applies before the learned Magistrate, his bail application shall be considered on the same day in accordance with law. It is considered appropriate to reproduce the said order of coordiante bench in extenso:-
"1. This criminal miscellaneous petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against order dated 25.6.11 passed by the Sessions Judge, Pali in Criminal Revision Petition No.61/11, whereby the revision petition preferred by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 24.8.09 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate issuing standing arrest warrant against him, stands rejected.
SBC Misc. Contempt Petition No. 17/12 in SBCR.Misc. Petition No. 1153/2011 Rajesh Singhal vs. Shri Satyapal Verma Order dtaed 24/1/2013 3/20
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly, after investigation the police had filed negative final report and on notice being issued, the complainant filed the protest petition, however, the police after reinvestigation has filed charge sheet against the petitioner u/s 299 Cr.P.C. for offence u/s. 420 IPC . Learned counsel submitted that on the charge sheet being filed while taking cognizance, the learned Magistrate straight away declaring the petitioner absconder, proceeded to issue standing arrest warrant. Learned counsel submitted that the procedure laid down for declaring the petitioner an absconder and issuing standing arrest warrant has not been followed. Learned counsel submitted that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Magistrate issuing standing arrest warrant is abuse of the process of the court. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to surrender before the court concerned and therefore, upon his appearance before the Magistrate, he may be directed to be released on bail .
3. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the order impugned passed by the revisional court affirming the order passed by the learned Magistrate.
4. Indisputably, in the first instance, the police filed negative final report against the petitioner and while the protest petition was still pending, the Investigating Officer made an application for the return of the report SBC Misc. Contempt Petition No. 17/12 in SBCR.Misc. Petition No. 1153/2011 Rajesh Singhal vs. Shri Satyapal Verma Order dtaed 24/1/2013 4/20 for reinvestigation. After conclusion of the investigation, the police has filed the charge sheet against the petitioner u/s 299 Cr.P.C.
5. It is to be noticed that while investigation was still pending, the petitioner was concealing himself and therefore, the police got issued the arrest warrant from the court concerned, however, the same could not be executed and therefore, the charge sheet was filed u/s 299 Cr.P.C. Thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in considered opinion of this court, the court below has not erred in arriving at the conclusion that the petitioner is absconding and therefore, the order impugned passed by the court issuing standing arrest warrant cannot be faulted with.
6. By the order impugned, the court has only directed that the proceedings u/s 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. may be separately opened. Obviously, the procedure laid down for proclamation and attachment shall be followed by the trial court.
7. In this view of the matter, this court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned passed by the court below. However, taking into consideration the fact that in the first instance, the negative final report was filed by the police and now after reinvestigation, the charge sheet has been filed and the petitioner is ready to surrender before the court concerned, in the interest of justice, this court SBC Misc. Contempt Petition No. 17/12 in SBCR.Misc. Petition No. 1153/2011 Rajesh Singhal vs. Shri Satyapal Verma Order dtaed 24/1/2013 5/20 consider it appropriate to direct that if the petitioner surrenders before the court concerned on or before 8.8.11, the learned Magistrate shall consider his bail application on the same day in accordance with law. The execution of the order impugned passed by the court below shall be kept in abeyance till 12.8.11.
8. If the petitioner surrenders before the court concerned as directed above, the order impugned passed by the court below issuing standing arrest warrant and directing initiation of proceedings u/s 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. shall stand set aside. However, on the petitioner's failure to appear before the court on or before 12.8.11, the order passed by the court below shall become executable forthwith.
