Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J)

1. Heard Sri Dhruv Narain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of contemnor, assisted by Sri Namit Srivastava, Advocate and Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, special counsel appearing on behalf of High Court.

2. This criminal contempt proceeding cropped up on a reference made by Sri Saeed Uz Zaman Siddiqui, District Judge, Jyotiba Phule Nagar at Amroha (hereinafter referred to as "J.P. Nagar") for initiating contempt proceedings under Section 15 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "Act 1971") read with Section 12 against 41 Advocates namely, (1) Sri Khaleeq Ahmad, (2) Kapil Chikara, (3) Rashid Mian, (4) Gaurav Kumar Agarwal, (5) Ram Autar Gupta, (6) Sunil Babu, (7) Rajeev Gole, (8) Saleem Khan, (9) Chaudhary Naresh Veer Singh, (10) Vivek Bishnoi, (11) Naeem Ahmad, (12) Kripal Singh Yadav, (13) Mohd. Ali Naqvi, (14) Indrapal Gole, (15) Dilshad Ali, (16) Sajid Rauf, (17) Dinesh Chauhan, (18) Manu Sharma, (19) Ali Imam Rizvi, (20) Arshad Bharti, (21) Jai Prakash Yadav, (22) Surya Pratap Singh, (23) Bharat Singh Saini, (24) Vinod Kumar, (25) Raj Chaudhary, (26) Nadeem Khusro, (27) Rajendra Singh Saini, (28) Dinesh Singh, (29) Vinod Kumar Saini, (30) Ashok Kumar Kapoor, (31) Chain Sukh Gole, (32) Sarvesh Sharma, (33) Basant Singh Saini, (34) Pawnesh Chauhan, (35) Avnish Sharan Bansal, (36) Shrafat Hussain, (37) Mangat Ram Saini, (38) Nitin Bansal, (39) Hukum Singh Saini, (40) Dalpat Singh; and, (41) Amit Chahal.

9. Learned counsel for parties thereafter addressed Court on merits of the matter and judgment was reserved on 19.12.2016.

10. J.P. Nagar is a new Judgeship, created in view of new district carved out and notified under Section 11 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. The district judgeship was created on 23.08.1999 and enunciated functioning in the erstwhile Court of Munsif, Amroha. New Civil Court Complex was constructed consisting of twelve functional Courts and office. Its shifting was to take place from old building to new one. District Judge, in the interest of Court, so that function may not be interrupted, decided to shift Courts in the evening of 06.03.2010 (Saturday) so that shifting may settle on 07.03.2010 (Sunday) and uninterrupted smooth functioning of Court may go on 08.03.2010 and onwards.

16. In the counter affidavit filed by Contemnor 33, giving history of creation of judgeship, it is stated that a new District, J.P. Nagar, was notified with its Headquarter at Amroha in 1997. Thereafter, notification for establishment of district judgeship at Amroha was also issued and old building of Women's Hospital at Amroha was utilized for opening of district judgeship, since earlier Munsif Court was running in this building for the last 100 years. For construction of new Court building, plan was sanctioned by this Court in 2003. Accommodation for litigant and Advocates was also earmarked adjacent to Court building within the land acquired, in the approved plan.

