Sunil Ambwani, C.J:— This contempt petition was registered on a reference made by Shri Umesh Kumar Sharma, District & Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar vide his letter No. 161.Sr. PA dated 15.5.2009 under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging contemptuous and scandalous allegations made in his Court by the contemners Shri Prem Sagar Sharma S/o Shri Satya Swami, resident of 22, Public Park, Sri Ganganagar, aided and abetted by Shri Krishan Kukkar, Advocate, District Court premises, Sri Ganganagar, in a transfer petition under Section 408 Cr. P.C, by which the contemner No. 1-Shri Prem Sagar Sharma sought transfer of a criminal case pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sri Ganganagar Shri Palvindra Singh.
2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that a criminal case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act was registered against the contemner No. 1 Shri Prem Sagar Sharma as a Criminal Complaint No. 501/07 Krishan Lal Kasania v. Prem Sagar Sharma, which was pending. Shri Prem Sagar Sharma, contemner No. 1 lodged a First Information Report No. 103/07 dated 17.3.2007 under Secs. 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC against Smt. Manju Gupta, Advocate, Navdeep Gupta, Vakilchand and Krishan Lal Kasania. The Criminal Complaint No. 501/07 filed by Shri Krishan Lal Kasania against the contemner No. 1 Shri Prem Sagar Sharma and his wife was transferred to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar. On 11.9.2007, the contemner No. 1-Shri Prem Sagar Sharma filed an application under Section 210 Cr. P.C in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar, which was also pending with the complaint No. 501/2007 Krishan Lal Kasania v. Prem Sagar Sharma under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.
3. The application filed under Section 210 Cr. P.C was rejected by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sri Ganganagar, on which an application was filed under Section 408 Cr. P.C by the contemner No. 1 Shri Prem Sagar Sharma on the ground that Shri Palvindra Singh, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sri Ganganagar has rejected the application on being biased and corruptly adopting a procedure against the applicant, by playing fraud and cheating him and to benefit the complainant in connivance with Smt. Manju Gupta, Navdeep Gupta, Vakilchand, Satish Chand Jain and Smt. Sandeep Kaur, the wife of Shri Palvindra Singh, Judicial Magistrate, who was also serving as Judicial Magistrate, First Class No. 2, Sri Gangangar. It was alleged that they also conspired with criminal intention through Smt. Manju Gupta, Advocate and obtained illegal gratification in rejecting the application.
4. The District and Session Judge, Sri Ganganagar rejected the application under Section 408 Cr. P.C and made a reference under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 both against Shri Prem Sagar Sharma and his Advocate Shri Krishan Kukkar, who had drafted and settled the pleadings.
5. This Court issued notices of the contempt petition to both the contemners on 3.8.2009 The notices were served, but since no one appeared, bailable warrants were issued on 25.11.2009 The matter thereafter remained pending for last more than five years and has been adjourned repeatedly, after securing the presence of the contemners. The contemners were initially present on some of the dates, but thereafter, they eluded appearance. Their counsel sought adjournment after adjournment for filing replies. The matter was adjourned on the request of contemners on 29.11.2010, 07.01.2011, 08.04.2011 and 25.04.2011, on which date, time was sought for filing reply to the intervention application filed by Shri Krishan Lal Kasania represented through Shri S.L Jain, Advocate.