9. The criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed of accordingly."
3. The petitioner - Rajesh Singhal surrendered before the said Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali in relation to criminal case no. 363/2008 under Section 420 IPC against the present accused petitioner on 6/8/2011 and on the same day he moved the bail application through his advocate Shri Abhishek Parashar. Since the matter was pending reinvestigation, the Investigating Officer, namely; SHO, Police Thana, Pali also sought police custody of the SBC Misc. Contempt Petition No. 17/12 in SBCR.Misc. Petition No. 1153/2011 Rajesh Singhal vs. Shri Satyapal Verma Order dtaed 24/1/2013 6/20 accused for further investigation on 6/8/2011. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali himself was not available on 6/8/2011 as he had gone for holding Juvenile Justice Board Meeting, therefore, charge of his court was with the present respondent - ACJM (Paryavaran), Pali , Shri Satyapal Verma. Separate order sheet entry on the application filed by the present petitioner on 6/8/2011 & the order drawn on the application filed by Om Prakash, ASI seeking police custody of petitioner read as under:-
Order passed on petitioner's bail application "6/8/11 पस क अभ षक प र शर।
श म न PO स हब ककश र न ब र बठक म! पध र ह। पकरण म!
मल. र जश भस&घल क P/C म! द) ग ह। अ : प रन पत
पत वल. क स र द). 08.8.11 क व स सनव ई ह पश ह ।
***
Order passed on SHO's application for Police Custody 6/8/11 श ओम पक श ASI, P.S. न ह आव)न म र APP पश कक । मल4जम र जश भस&गल न म न. र ज. उच7 न ल क आ)श द)न &क 20.7.11 क8 प लन म! आतमसमण कक । Standing Warant अ)म मल पप हआ श भमल भमसल रह। SHO, P.S. क व ल. क द र ह अभ क फ श ह सप) करन क आगह कक ग अभ क पर ध र 420 IPC क अभ ग ह। अभ क क8 ओर स अधधवक श अभ षक प र शर क सन ग ।
इस स र पर म मल क गण वगण पर दAपपण कक जन
उध7 नह.& ह। आर प पत 299 Cr.P.C. म! पश हआ ह अभ क
SBC Misc. Contempt Petition No. 17/12 in SBCR.Misc. Petition No. 1153/2011 Rajesh Singhal vs. Shri Satyapal Verma Order dtaed 24/1/2013 7/20 र जश भस&गल क 24 घणA पCछ छ एव& फ श ह SHO, P.S. क व ल. क सप) कक ज ह। मल4जम 24 घणA पश7 नन म नस र J/C अरव P/C ह पश ह ।
एस.र .
6/8/11
मख न न क मलजसIA,
प ल."
On 8/8/2011, the bail application of the petitioner was rejected by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali and the following order was passed:-
"(7) पकरण क थ एव& पररलसरन L पर वव7 र कक जन क ब) न ल क म ह कक अभ क क ववरद परम सC7न ररप A )ज ह न क पश एर.आर.नक र तमक शण पभलस र न क व ल. द र पस क8 गई र ।
तपश पभलस क जब ब पर पन:ज &7 कर ज ग और
अभ क क ववरद अपर ध पम णण म न हए आर प पत
पश कक । ब स अभ क रर र र नन कक वह पभलस क
अनस&ध न क )Sर न उपलसर नह.& भमल न ह. न ल दर
ज र. धगरफ र. व र& A स लब ह सक । कस र र. क
अवल कन स ह थ ध न म! आ ह कक अभ क क
द र सव & क द)व ल. घ वष कक ज न ह म नन लजल
न ध श,ज धपर क ह & एक ध7क लग रख ह ज
ध7क उसक द र जल ई 2008 म! पश क8 गई ह। उसम!
