- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Supreme Court Issues Contempt...
Supreme Court Issues Contempt Notice To Petitioner & Advocates For Alleging That HC Judge Pressurized To Withdraw Petition
Gyanvi Khanna
18 March 2024 8:56 PM IST
In a criminal appeal where the petitioners/ accused persons argued that they were “pressurized” by the Single-Judge Bench of the Rajasthan High Court to withdraw their Section 482 Cr.P.C petition, the Supreme Court (on March 15) issued show cause notice for proceedings under the Contempt of Court Act. The Division bench of Justices B.R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta termed these averments...
In a criminal appeal where the petitioners/ accused persons argued that they were “pressurized” by the Single-Judge Bench of the Rajasthan High Court to withdraw their Section 482 Cr.P.C petition, the Supreme Court (on March 15) issued show cause notice for proceedings under the Contempt of Court Act.
The Division bench of Justices B.R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta termed these averments as “contemptuous.”
“It is stated that the petitioners having no other option was forced to withdraw such a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on account of the pressure exercised by learned Judge of the High Court. The averments so made, in our view, are contemptuous in nature.”
The High Court, on February 15, recently set aside Section 482 Cr.P.C petition filed by the petitioners. In its impugned order, the High Court had recorded:
“Learned counsel for the petitioner wants to withdraw this criminal miscellaneous petition. Consequently, the present criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed as withdrawn.”
Assailing this order, appeal was filed before the Supreme Court claiming that they had no other option but to withdraw their petition due to pressure exercised by the High Court's Judge.
At the outset, the Top Court placed its reliance on a Constitution Bench's decision in M. Y. Shareef And Another Vs. The Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Nagpur And Others. Therein, it was held that even a lawyer who subscribe his signature to a contemptuous observation is equally guilty for committing contempt of Court.
Observing this, the Court issued the above-mentioned notice to not only one of the petitioners (Virendra Yadav), who affirmed the contents of affidavit, but also to the present Advocate on Record.
Besides this, the Court also recorded that the petitioner's counsel was obstructing the functioning by interrupting continuously. Moreover, when the order was passed, the counsel also “started making gesture exhibiting surprise” for the instant Court's order.
In view of this conduct, the Court issued notice to him as well.
“While we are dictating the order Mr. R.K. Rathore, learned counsel, tried to obstruct the functioning by interrupting every now and then. Even after the order is passed, he has started making gesture exhibiting surprise for the order that we have passed. Issue notice to Mr. R.K.Rathore, also.”
Case Title: SUMAN vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN., Diary No.- 10189 - 2024