6. In the application for intervention, it is stated by Shri Krishan Lal Kasania that he has filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act on 12.10.2006 On its service, the contemner No. 1 Shri Prem Sagar Sharma and Smt. Vandana Sharda had earlier engaged Shri Samir Mudgal and Arun Bishnoi, Advocates. Subsequently, they engaged Shri Krishan Lal Kukkar as their Advocate. The matter registered as criminal case No. 1282/2006 was transferred to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class Sri Ganganagar, where it was registered as criminal case No. 501/2007, which is pending. An application under Section 210 Cr. P.C was filed by Shri Prem Sagar Sharma, contemner No. 1 through his Advocate Shri Krishan Kukkar, contemner No. 2 on 11.9.2007, which was dismissed on 14.10.2008 Being aggrieved from the same, yet another application was filed for transfer of the case from Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sri Ganganagar to any other Court. A number of allegations were made in that application against the presiding officer, which have been referred to by the District and Sessions Judge for having acted in an unconstitutional and prejudicial manner with corrupt motive and against law in giving undue favour to the complainant and committing fraud and cheating on Shri Prem Sagar Sharma. The application was rejected by the District and Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar on 25.2.2009 and the matter was referred to this Court for taking action for contempt of Court in making wild, scandalous and irresponsible allegations. The intervenor also filed an application before the Advocate General at Jaipur for grant of sanction and reference to the Court for criminal contempt against Shri Krishan Kukkar, Advocate under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, annexing several documents showing disrespect to the glorious institution of law. He has prayed for intervention so that full and detailed facts are brought before the Court.
7. After getting the matter adjourned for about three years, the contempt petition was heard on 1.10.2014 On that date, Shri M.C Bhoot, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contemners submitted that Shri Palvindra Singh, Judicial Magistrate had dismissed the application under Section 201 Cr. P.C on the facts, of which he could not have had any knowledge. In his order, he had mentioned about the First Information Report against Shri R.C Gurnani, Shri Gulshan Kumar and Shri Narayan Mathur, all officers of the Bank. An argument was raised that the offences against them are under investigation under Sections 420, 406, 423, 424, 451, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, but these offences are not concerned with the allegations under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Both offences are of different nature. The concern of the complainant with the FIR was not reflected in the order. Learned Judicial Magistrate thereafter in the operative portion of the order observed that Section 143 of the Negotiable Instrument Act gives power to the Court to decide the matters summarily. The complaint is pending since the year 2006 and that the documents filed by the complainant would go to show that there are other cases also pending against Shri Prem Sagar Sharma under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The application filed by Shri Prem Sagar Sharma was erroneously found to be baseless and was rejected.
8. In the reply filed by Shri Prem Sagar Sharma, after mentioning in paragraph 1 that he has highest esteem for the judiciary of the country, he has submitted unconditional apology for filing application under Section 408 Cr. P.C, and affidavit. In support of the application, he has stated that the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sri Ganganagar had recorded incorrect facts while rejecting the application of the answering respondent under Section 210 Cr. P.C vide order dated 14.10.2008 The FIR No. 103/07 was not against Shri R.C Gurnani, Shri Gulshan Kumar and Shri Narayan Mathur, but the Judicial Magistrate has taken into consideration some other FIR and rejected the application filed by the answering respondent. One of the accused named in the FIR No. 103/07 filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, namely, Shri Krishan Lal Kasania against the answering respondent and his wife regarding the cheque, which is subject matter of FIR No. 103/2007. At the time when the application was filed, the investigation was pending. The accused named in the FIR are influential persons so ultimately, the police submitted Final Report on 11.11.2008 The Judicial Magistrate found that re-investigation was necessary and thus, returned the case diary by an order dated 16.7.2009 for reinvestigation. Once-again, a Final Report was submitted without notice to the answering respondent. In paragraph 4 of the reply, it is stated that the answering respondent is an agriculturist and he never intended to discuss the judiciary, but on account of bonafide misunderstanding and being scared of cheating, he moved the application under Section 408 Cr. P.C for which he heartedly regretted and submits unconditional apology.
9. The contemner No. 2-Shri Krishan Kukkar, Advocate has filed a short reply, quoted as below:—
“1. That Answering respondent is a devoted lawyer working against corruption since long and having highest regard towards judicial sys-tem of this country. Answering respondent never intended and never thought of any act which may lower down or scandalized of judicial system in this country and submits his unqualified and unconditional apology if any of his act has lower down the image of judiciary.
2. That whatever has been written under the instruction and direction of the party and nothing has been written by the respondent No. 2 in his personal capacity.