अपन आप क मई 2008 स द)व भल घ वष ह न ब रह
ह र हस ग पकरण 26.8.2008 क पस कक ग
ह।अ : ककस पक र क8 दAपपण न कर हए इ न ह. कहन
क र8 ह कक अभ क क द र अपन क इकर सरन म कक
ज न क8 र.ख स द)व भल घ वष कक ज न ह अपन
म&सबL क क म ब करन क भलए जन क रप ) 7क र
और जब म नन लजल न ध श मह ) क ह & उसन
ध7क पश क8। उसक पश उसक ववरद पभलस र न
क व ल. म! पकरण )ज कक ज 7क र , उसक ब वजC)
वह क नCन पकV स ब7 करर रह । न ल क म
ह कक ऐस व कक ज क नन C पकV क ढ! ग ब कर क ननC
पकV म! ब ध र ल ह[,जम न क अधधक र. नह.& ह।
SBC Misc. Contempt Petition No. 17/12 in SBCR.Misc. Petition No. 1153/2011 Rajesh Singhal vs. Shri Satyapal Verma Order dtaed 24/1/2013 8/20 प रन पत ख ररज कक ज न ग ह।
(8) अ : प र] र जश भस&घल पत सगनल ल भस&घल,ज न -
वश ,ननव स -न लम ल म&रक ग &व क प स,र ह क र ड द)4ल.
क8 ओर स पस ह जम न क प रन पत असव क र
कक ज कर ख ररज कक ज ह।
एस.र .
(महश कम र शम )
मख न न क मलजसIA,प ल.
आ)श आज द)न &क 08.08.2011 क खल न ल म!
भलख ज कर सन ग ।"
On 11/8/2011, the learned Sessions Judge, Pali, granted the bail application of the petitioner and the following order was passed:-
"6. उ पकL क क` पर वव7 र कक ग । प र] न म नन उच7 न ल क आ)श क8 प लन म! आतमसमपण कक और उस पभलस ररम णर पर द) ग ,पभलस द र उसस अनस&ध न कक ज 7क ह। अ पकरण म! अनस&ध न पण C ह कर अनव क म! सम लगन क8 सम वन ह। म मल परम शण मलजसIA द र वव7 रण ग ह। अ : म मल क थ L एव& पररलसरन L म! गण वगण पर दAपपण कक बबन प र] क इस सAज पर र. जम न पर ररह कक जन न ध7 प ह ह।
आ)श
अ : प र] क जम न आव)न पत सव क र कक ज ह
कक द) प र] अपन नन भम उपलसरन बब प7 स हज र रप
क सव & क बनध पत व पच7 स-पच7 स हज र रप क8 )
जम न अध नसर न ल क8 स& वc क8 पश कर स).क
कर व! उस इस पकरण म! जम न पर ररह कर द) ज व! ।
(न रज )
सशन न ध श, प ल.
SBC Misc. Contempt Petition No. 17/12 in SBCR.Misc. Petition No. 1153/2011 Rajesh Singhal vs. Shri Satyapal Verma Order dtaed 24/1/2013 9/20 आ)श आज द)न &क 11.08.2011 क खल न ल म! सन ग ।"
4. Thus, on the application filed by the Investigating Officer seeking police custody of the accused on 6/8/2011 itself, the said judicial officer passed the detailed order giving accused in police custody for 24 hours and to be produced again before the court for judicial custody or police custody, as the case may be, and thus, the consideration of bail application was made by the learned ACJM, Pali and keeping it pending the same was again posted on 8/8/2011, on which date the bail application was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali himself. The petitioner accused is said to have been enlarged on bail by the higher court of learned Sessions Judge, Pali after 3 days on 11/8/2011.
5. In these circumstances the counsel for the accused petitioner, Mr. Varun Goyal, Advocate filed the present contempt petition in this Court on 11/10/2011, much after the enlargement of petitioner on bail, after about two months, purportedly on the ground that since on 6/8/2011, the bail application of the accused petitioner was not considered, hence a civil contempt has been committed by the said SBC Misc. Contempt Petition No. 17/12 in SBCR.Misc. Petition No. 1153/2011 Rajesh Singhal vs. Shri Satyapal Verma Order dtaed 24/1/2013 10/20 judicial officer, ACJM Shri Satyapal Verma and, therefore, cognizance against him may be taken under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for alleged breach of this Court's order dated 20/7/2011.
