The Bombay High Court has held that personal allegations against a judge does not attract Section 15(2) of Contempt of Courts Act.
The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande has observed that the plaintiff has made personal allegations against the judicial officer due to the time consumed in the litigation and we find that though the judicial officer might be justified in adjourning the matter, however it seems that the litigant got disturbed due to the delay and the time consumed in the litigation, and hence he made personal allegations against the referral Judge, of seeking illegal gratification for hearing the matter.
The Reference is made by the 7th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division And Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane, under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
While making the Reference, the referral Judge has stated in his proposal that, one Manubhai Hargovandas Patel, who was the sole plaintiff in Summary Civil Suit No. 366 of 2021, pending before the said Judicial Officer, while conducting the proceedings in-person, for recovery of money as per Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Code, had filed pursis and written notes of argumentsand prayed for issuance of ex-parte Decree.
However, the matter was adjourned to the next date for further argument. In the meanwhile, the matter was transferred to the Court of 4th Civil Judge Senior Division, Thane, as per the Order of the learned District Judge. Thereafter, there was a change in the assignment and again the matter was returned to the earlier Court.
While hearing of a time bound matter was going on, the party in-person i.e. Manubhai Hargovandas Patel appeared and requested for hearing of his matter, which was not possible. Accordingly, he was informed and the matter was adjourned to the next date.
Since already hearing of a time bound matter was in progress, yet considering the age of the litigant and to avoid inconvenience, the litigant/plaintiff was called upon and was informed about the next date in the matter. Upon which, the plaintiff has made oral allegations in the open Court that “तुम्हांला किती लाच दयायची”.
Considering the contemptuous statement made by the litigant/plaintiff, a show cause notice was issued to him by passing an Order below, to which he has immediately filed reply.
According to the referral Judge, the plaintiff has filed one more Application at Exh.42 making scandalous remarks and wild allegations against the referral Judge about the demand of illegal gratification.
The plaintiff has again filed an application under Section 479 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), contending that the Court has lost the jurisdiction, hence not to proceed in the matter. Therefore, the matter was adjourned to 19.01.2024.
The court concluded that the personal remarks made against the concerned Judge do not amount to ‘causing interference’, in the administration of justice or lowering the authority of the Court and it does not attract Section 15(2) of the Contempt of the Courts Act.
Case Details
Case Title: Mr. S. B. Patil Versus Mr. Manubhai Hargovandas Patel
Case No.: CRIMINAL REFERENCE. 5 OF 2024
Date: 3rd SEPTEMBER, 2024
Counsel For Petitioner: M. M. Deshmukh