3. That the answering petitioner never intends to lower down the image of judiciary or to scandalize the authority of any court.
4. That the answering respondent humbly submits that looking to the above circumstances, contempt proceedings may kindly be dropped.”
10. During the course of hearing on 1.10.2014, Shri M.C Bhoot, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contemners emphatically observed that there was no document on the record referring to any criminal case in which Shri R.C Gurnani, Shri Gulshan Kumar and Shri Narayan Mathur, all officers of the Bank were involved and that this extraneous material was used by the Judicial Magistrate to reject the application under Section 201 Cr. P.C Shri Prem Sagar Sharma, contemner No. 1 present in Court admitted that Syndicate Bank was his tenant and that he had taken some loan from the Bank. He however, on a question being put to him by the Court stated that to his knowledge, there was no criminal case lodged by him or by any other person against these three officers. The statement, on being found to be highly doubtful, in the facts of the case, the Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Sri Gangangar to provide details of the FIR. The order dated 1.10.2014 is quoted below:—
“Both the alleged contemners are present in person. We have heard Mr. M.C Bhoot, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. S.L Jain, learned counsel appearing for the intervenor.
This contempt matter was registered on a reference made by the District Judge, Sri Ganganagar, on acquiring the knowledge of serious and scandalous allegations made by the respondents, against Shri Palvindra Singh, a Judicial Magistrate, in the transfer petition to transfer the cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, after he has dismissed a criminal complaint filed in his Court, on the allegations of fraud in obtaining the subject cheques from him by his advocates to settle some loan claims by the Bank.
Though we find that unconditional apologies have been offered by Mr. Sri Krishna Kukkad, Advocate, respondent No. 2, and that apologies have also been offered by Mr. Prem Sagar Sharma, respondent No. 1, in order to find out whether these apologies are bonafide and have been given with clean heart, it is necessary for us to find the basis on which the allegations were made.
It is alleged that the learned Magistrate, while dismissing the criminal complaint under Section 201 Cr. P.C referred to a criminal case in which Sarva Shri R.C Gurnani, Gulshan Kumar and Narayan Mahur, the officers of the Bank, were parties and then Magistrate observed that there is no relationship between the said F.I.R with the F.I.R lodged by the complainant.
During the course of arguments, it is stated that some extraneous material was used by the Magistrate to reject the complaint.
It is admitted by the respondent No. 1 Prem Sagar Sharma that Syndicate Bank was his tenant and that he had taken some loan from the Bank. He has, however, on a question being put by the Court, stated that to his knowledge, there was no criminal case lodged by him or any other person against these three officers.
We find from the complaint made by Mr. Prem Sagar Sharma that he has stated in para No. 13 that an F.I.R was lodged by some other person in P.S Kotwali, Sri Gangangar against Sarva Shri R.C Gurnani, Gulshan Kumar and Narayan Mathur, the Bank officers. In order to find out whether the respondents have deliberately used unparliamentary and scandalous language against the Magistrate, it is necessary to find out the details of the said F.I.R
In the circumstances, we direct that the Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar to provide details of the F.I.R lodged at P.S Kotwali, Sri Ganganagar under Sections 420, 406, 423, 424, 451, 465, 468 and 481 IPC against Sarva Shri R.C Gurnani, Gulshan Kumar and Narayan Mathur (the officers of the Bank) and further to inform the Court about the details of the investigation and status of the criminal case.
List this matter on 10.11.2014 Both the respondents will remain present on that date.
The Deputy Registrar (Judicial) shall send a copy of this order to the Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar to provide the above information within a period of four weeks.”