6. On 13/2/2011, a coordinate bench of this Court summoned the record of the case to see the consideration of the bail application in the present contempt petition. On 4/5/2012, another coordinate bench of this Court issued notice of contempt petition to the respondent, returnable within two weeks. A reply to the contempt petition was filed by learned counsel Mr. Rajesh Panwar on behalf of the respondent ACJM. Accordingly, the record of the case was received from the court below and has been perused by this Court.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Varun Goyal submitted that since the consideration of the bail application was not done on 6/8/2011 as directed by this Court, and instead the petitioner was sent in police custody, therefore, the respondent judicial officer has committed contempt of this Court and deserves to be suitably dealt with. However, after having heard the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner also prayed that he may be allowed to withdraw this contempt petition but he was not permitted to do so SBC Misc. Contempt Petition No. 17/12 in SBCR.Misc. Petition No. 1153/2011 Rajesh Singhal vs. Shri Satyapal Verma Order dtaed 24/1/2013 11/20 and reasons are narrated hereinafter.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Rajesh Panwar, learned counsel for the respondent explaining the aforesaid circumstances and taking the Court through the record of the court below, submitted that there was no question of deliberate disobedience on the part of the respondent ACJM and actually the consideration of the bail application was done vide order sheet dated 6/8/2011, quoted above and keeping the same pending on 6/8/2011 and hearing the same two days thereafter on 8/8/2011, the bail application was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali. He submitted that the present respondent- contemner was only holding a temporary charge of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali on 6/8/2011 and as the Chief Judicial Magistrate himself was busy with holding the Juvenile Justice Board meeting on that day, therefore, upon application of the Investigating Officer, he sent the accused petitioner in police custody vide detailed order recorded on the application of the Investigating Officer, as quoted above. He also explained in the reply, the total number of cases dealt with by the said ACJM, Pali on that date, which were voluminous and that sending of the accused petitioner in police custody does not amount to non consideration of the bail SBC Misc. Contempt Petition No. 17/12 in SBCR.Misc. Petition No. 1153/2011 Rajesh Singhal vs. Shri Satyapal Verma Order dtaed 24/1/2013 12/20 application on that day, which in fact was considered and on account of police custody given for 24 hours, the bail matter was postponed for final orders on 8/8/2011. He, therefore, prayed that the present contempt petition is absolutely misconceived & seeks to browbeat the Judicial Officer and same has been filed after two months approximately of his own enlargement on bail and the present contempt petition seriously jeopardises the independence of judiciary at the level of subordinate courts and same deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
9. I have heard the learned counsels at length and given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made the bar.
10. The present contempt petition filed by the petitioner accused, to say the least, is a sheer and grossest abuse of the process of this Court. Not even an iota of disobedience of directions of this Court on the part of respondent Judicial Officer, ACJM, who was holding temporary charge of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali on the given date i.e. 6/8/2011 can be seen in the present case, much less established by the petitioner. The petitioner, who himself is facing trial in an FIR against him by the complainant under Section SBC Misc. Contempt Petition No. 17/12 in SBCR.Misc. Petition No. 1153/2011 Rajesh Singhal vs. Shri Satyapal Verma Order dtaed 24/1/2013 13/20 420 IPC has invoked the contempt jurisdiction of this Court on absolutely flimsy ground that since the bail application was not `considered' on 6/8/2011, the date on which the petitioner accused surrendered before the court below, therefore, the respondent Judicial Officer has committed contempt of this Court.
11. This Court is at loss to understand the foundation of this contempt petition. The direction of this Court was only to consider on same day in accordance with law the bail application of the petitioner after his surrender before the court below on the same day. The word `consider' does not mean `grant' of bail. It would necessarily including, grant, rejection or even postponement for a given reason. The consideration by way of postponement for two days as the accused was sent in police custody for 24 hours amounted to consideration of bail application on the same day & learned ACJM passed separate orders on bail application of petitioner & separate order on Investigating Officer's application for Police Custody, and thus the direction of this Court stood fully complied with. After two days, the bail application was even rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 8/8/2011. If such contempt petitions were to be entertained against the Judicial Officers and the Judicial Officers in SBC Misc. Contempt Petition No. 17/12 in SBCR.Misc. Petition No. 1153/2011 Rajesh Singhal vs. Shri Satyapal Verma Order dtaed 24/1/2013 14/20 the subordinate courts were supposed to explain their conduct & exercise of their judicial discretion in cases like this, the independence of judiciary, particularly the subordinate judiciary, which is the backbone of the entire judicial system, would be at stake. It is the bounden duty of the superior Courts to maintain, uphold & safeguard the independence of subordinate courts in discharge of their judicial functions.
