Case Note & Summary
The present reference was made by Miss Huma A. Ansari, the then 3rd Joint Civil Judge Junior Division and J.M.F.C., Aurangabad (the Presiding Officer), under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, against nine respondents, including an advocate, Ravi Tukaram Damodar (respondent No.1), and eight others who were judgment debtors in execution proceedings. The Presiding Officer alleged that respondent No.1, an advocate, committed criminal contempt by filing applications and making statements in Regular Darkhast No. 30 of 2011 that were false, scandalous, and intended to obstruct the course of justice. The High Court issued notice only to respondent No.1, who filed a reply. The court examined the material on record, including the reference, the reply, and the execution proceedings. The court noted that the Presiding Officer had joined the judiciary in August 2006 and was posted at Aurangabad from 10th June 2013. The execution petition was before her court, and respondent No.1 was representing the judgment debtors. The allegations included that respondent No.1 filed applications without proper instructions and made statements that were incorrect. However, the court found that the advocate had acted on instructions from his clients and the statements were not proven to be false or contumacious. The court held that the advocate's conduct did not amount to willful disobedience or scandalizing the court as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Consequently, no prima facie case of criminal contempt was made out, and the reference was dismissed. The court also noted that the other respondents were not issued notice and the proceedings against them were not pursued.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Criminal Contempt - Section 15(2) - Reference by Presiding Officer - The Presiding Officer made a reference under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging that respondent No.1, an advocate, committed criminal contempt by filing applications and making statements that were false and intended to scandalize the court. The High Court examined the material and found no prima facie case of contempt. Held that the advocate's actions did not amount to willful disobedience or scandalizing the court, and the reference was dismissed. (Paras 1-10) B) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Criminal Contempt - Prima Facie Case - The court considered the definition of criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Act, which includes scandalizing the court or willful disobedience. The allegations against the advocate were that he filed applications without proper instructions and made statements that were incorrect. However, the court found that the advocate had acted on instructions and the statements were not proven to be false or contumacious. Held that no prima facie case of criminal contempt was made out. (Paras 5-10) C) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Advocate's Conduct - Execution Proceedings - The advocate, respondent No.1, was representing judgment debtors in execution proceedings. The Presiding Officer alleged that the advocate filed applications and made statements that were false and intended to delay proceedings. The court examined the record and found that the advocate had filed applications based on instructions and there was no evidence of willful falsehood. Held that the advocate's conduct did not constitute contempt. (Paras 2-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the alleged conduct of respondent No.1, an advocate, in filing applications and making statements in execution proceedings amounts to criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Final Decision
The reference under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is dismissed. No prima facie case of criminal contempt is made out against respondent No.1.
Law Points
- Contempt of Courts Act
- 1971
- Section 15(2)
- Section 2(c)
- criminal contempt
- prima facie case
- willful disobedience
- scandalizing the court
- advocate's conduct
- execution proceedings