11. After few adjournment, a report was filed by the Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Sri Ganganagar dated 27.10.2014 in which the entire details of the cases have been given between the Bank and the contemner No. 1 Shri Prem Sagar Sharma. It is stated in the report that house No. 7-B, Block Ravindra Path, Sri Ganganagar measuring 25×60 feet is owned by the complainant and his brother Shri Prem Sagar Sharma and Smt. Bindu Kohali, daughter of Shri Prem Sagar Sharma. The ground floor and first floor of this house was let out to the Bank on lease for five years on rent of Rs. 21,000/- per month. The lease deed was registered on 4.10.1999 Thereafter, the complainant and his brother Shri Prem Sagar Sharma wanted to raise construction of second and third floor on the house for their residence, for which they requested for financial assistance from the Bank and approached Shri Vishnu Narayan Mathur, the then Branch Manager, who assured for giving loan of Rs. 11,50,000/- on easy interest and instalment, to be adjusted in the rent. It was stated that the Bank assured that the interest will be charged at the rate of housing loan, on which the documents were signed by two brothers and they got loan of Rs. 11,50,000/-, which they started repaying. After some time, they came to know that the Bank had taken advantage of the signatures on blank form, on which the loan was shown at the commercial rate of 17.34% p.a as against the housing loan of 8% p.a and that much lesser amount was deducted from the rent to be deposited towards the instalment. The Bank also did not increase the rent after five years by 30%. The complainant and his brother Shri Prem Sagar Sharma sent a notice to the Bank through Shri Kailash Chandra Jain, Advocate, to which a reply was given by the Bank, from which the complainant and his brother came to know that a much lesser amount was being deducted towards instalment as compared to the rent. They also made complaint to the higher officers of the Bank, on which the Bank officers initiated proceedings against the complainant and his brother Shri Prem Sagar Sharma under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act by giving a notice on 12.8.2005 and in which they have also stated that they will take possession of the building. The Bank officers, in order to recover the amount of loan under the notice given under the SARFAESI Act, locked the second and third floor of the house and also threatened that they will auction the second and third floor of the building. The second floor is owned by Bindu Kohli, who had not obtained any loan and that the Bank officers were actually trying to extract money from the complainant and his brother Shri Prem Sagar Sharma and threatened that the building, of which possession has been taken, will be sold and on which FIR No. 388/07 under Sections 406, 420, 423, 424, 451, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC was registered on 17.9.2007 at the instance of Shri Ramesh Kumar S/o Shri Satya Swami, in which Shri Prem Sagar Sharma was shown as a witness. The other details of the report relate to the financial transactions between the complainant Shri Ramesh Kumar and the Bank.
12. When the report was submitted, Shri M.C Bhoot, learned Senior Counsel once again started seeking time to give reply in relation to the report given by the police and on which the matter was adjourned on 16.12.2014, 18.12.2014, 15.1.2015 and again on 23.3.2015
13. When the matter was heard today, once again a request for adjournment was made on the ground that learned counsel was waiting for sitting of the Chief Justice at Jodhpur for hearing of the matter. We record our strong displeasure to the dilatory tactics adopted by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contemners, who has successfully dragged the proceedings of contempt for last more than five years without any fruitful results.
14. We find that the contemner No. 1 Shri Prem Sagar Sharma has spoken a lie on the question being put to him on 1.10.2014 by the Court about the criminal cases lodged by him or any other person against three Bank officers. He had stated that he had no knowledge, whereas the report submitted by the SHO, Police Station Kotwali, Sri Gangangar clearly establishes that there was a dispute between Ramesh Kumar and his brother Prem Sagar Sharma, both sons of Satya Swami on one side and Bank officers with regard to the premises 7-B Block Ravindra Path, Sri Ganganagar, let out to the Bank and for which they obtained a loan from the Bank for construction of second and third floor and in respect of which FIR No. 388/07 was lodged by Shri Ramesh Kumar, in which FR was submitted on 27.11.2007 and the same was accepted by the Court on 11.8.2010
15. The ignorance and innocence pleaded by Shri Prem Sagar Sharma through his Advocate and the assistance given by Shri Krishan Kukkar, Advocate to Shri Prem Sagar Sharma in making wild, reckless and irresponsible allegations against Shri Palvindra Singh, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sri Ganganagar and his wife Smt. Sandeep Kaur are clearly reprehensible. We do not find any merit in the submission made by learned Senior Counsel that the allegations in the application under Section 408 Cr. P.C were based on the extraneous material used by the Judicial Magistrate for dismissing the application under Section 201 Cr. P.C There was absolutely no necessity nor there was any occasion for making such wild, reckless and irresponsible allegations, which stand to lower and scandalize the judiciary in the estimation of general public.
