Punjab & Haryana High Court Issues Contempt Notice To Party, Advocate For 'Scandalous' Pleadings Against Judicial Officer

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Thursday, issued contempt notice to the petitioners and their lawyer for making "scandalous and per se contemptuous" remarks against a judicial officer in the pleadings.

The petition sought CBI enquiry against the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hodal on the ground that "his integrity is highly questionable and doubtful and he has exceeded his jurisdiction and miserably failed to discharge the jurisdiction vested in him."

While issuing contempt notice, Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said, "A perusal of the record clearly indicates that there is no justifiable cause on the basis of which scandalous and contemptuous allegations are levalled against the concerned Judicial Officer."

The Court further noted that, "on being confronted with the averments and scandalous remarks made in the petition against the concerned Judicial Officer, the counsel refused to withdraw the same."

These observations were made in a plea filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking CBI enquiry against  the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hodal questioning the "integrity" of the judicial officer, who issued non- bailable warrants against the petitioners in a criminal case.

The counsel for the petitioners contended that "without specifying any reason on 07.10.2023, the matter was posted for 11.10.2023 and on the said date, coercive order was passed, which has caused personal favour to the respondents."

Justice Brar noted that the "pleadings of the petitioners indicate that certain scandalous remarks are made against the Judicial Officer without any justifiable cause."

"It has been alleged in the head note and prayer clause of the petition that the integrity of the Judicial Officer is highly questionable and doubtful and the officer is engaged in making unlawful favours to the respondents," the Court said.

Furthermore, it noted that "It has been alleged in para No.1 of the petition that the Judicial Officer has indulged in corruption and the petitioners have been victimized by the Judicial Officer for this reason."

"It has been alleged in..the petition that the Judicial Officer has acted under the influence of the private respondents and he has indulged into forgery and fabrication of evidence to pressurize the petitioner to withdraw the case registered under Section 354 IPC."

The judge observed that the matter was posted for October 11, the case was called several times but neither the petitioners nor their counsel had put in appearance and thus, the concerned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class vide impugned order cancelled the bail of the petitioners and their bail bonds were ordered to be forfeited to the State. Further, warrants of arrest were issued against them.

"It is trite law that plea of mala fides has to be specific and demonstrable. Not only this, but the person against whom the mala fides are alleged must be made a party to the proceedings and given reasonable opportunity of hearing. Admittedly, the concerned Judicial Officer is not arrayed as party respondent in the present petition," the Court said.

Reliance was placed upon M.Y. Shareef and another Vs. The Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Nagpur and others 1955 SCR (1) 757 to underscore, "It cannot be denied that a section of the Bar is under an erroneous impression that when a counsel is acting in the interests of his client, or in accordance with his instructions he is discharging his legitimate duty to his client even when he signs an application or a pleading which contains matter scandalising the Court. They think that when there is conflict between their obligations to the Court and their duty to the client, the latter prevails."

Consequently, the Court opined that "the pleadings and prayer clause of the petition are scandalous and per se contemptuous and thus, petitioners and the counsel appearing for them are liable for contempt."

The Court directed the Registry to issue a contempt notice to the petitioners and their counsel.

The matter is listed for April 04, for further consideration.

Tek Chand Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

Title: Krishan and another Vs. State of Haryana and others

Click here to read/download the order