12. It is found appropriate to quote the relevant extract from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jasbir Singh vs. State of Punjab - (2006) 8 SCC 294 where dealing with the powers of High Courts under Article 227 and 235 of the Constitution, the Hon'ble Apex Court categorically laid down that such powers are not be exercised to interfere with the judicial functions of the subordinate courts and emphasising the need to protect the independence of subordinate judiciary in discharge of their judicial function, the Supreme Court held as under:
"The power of superintendence over all the subordinate courts and tribunals is given to the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The said power is both of administrative and judicial nature and it could be exercised suo motu also. However, such power of SBC Misc. Contempt Petition No. 17/12 in SBCR.Misc. Petition No. 1153/2011 Rajesh Singhal vs. Shri Satyapal Verma Order dtaed 24/1/2013 15/20 superintendence does not imply that the High Courts can influence the subordinate judiciary to pass any order or judgment in a particular manner. While invoking the provisions of Article 227 the High Court would exercise such powers most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority. The independence of the subordinate courts in the discharge of their judicial functions is of paramount importance, just as the independence of the superior courts in the discharge of their judicial functions is. It is the members of the subordinate judiciary who directly interact with the parties in the course of proceedings of the case and, therefore, it is no less important that their independence of the judiciary has been considered as a part of the basic structure of the Constitution and such independence is postulated not only from the executive, but also from all other sources of pressure."
While deprecating the practice of interference with the discharge of judicial functions by the Inspecting Judge of the High Court, where a bail application was received by the Inspecting Judge and it was directed that such bail application may be entertained by the Judicial Officer and the learned Inspecting Judge passed the order that Sessions Judge is asked to look into the said application SBC Misc. Contempt Petition No. 17/12 in SBCR.Misc. Petition No. 1153/2011 Rajesh Singhal vs. Shri Satyapal Verma Order dtaed 24/1/2013 16/20 and enlarge the accused on bail, the Hon'ble Supreme Court strongly deprecated such practice and further held in para 16, 17 and 19 of the said judgment as under:
"In the course of inspection, the High Court Judge is required to examine whether the courts are functioning within the norms laid down by the High Court. Mostly the inspection is to be confined to the administrative functioning of the courts and its officers. If any member of the administrative staff is not doing the work assigned to him or is causing any delay in the process of administration of justice, the Inspecting Judge can give proper direction and see that the courts function smoothly. But under no circumstances, the Inspecting Judge, as part of his administrative duty enjoys the power to interfere with the judicial functions of the subordinate courts in individual cases. In the course of inspection, a High Court Judge cannot pass any order on interim applications, such as bail petitions or transfer applications or applications for interim injunction, howsoever justified they may be. Orders on bail applications are passed under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under various other enactments, which provide for grant of bail and such orders are passed as part of the judicial work. The Inspecting Judge is not supposed to pass any judicial order in individual cases in the SBC Misc. Contempt Petition No. 17/12 in SBCR.Misc. Petition No. 1153/2011 Rajesh Singhal vs. Shri Satyapal Verma Order dtaed 24/1/2013 17/20 course of inspection. While on inspection he is not supposed to perform any judicial work. Of course, he can give administrative directions to the Presiding Officer or to any of the subordinate staff, if such directions are pertinent in the context of administration of justice. Except giving general directions regarding any matter concerning administration of justice, any interference in the judicial functions of the Presiding Officer would amount to interference with the independence of the subordinate judiciary.
