Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Col. Mahendra Pratap Choudhary, filed a criminal contempt petition under Section 15 read with Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and Article 215 of the Constitution of India, alleging that the respondents, Sanjay Rathi, Rajesh Rathi, and M/s. Shubham Real Estate and Developers, had scandalized the court of the Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur, by using the words 'extraneous considerations' in a review application. The background of the dispute involved a Special Civil Suit No. 400/2002 filed by the petitioner for cancellation of a sale deed and restoration of possession, along with a criminal complaint for offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963. The respondents had filed an application (Exhibit 25) seeking stay of the civil suit proceedings pending disposal of the criminal prosecution. In that application, they used the phrase 'extraneous considerations' in reference to the order passed by the lower court. The petitioner contended that this language scandalized the court and amounted to criminal contempt. The High Court examined the language used in the review application and found that the words were employed to challenge the correctness of the order and did not attribute any improper motive to the judge. The court noted that the respondents were merely exercising their right to seek review and that the words were not intended to bring the court into disrepute. The court further observed that for an act to constitute criminal contempt, there must be a deliberate intention to scandalize or interfere with the administration of justice, which was absent in this case. The High Court held that the power to punish for contempt under Article 215 is inherent and plenary but must be exercised sparingly and only when the interest of justice requires. Since the alleged contempt was not established, the court dismissed the petition.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Criminal Contempt - Scandalizing the Court - Section 2(c) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - The petitioner alleged that the respondents used the words 'extraneous considerations' in a review application, which scandalized the lower court. The High Court held that the words were used in the context of challenging the correctness of the order and did not attribute any improper motive to the judge. The court found that the language did not substantially interfere with the administration of justice and dismissed the petition. (Paras 1-10) B) Contempt of Court - Criminal Contempt - Mens Rea - Section 2(c) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - The court observed that for an act to constitute criminal contempt, there must be a deliberate intention to scandalize or interfere with the court. In this case, the respondents' application was a bona fide attempt to seek review, and the words used were not intended to bring the court into disrepute. (Paras 8-10) C) Contempt of Court - Power of High Court - Article 215 of the Constitution of India - The High Court's power to punish for contempt is inherent and plenary, but it must be exercised sparingly and only when the interest of justice requires. The court held that the present case did not warrant exercise of such power as the alleged contempt was not established. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the use of the words 'extraneous considerations' by the respondents in their review application before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur, amounts to criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal contempt petition, holding that the use of the words 'extraneous considerations' did not constitute criminal contempt as they were not intended to scandalize the court or interfere with the administration of justice.
Law Points
- Criminal contempt requires substantial interference with administration of justice
- mere use of strong words in a review application does not constitute contempt
- scandalizing the court must be based on objective assessment of the language used and the context
- the power of contempt under Article 215 is to be exercised sparingly and in the interest of justice.