21. J.P. Nagar came into existence on 07.04.1997. Earlier it was part of district Moradabad of 100 years old. Munsif Court was running in four rooms situated in middle of city. District judgeship was inaugurated on 23.10.1999 by the then Chief Justice, N.K. Mitra, accompanied by Justice Markandey Katju (as his lordship then was) and Hon'ble S.R. Alam,J (the then Administrative Judge) of J.P. Nagar. Contemnor 15, being resident of Amroha was interested to practice at Amroha itself. Due to lack of space, Advocates were at difficulty to find place for their sitting. The then Administrative Judge, Hon'ble R.H. Zaidi,J. visited district judgeship on 20.06.2001 and got old building of Rukmani Trust which was old Women's Hospital repaired and managed three rooms from Nagar Palika. Subsequently 105 hectares land was acquired by State Government on 11.02.2002 for new building of district judgeship and other administrative offices. As per lay out plan, proposed land meant for Advocate Chambers was allocated and foundation stone was laid on 14.11.2003. District Judge, Saiduzzama Siddiqui, took charge on 08.04.1999 and got the foundation stone removed. He made a new proposal for Advocates Chambers to this Court. Contemnor 15 is resident of village Salamatpur, Police Station, Didauli, which is about 14 kms. from Old Fort compound. Since he started practice at Amroha on 24.08.1999, he shifted to a nearby area i.e. Kasba Joya at Delhi Highway in 1997 and thereupon distance was reduced by 10 kms. He has got a house constructed at Kachtheri Road, Joya and residing there since 2003. He was anxiously waiting for construction of new building and shifting thereof since at the old building problem of water logging in rainy season and poor condition of road used to create great difficulty in movement of Advocates and others. Contemnor's new home is near Court building. On 06.03.2010, in the evening, Contemnor had gone to Chandausi for bringing his wife who had gone to attend her brothers marriage, solemnized on 24.02.2010. Contemnor took her wife from Chandausi to Delhi and in the morning came back from Delhi. The relations of District Judge and President, Bar Association were cordial. Contemnor 15, moved a bail application on 06.03.2010 of Pratap son of Sant Ram being Case Crime no. 125 of 2009 under Sections 302, 120-B, 364, 201, 147 IPC, P.S. Hasanpur and after taking a date went to his house. This may be verified from call details of Contemnors Mobile no. 9837293769. Courts were closed at 5 p.m. on 06.03.2010. No Advocate was aware about shifting of record etc. from old Court building to new building. It was not known even to Media or general public. Contemnor 15 came to know about shifting in the morning through newspapers. Press release was issued by Civil Judge (Senior Division) on 08.03.2010 which was published in the newspaper on 09.03.2010. Reference letter dated 12.06.2010 is delayed by authority by 36 days and contain concocted story. As per allegations, eight Adcocates came at the site when shifting was taking place namely Indrapal Gole, Dilshad Ahmad, Arshad Bharti, Khaleek Ahmad, Sajid Rauf, Chainsukh Gole, Kripal Singh Yadav and Vinod Kumar Saini. These Advocates did not create obstruction nor abuse anybody. About other forty Advocates no details have been given. Contemnor 15 was not there at all. In what manner Contemnor abused, no details have been given. Bar Council had already rejected complaint initiated against forty Advocates under Section 35 of Advocates Act by order dated 24.02.2011. Contempt notice was issued in the name of "Dilshad Ahmad" while Contemnor is "Dilshad Ali" and this was pointed out on 21.04.2015 before this Court. He was not present when the alleged incident is said to have occurred. Charge has been framed against Contemnor without any show cause notice. Complaint was made by staff of Judicial Officer but no recommendation was made by Judicial Officer namely Judicial Magistrate. Letters have been managed inasmuch as staff's signature have been obtained without informing them about contents. Staff of Session Court refused to sign and no such complaint has been made by them. On 08.03.2010 no Advocate was allowed to enter Court premises. Reference letter is imaginary and false. The land proposed by State Government and approved by this Court subsequently was outside Court premises and neither fit nor sufficient to accommodate all Advocates. Contemnor has always being opposing strikes by Advocates and this can be verified from record of Bar Association. The allegations constitute offence in IPC, in respect whereto no contempt proceedings can be initiated in view of Section 10 of Act 1971. In FIR nine Advocates are named but 41 Contemnors to whom notice was issued included only some of these Advocates. No reason has been given by District Judge in the Reference for exclusion of these two Advocates. After framing charge requisite documents were not supplied to Contemnor. The allegations relates to incident which took place after Court proceedings and therefore, it does not come within the ambit of definition of "criminal contempt", since Courts were not functioning at that time. Mere shifting of record by Clerks from old building to new building, if obstructed, cannot constitute "criminal contempt". At the best allegations constitute an offence under IPC and not a "criminal contempt". Contemnor once made complaint of Deo Prakash, Court Reader in Judicial Magistrate's Court to Chief Judicial Magistrate and for that reason his name has been included. Contemnor has always been cooperating in Court's functioning and for that reason once he was expelled by Bar Association. Contemnor moved an application on 05.04.2011 for allotment of Chamber as per rules. District Officers have been discharged in contempt proceedings and same treatment should be extended to Contemnor 15 also.