JUDGMENT RAVI S. DHAVAN, CJ.:- By this petition the applicant Haridwar Pendey desires that the persons who have been named in his relief clause be punished and sent to jail for contempt. The persons named in his relief clause are; Sri B.P. Pandey, Sr. Advocate, the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, the Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.S. Garg, and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.N.P. Singh the Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.N. Singh retired in April this year. 2. In this petition seeking criminal contempt action against judges of the Superior Judiciary, the applicant has not spared even others, named in the text with derogatory language. Then on the record from Supreme Court, New Delhi, to Patna district courts he has not even had regard for Hon'ble Supreme Court Judges. The disparaging remarks have been on them also. Any Judge, subordinate judiciary Judge, High Court Judge, Supreme Court Judge who has decided cases against him, has one under his tongue lashing. 3. The petitioner submitted, that the court is obliged to issue notice on his petition mechanically otherwise limitation will bar his petition and complicate issue for not being considered on a technicality. The petition has been filed under Section 16 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971. 4. The court intimated him that his address, that the court is obliged to issue notice would amount to delivering a notice to a Hon'ble judge on the Bench without examining the cause of the petition. A judge of a superior court of record, judges of the Supreme Court and judges of the High Courts, only because they are judges of superior courts of record, cannot be in contempt of their own court. The petition reads of many things said and done by the Hon'ble judges in discharge of their judicial functions. If a case is decided not adverse to the petitioner, he is not aggrieved but if the case is decided against the petitioner, according to him, the Judge is in contempt because the applicant says so. The notice cannot be issued so easily as the applicant wants it. 5. The applicant appears to be in litigation as a habit as if there is an obsessional neurosis to file cases and abuse judges. What would be the reason? The Court will examine this subsequently. 6. The notice cannot be issued so easily as the applicant wants it. 5. The applicant appears to be in litigation as a habit as if there is an obsessional neurosis to file cases and abuse judges. What would be the reason? The Court will examine this subsequently. 6. First, a bird's eye view is needed to the number of the cases in which the applicant is involved and the nature of the case. The number of cases in which the applicant Haridwar Pandey is involved and the applicant has filed in the District courts. Patna High Court and the Supreme Court, in as much information as could be gathered are noted below: (A) District court 1 (Special Case No. 158/83 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 37 of 1978.) (B) Patna High Court: 75 cases, out of which 15 cases are pending. (C) Supreme Court: 22 SLPs (all disposed of) 7. About 99 cases were filed Why so many cases? Have the cases bee) filed or the applicant has generated litigation. The nature of the litigation has a genesis. The applicant had been charged to face trial after the charges were brought under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is alleged that the applicant Haridwar Pandey is answerable to a charge of having properties and assets which are disproportionate to his known means of income. He has engineered a defence that the proceedings must never close. A closure of the proceedings would mean a result. The applicant does not want a final result. Thus, he baits the Judge abuses the Judge, claims him name and in this exercise he has left no one neither the Subordinate Judiciary, nor Judges of the High Court or the Judge of the Supreme Court. The applicant Haridwar Pandey says he has been an engineer. Now, past retirement age, he says he has taken to law which he understands well, more than lawyers who do not know it. He has and is in process of writing books on law. The Bar Council of India should check his credentials in law, his degree his enrolment. He preaches morals and advertises, his honesty and integrity But, that is pending trial in Special Case No. 158/83 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 37 of 1978. 8. He has and is in process of writing books on law. The Bar Council of India should check his credentials in law, his degree his enrolment. He preaches morals and advertises, his honesty and integrity But, that is pending trial in Special Case No. 158/83 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 37 of 1978. 