Short Note : This was an application under Art.215 of the Constitution of India for taking action against the non-applicants for committing contempt of Court. 2. The applicant filed a complaint under sections 294, 500 and 506-B of the I.P.C. against non-applicant No.1 Shri K.L. Jain, Collector, Balaghat. The Magistrate, First Class, Balaghat found a prima facie case, registered the complaint and ordered issue of notice to the non-applicant No.1 for his appearance before the Court. Against the registration of the complaint, the non-applicant No. 1 preferred an application under section 482 of the Cr. P. Code for quashing the registration of the complaint. The High Court, vide order dated 7-11-1977, admitted the application for hearing of the parties and directed stay of further proceedings of the trial Court. 3. The non-applicant No. 1, besides the application under section 482 of the Cr. P. Code filed before the High Court, also moved the Sessions Judge, balaghat for transfer of the case from the file of Shri Thool, Magistrate First Class, Balaghat. In his application, the non-applicant No. 1 made certain contemptuous aspersions against the trial Magistrate Shri Thool. The said aspersions amounted to contempt of Court in the eye of law as meaning to attack the integrity of the trial Magistrate and Ex.P-1 is the copy of the transfer petition. Further, in the M.P. Chronicle dated 21-11-1977, the non-applicant No. 1, with the help of non-applicants 2 and 3, got a wrong news item published under the Heading "High Court quashes order of Judicial Magistrate" and this amounted to misrepresentation of the Hon'ble Court's proceedings, thereby scandalizing the Court. Held : We will first refer to the news item in the M.P. Chronicle dated 21-11-1977. As per order sheet dated 7-11-1977 of Misc. Cr. Case No. 1136/77 of this Court, the application was admitted for hearing with a direction to issue notice on merits and stay. In the meanwhile further proceedings before the trial Court were stayed. A perusal of the newspaper shows that in the body of the news item, proceedings of this Court dated 7-11-1977 have been correctly quoted. The heading, though not in accordance with the order of this Court, could not mislead any reader whosoever goes through the entire news item. In the meanwhile further proceedings before the trial Court were stayed. A perusal of the newspaper shows that in the body of the news item, proceedings of this Court dated 7-11-1977 have been correctly quoted. The heading, though not in accordance with the order of this Court, could not mislead any reader whosoever goes through the entire news item. Thus any misrepresentation in the heading of the news item could not create any wrong impression in the minds of the readers about the order of this Court dated 7-11-1977 which has been correctly quoted in the body of the news item. In these circumstances, we are of the view that no proceedings for contempt of Court are necessary because of the publication of this Court's order in the above referred newspaper, M.P. Chronicle. 4. Regarding the allegations in the application under section 482 of the Cr. P. Code (Annexure P-3), the objectionable passages according to the applicant, are inserted in the present application in red ink. This application has to be read as a whole and grounds for quashing the proceedings have been mentioned in the application. One of the grounds alleged was that the Magistrate was acting with hot haste and the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate in registering the complaint also discloses the manner in which the Court was proceeding. These allegations were made in the light of the contention that the non-applicant No. 1, being an IAS officer, could not be proceeded against in the absence of proper sanction under section 197 of the Cr. P. Code. In the circumstances, whatever allegations have been made in Annexure P-3 tend to show that the order under challenge was not supported by law and deserved to be quashed. One may not like the actual language used, but a party has to putforth its grounds requesting the Court for quashing the proceedings. In these circumstances, it could not be urged that the allegations made under section 482 of the Cr. P. Code were mentioned with a view to scandalize the Court or to cast aspersion on the integrity of the Magistrate. 5. Shri B.M. Lal relied on AIR 1954 SC 201 (J.C. Medhi, Registrar Assam High Court v. Frank Moraes, Resident Editor The Times of India and others) and AIR 1970 SC 1921 (In re. P.C. San) and page 2015. (E.M. Sankaran Namboodripad v. T. Narayanan Nambiar). 5. Shri B.M. Lal relied on AIR 1954 SC 201 (J.C. Medhi, Registrar Assam High Court v. Frank Moraes, Resident Editor The Times of India and others) and AIR 1970 SC 1921 (In re. P.C. San) and page 2015. (E.M. Sankaran Namboodripad v. T. Narayanan Nambiar). We have no dispute with the propositions laid down in these cases. In AIR 1970 SC 1821 (supra), it appears that the Chief Minister made a speech when it was a common ground that he was aware of filling of the petition and the issue of rule was served on the Government. Contempt proceedings can be initialed when the writings or publication tend to bring in disrepute the decision of the Court and impair the faith of the public in administration of justice. The fact that this Court admitted the application under section 482 of the Cr. P. Code indicated that it found the case worth hearing on merits. Further in AIR 1954 SC 201 (supra), it is mentioned that Judges should not be super-sensitive and hasten to exercise the extraordinary right to suppress the legitimate criticism, howsoever pungent the criticism may be. Application rejected summarily.