Therefore, even if any application for bail is received by the Inspecting Judge, the proper course is to send the application to the concerned court to pass appropriate orders. When the Inspecting Judge visits the jail, it is quite likely that so many inmates of the jail may file petitions before the concerned Judge. It is the duty of the Judge to see whether there is any merit in any of these petitions. If any application for bail is received, he can very well send it to the concerned court without making any comments on the merits of the case. On the contrary, if the learned Inspecting Judge passes any order in such matter, he would only be usurping the powers of the courts authorized to pass such orders.
13. In C.Ravichandran Iyer vs. Justice A.M.Bhattacharjee & SBC Misc. Contempt Petition No. 17/12 in SBCR.Misc. Petition No. 1153/2011 Rajesh Singhal vs. Shri Satyapal Verma Order dtaed 24/1/2013 18/20 Ors. (1995) 5 SCC 457, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasising that in a democracy governed by the rule of law under a written Constitution, judiciary is the sentinel on the qui vive to protect the fundamental rights and to poise even the scales of justice between the citizens and the State or the States inter se and following the U.S.Supreme Court decision in the case of Stephen S.Chandler vs. Judicial Council of the Tenth Circuit of the United States, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
"In a democracy governed by rule of law under written Constitution, judiciary is sentinel on the qui vive to protect the fundamental rights and to poise even scales of justice between the citizens and the State or the States inter se. Rule of law and judicial review are basic features of the Constitution. As its integral constitutional structure, independence of the judiciary is an essential attribute of rule of law. It is, therefore, absolutely essential that the judiciary must be free from executive pressure or influence which has been secured by making elaborate provisions in the Constitution with details. The independence of judiciary is not limited only to the independence from the executive pressure or influence; it is a wider concept which takes within its sweep independence from any other pressure and prejudices. It has many dimensions, viz., SBC Misc. Contempt Petition No. 17/12 in SBCR.Misc. Petition No. 1153/2011 Rajesh Singhal vs. Shri Satyapal Verma Order dtaed 24/1/2013 19/20 fearlessness of other power centres, economic or political, and freedom from prejudices acquired and nourished by the class to which the judges belong. Independent judiciary is, therefore, most essential when liberty of citizen is in danger. It then becomes the duty of the judiciary to poise the scales of justice unmoved by the powers (actual or perceived) undisturbed by the clamour of the multitude. The heart of judicial independence is judicial individualism. The judiciary is not a disembodied abstraction. It is composed of individual men and women who work primarily on their own.
Stephen S. Chandler v. Judicial Council of the Tenth Circuit of the United States [398 US 74:26 L.Ed. 2d 100] relied on."
14. Viewed in the light of aforesaid legal position, the present contempt petition can only be described as a sheer abuse of the process of law and a Judicial Officer of the Court has unnecessarily been put in the dock. One can very well imagine the trepidation which such Judicial Officer might have faced upon receiving the contempt notice of this Court in a contempt petition. Loss of morale of such Judicial Officer can by no means be compensated even with the dismissal of this contempt petition, as the permanent damage has already been done.
SBC Misc. Contempt Petition No. 17/12 in SBCR.Misc. Petition No. 1153/2011 Rajesh Singhal vs. Shri Satyapal Verma Order dtaed 24/1/2013 20/20
15. The simpliciter dismissal of the contempt petition, in these circumstances, and discharging the contempt notice issued to the respondent Judicial Officer would not bring about the balance of justice on the judicial scales, unless the petitioner accused is made to pay the price for having abused the process of this Court. Therefore, while dismissing the present contempt petition, the petitioner Rajesh Singhal is directed to pay costs & compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One lac). The said costs & compensation may be deposited within one month by way of Demand Draft in favour of Registrar General of this Court. The matter be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for allocation and distribution of costs & compensation to be paid by the petitioner and same would be abide by the orders of Hon'ble Chief Justice in this regard.
16. The present contempt petition is dismissed as indicated above. Notice dicharged.
(DR.VINEET KOTHARI), J.
Item no. 21 baweja