16. The authority vested in the Advocates as officers of the Court and their position of trust, which they get from the enrolment with the Bar Council, should not be used to make wild and reckless allegations against the Judges. The pleadings in a case should be drafted carefully with a sense of responsibility both towards the client and the Court.
17. The accountability of the Bar is necessary to maintain dignity and decorum in the Court. The lack of control over the language causes serious damage to the reputation of the Judiciary in discharge of their judicial functions, which is so important for maintaining peace and confidence in the justice delivery system in the Society.
18. In the present case, there was absolutely no reason to mention that the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sri Ganganagar and his wife were using corrupt means and had played fraud and deceit in dismissing the application filed by contemner No. 1 Shri Prem Sagar Sharma under Section 201 Cr. P.C The contemner No. 1 claimed himself to be an innocent agriculturist, whereas the record subsequently exhibited that he has not only let out two floors of his house alongwith his brother and daughter to the Bank, but that he had also obtained a loan of Rs. 11,50,000/- from the same Bank for construction of second and third floor on the house. The innocent agriculturist will not have such means to construct the building, let it out to the Bank and thereafter, construct more floors and thereafter, appear in Court and claimed ignorance of the proceedings of the recovery of amount and criminal case pending against the Bank officers. The active connivance of his advocate Shri Krishan Kukkar is also writ large, on the facts of the case.
19. Both the contemners have pleaded unconditional apologies and thus, we do not propose to frame charges against them. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we accept their apologies with a caveat that having full knowledge of the facts of the case, they not only allowed the proceedings to be dragged in the High Court but also resorted to falsehood that no litigation is pending between contemner No. 1 and the Bank. The statement given in Court to a question put by the Court was misleading and false and which has been proved from the report of the SHO, Police Station Kotwali, Sri Ganganagar.
20. In the facts and circumstances, we direct the Registrar General of the High Court to lodge a criminal complaint against Shri Prem Sagar Sharma S/o Shri Satya Swami, resident of 22, Public Park, Sri Ganganagar for making a false statement in the High Court to a question put to him by the Court on 1.10.2014, which he knew to be misleading and false and which has been proved by the report submitted by the SHO, Police Station Kotwali, Sri Ganganagar. The complaint will be filed within a period of two weeks, on which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur, within whose jurisdiction the act and offence was committed, shall summon the accused and proceed in accordance with law.
21. So far as Shri Krishan Kukkar, contemner No. 2 is concerned, we accept his apology, but since the entire pleadings in a case under Section 408 Cr. P.C are not denied to be drafted by him, we find him guilty of his professional responsibility to the client and his duties towards Court. He has tried to get away from the consequences of his legal advice and thereafter delayed the hearing, for which, in our view, the imposition of costs for dragging the proceedings in this Court for last more than five years and reference of his conduct to the Bar Council of Rajasthan, will be sufficient deterrent.
22. We, therefore, direct Shri Prem Sagar Sharma and Shri Krishan Kukkar to pay cost of Rs. 25,000/- each for delaying and dragging the proceedings in this Court. The cost will be deposited by them with the Rajasthan State Legal Service Authority at Jodhpur.
23. The Registrar General will send a copy of this order to the Bar Council of Rajasthan for drawing proceedings of misconduct against Shri Krishan Kukkar, Advocate, District Court Premises, Sri Ganganagar, in accordance with law and to inform the result of the proceedings to this Court within six months.
24. The contempt petition is accordingly disposed of.
Comments