Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Poonam Chand Bhandari Son Of Late Shri ... vs Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma President ... on 12 May, 2022
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari, Anoop Kumar Dhand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Criminal Contempt Petition No. 4/2022
Poonam Chand Bhandari Son Of Late Shri Rikhab Raj Bhandari,
Aged About 69 Years, Resident Of A-14 Malviya Nagar, Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma President Rajasthan High Court Bar
Association, High Court Compound Jaipur.
2. Mr. Giriraj Sharma Secretary, Rajasthan High Court Bar
Association, High Court Compound, Jaipur.
3. Vivek Joshi, Treasure, Rajasthan High Court Bar
Association, High Court Compound Jaipur.
4. Ms. Dipti Jain Social Secretary, Rajasthan High Court Bar
Association, High Court Compound, Jaipur.
5. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
6. The Advocate General Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Poonam Chand Bhandari, present in person HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 12/05/2022
1. Petitioner has preferred this criminal contempt petition under Sections 2(c) and 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 215 of Constitution of India praying therein that the contemnors be punished in accordance with law.
2. From perusal of the petition, it is evident that Advocate General has rejected the application filed by the applicant under Section 15(1) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 vide letter dated (Downloaded on 19/05/2022 at 09:14:19 PM) (2 of 3) [CRLCP-4/2022] 18.04.2022. Section 15(1) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971(hereinafter called as 'Act') reads as under:-
"(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 to the Advocate-General, or
(c) in relation to the High Court for the Union Territory 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."
3. A bare perusal of Section 15(1) of Act reveals that High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by-
(a) the Advocate General
(b) any other person with the consent in writing to the Advocate General.
4. In the present case, Advocate General has rejected the application filed under Section 15(1) of the Act meaning thereby he has not consented for entertaining the criminal contempt and the order by which the Advocate General has rejected the prayer has not been challenged by the petitioner.
5. Section 2(c) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, reads as under:-
"Criminal contempt" means the publication(whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, (Downloaded on 19/05/2022 at 09:14:19 PM) (3 of 3) [CRLCP-4/2022] 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 or tends to lower the authority of, any court, or
(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceedings; or
(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner."
6. It is the case of the petitioner that forceful possession of his chamber has been taken by the office bearers of Bar Association.
7. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Apex Court has also initiated contempt proceedings against the office bearers when they tired to pressurize the Courts with relation to constitution of roster and when there was allegation that they had closed the door of the Court room.
8. This particular matter cannot be treated at par with the aforesaid instance. We do not find any ground for entertaining the criminal contempt merely because an advocate has been forcefully dispossessed by the office bearers of the High Court Bar Association and more particularly when Advocate General has refused to give consent.
9. Criminal Contempt Petition is accordingly, dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J (PANKAJ BHANDARI),J HEENA/03 (Downloaded on 19/05/2022 at 09:14:19 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)