Madhya Pradesh High Court
In Reference vs Ravi Shyamnani on 9 February, 2017
1
CONCR No.3/2015
IN REFERENCE VS. RAVI SHYAMNANI
09.02.2017
Respondent Ravi Shyamnani present in
person.
Heard the contemner, who is present in person, on the question of framing of charges.
Before we advert to the aforesaid issue, it is pertinent to note that in the instant case notices were issued to the contemner pursuant to which he has filed a very voluminous detailed reply with all necessary documents. Apart from the reply, the contemner has also filed I.A No.21552/2015 for dismissing the contempt proceedings that have been referred to this Court.
On the last date, as the contemner was seeking time on one pretext or the other, this Court had fixed the case today for hearing the contemner finally on the question of framing of charges, pursuant to which the contemner has filed I.A No.2990/2017 again praying for dismissing the contempt proceedings.
The main ground on which the contemner has prayed for dismissing the proceedings are that more than a year has lapsed since the incident and, therefore, under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as the period of one year is over, no proceedings for contempt can 2 CONCR No.3/2015 IN REFERENCE VS. RAVI SHYAMNANI either be initiated or proceeded against him. He has also stated that the contempt proceedings were initiated by the concerned Civil Judge (Smt. Rekha Markam) by making incorrect averments in the order sheets. He has also stated that before referring the matter, no notice was issued to him and even after the matter was referred to this Court, this Court has not supplied copies of the documents to the contemner as a result of which he has not filed a detailed reply in respect of the reference. It is reiterated that the contemner contends and submits before this Court that the reference be dismissed as no contempt of Court has been committed by him.
Before we proceed any further in the matter, it is pertinent to note that this Court on 3.2.2016 had ordered that in case the contemner applies under the Right to Information Act, either to the High Court or to the sub-ordinate court with regard to grant of documents, the concerned authority shall supply the requsite documents or information to the contemner in case he is entitled for the same in accordance with the Rules.
Apparently, instead of obtaining the said documents, as the contemner continued to state that the documents and necessary records were 3 CONCR No.3/2015 IN REFERENCE VS. RAVI SHYAMNANI not supplied to him, this Court on the last date, i.e. 19.1.2017 had directed that if he wishes to obtain the documents, he shall be permitted to do so in terms of the order dated 3.2.2016.
The Registrar has put up a note before this Court to the effect that pursuant to the order of this Court, the contemner was sought to be served with all the necessary documents including the statement of witnesses on the very same day. Record indicates that as many as 18 documents were sought to be served upon the contemner. However, the contemner sought for certain other notings of this Court which were totally unnecessary for the purpose of the present contempt proceedings and were not part of the record or documents on the basis of which the reference was made and on being told that the noting of this Court could not be supplied to him, refused to accept the notice and the documents and went away without the same. A report in this regard was placed before this Court on 19.1.2017 itself and, therefore, the Court had requested the District Judge, Sagar to make all endeavour to serve copies of the documents on the contemner.
This Court has received the note sheet regarding the service report and attempts made 4 CONCR No.3/2015 IN REFERENCE VS. RAVI SHYAMNANI by the District Judge, Sagar vide Memo No.103(Two-21-5)62 dated 4.2.2017 according to which attempts were made to serve the contemner on 28.1.2017, 29.1.2017, 30.1.2017, 1.2.2017, 3.2.2017 and 4.2.2017. The noting indicated that the contemner has permanently affixed a lock on the front door of his house and does not open the room for anyone to enter the house. The note also indicates that on several occasion the contemner did not respond to the attempt of the Process Server, while on one occasion he informed the Process Server from inside the house that he would not accept any document.
From the record it is also evident mainly from the reply filed by the contemner I.A Nos.21552/2016 and 2990/2017 filed by the contemner that there was a decree of eviction against the contemner and that the contempt proceedings arise out of the conduct of the contemner during the execution proceedings arising out of Civil Suit No.4-A/2014. According to the contemner, he has filed complaints against 4 Judges namely; Shri Praveen Patel, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sagar, Shri V. K. Tiwari, Second Civil Judge Class-II, Sagar, Smt. Neelima 5 CONCR No.3/2015 IN REFERENCE VS. RAVI SHYAMNANI Gajrakar, First Civil Judge, Class-II, Sagar and lastly, Smt. Rekha Markam, Second Civil Judge Class-II, and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sagar, in the said proceedings. From the complaints filed by the contemner it is also apparent that as and when the Courts have tried to take up proceedings against the contemner, he filed complaints against the concerned Judge or has tried to get the matter adjourned unnecessarily and that the present reference was made by Smt. Rekha Markam, Second Civil Judge, Class-II, Sagar, on account of the misbehavior of the contemner when the concerned Judge did not grant the contemner adjournment for 2-3 months as sought by him.
From the order sheets as well as the statement of witnesses, it appears that the contemner misbehaved with the concerned Judge, threatened her by stating that he would file complaints against her and tried to impede and obstruct the judicial proceedings. Pursuant to the aforesaid conduct of the contemner, the Judge concerned has referred the matter for initiating contempt proceedings against the contemner.
We may, at this stage, take note of the fact that the proceedings for contempt were initiated by the concerned Judge in respect of the 6 CONCR No.3/2015 IN REFERENCE VS. RAVI SHYAMNANI proceedings that took place in her Court on 22.4.2014 wherein the contemner disagreeing with the order passed by the Magistrate concerned, threatened her by stating that he has already filed complaints against the previous Magistrate and would also do so against her. The reference made by the concerned Judge has been forwarded by the District & Sessions Judge, Sagar to this Court by memo dated 17.8.2015 and this Court has issued notice to the contemner in that regard and, therefore, the contention of the contemner that the proceedings against him be dropped on the lapse of one year is factually incorrect and is misconceived.
We may also take note of the fact that by filing the reply before this Court, the contemner has also made allegations against Hon'ble The Chief Justice of this Court and several other Judges of this Court that they were involved in a conspiracy for not supplying documents to him and to implicate and punish the contemner whereas there is nothing on record to indicate the involvement of any of the Judges of this Court in the proceedings.
7 CONCR No.3/2015IN REFERENCE VS. RAVI SHYAMNANI In the circumstances, we find that a case for framing charges under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is made out against the contemner. The following charges are framed against the contemner:-
"1. That, you appeared before the Court of Smt. Rekha Markam, Second Civil Judge, Class-II, Sagar and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sagar on 22.4.2015 at or about 3.15 P.M. in execution proceedings relating to Civil Suit No.4-A/2014 and forcefully and loudly demanded the court to grant adjournment of 3 months and threatened the said Judge that you would lodge a complaint against her and her working in the similar manner as done by you against the previous Judges. The said act was done by you with an attempt to prevent the Judge concerned from performing her duties. You on that occasion unduly insisted upon the Court to accept the envelope containing complaints made by you against 3 predecessor Judges which was totally unrelated with the matter of execution involved in the case. You thereafter, without any justification, loudly shouted in the open Court in an atrociously discourteous, disrespectful, unruly, unsavory and indecorous manner so as to intimidate the Court and to challenge the 8 CONCR No.3/2015 IN REFERENCE VS. RAVI SHYAMNANI authority of the Court in dispensation of justice. Your behaviour was totally unbecoming and unruly and by your discourteous language and conduct you have scandalized and lowered the authority of the Court and your aforesaid act prejudices and interfers with the due course and amounts to deliberate interference with the due course of judicial proceedings and obstructs the administration of justice. By committing the aforesaid act, you have committed criminal contempt as defined under section 2(c)(i) or 2(c)
(ii) and 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which is punishable under section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
2. That, you while filing a written response in the present contempt proceedings i.e. Criminal Contempt No.3/2015 have accused and made allegations against the Hon'ble Chief Justice and the sitting Judges of this Court without any basis or foundation or without being supported by any oral or documentary evidence by alleging that they are conspiring against you with a view to prevent the delivery of certified copies/documents to you in the present proceedings in a planned and strategic manner.
Having made such allegations you have also threatened to make complaint against the Judges 9 CONCR No.3/2015 IN REFERENCE VS. RAVI SHYAMNANI of this Court again with a view to intimidate this Court and to obstruct and interfere in the administration of justice. By making such allegations you have tried to undermine the lower the authority and dignity of the High Court thereby you have tried to scandalize or lower the authority of this Court and your aforesaid act prejudices and tends to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings and also amounts to obstructing the administration of justice.
By committing the aforesaid act you have committed criminal contempt as defined under section 2(c)(i) or 2(c)(ii) and 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which is punishable under section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which are punishable."
The charges were read out and explained to the contemner in Hindi and was also asked whether he wishes to say anything else. He pleads not guilty. His plea was recorded. A copy of the charges alongwith documents of reference be served upon the contemner.
Looking to the past conduct of the contemner, Registrar Judicial is directed to make all necessary efforts including, if necessary, to detain the contemner here itself and serve him all 10 CONCR No.3/2015 IN REFERENCE VS. RAVI SHYAMNANI the necessary documents of the reference that have been forwarded to this Court by the District & Sessions Judge, Sagar as well as his reply in which he has made allegations against the Judges of this Court today itself.
The contemner is directed to accept the same today itself from the Registrar Judicial.
Registrar Judicial has apprised this Court that all the documents as per the list were provided to the contemner and he has accepted the same by making an endorsement on the copy of the list of documents.
The contemner is granted four weeks time to file a reply to the charges.
List on 08.03.2017.
C.C today.
( R. S. JHA ) ( A. K. JOSHI )
JUDGE JUDGE
mms/-