8. The following materials all matters of record, give a sample on how the applicant Haridwar Pandey bullies Judges and interferes with the administration of justice. Any Judge who decides against him comes under a comment by, him. The comments made by the applicant are derogatory which are done with the sole purpose of lowering the dignity of the Court and the Judge who presides over it. The record have been compiled, in as much as could be located, in which the applicant has made derogatory statements against Judges. The applicant also writes letters to Judges specially those Judges who are seized of the trial of his cases. This is clearly done to harass the Judge or intimidate him. 9. Haridwar Pandey has the audacity of making unfounded allegation against the Courts including the presiding judges of the Supreme Court and the High Court to the extent that the statements made by him against judges are derogatory, libellous and contemptuous. A compilation as a summary from the record which the Registrar General, made on what the applicant has said about Judges, whoever, do his cases is below : Derogatory and contemptuous statements Petition dated 16.12.2001 The letters written to Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.B. Patnaik filed in the court of Special and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Ruma Pal, who wrote extempore Judge, Vigilance under the order dated 7.9.2001 dismissed all the ten petitions of the signature of Sri Haridwar petitioner on board.... Pending for three years..... Again Pandey. letter, written to H.E. the President Sri K.R. Narayanan, in which specific complaints have been made against the order dated 7.9.2001 written by the two Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court, Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.B. Patnaik and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Ruma Pal. Letter dated 9.4.2001 by Hon'ble High Court Patna is directly involved in making Haridwar Pandey to forgeries and making this false case lingered and the Hon'ble Justice A.S. Anand Hon'ble Supreme Court is not taking any act on even though the facts have been reported on affidavit. Justice G.B. Patnaik and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Ruma Pal. Letter dated 9.4.2001 by Hon'ble High Court Patna is directly involved in making Haridwar Pandey to forgeries and making this false case lingered and the Hon'ble Justice A.S. Anand Hon'ble Supreme Court is not taking any act on even though the facts have been reported on affidavit. The copy of that complaint filed against the court was also filed in this Hon'ble Court in S.L.P. (Cr.) 790.98 in which the order and judgment dated 27.10.1997 was written on introducing at least 56 facts against the records from imagination which were all exhibited at Annexure A/1 at pages 280 to 294. In fact the order dated 27.10.97 was written jointly by Sri B.P. Pandey and D.P. Ojha and not by the Court..... ….....What is this law in the country in which the judicial officers are to make all crimes and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is over looking the same and I am being tortured with whole family? ..... an order which is not complied with even till today but Hon'ble Supreme Court is over-looking this vital fact also. ..., The Hob'ble Supreme Court being head of judiciary of the biggest democratic country of the world should be Judicious and should not have that much of favour for Govt. and soft corner for those so-called forgerers of manipulations that the very name of judiciary is brought down. Letter dated 3.5.2003 to .... I may kindly be excused to express myself without any Hon'bie Mr. Justice reservation that instead of doing justice apparent and Chandramauli Kumar repeated injustices are being done with me in person and so Prasad also in my cases...... but the powers are for doing justice and justice only, but some of you, Hon'ble Judges are not doing so intentionally but without having this consideration in your mind that God, who has given you this power, is there to see every thing being done good or bad by every body. Letter dated 30.6.2002 to It appears from the perusal of the press cutting at "B" that Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.N. the Hon'ble Constitution Bench comprising of 7 Hon'ble Kripai. Judges has not made any consideration of such abnormal cases like Vigilance P.S. Case No. 37(4)78 pending for over 24 years. Letter dated 30.6.2002 to It appears from the perusal of the press cutting at "B" that Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.N. the Hon'ble Constitution Bench comprising of 7 Hon'ble Kripai. Judges has not made any consideration of such abnormal cases like Vigilance P.S. Case No. 37(4)78 pending for over 24 years. A copy of this letter is also being sent to all the seven Hon'ble Judges named in the press cutting at "B" for needful at their end. Letter dated 14.4.2002 by Sri. D.P. Ojha in Bihar has managed to also influence the Haridwar Pandey Hon'ble Apex Court and on getting no justice for the petitioner from Hon'ble Supreme Court, New Delhi. Letter dated 9.4.2001 by The numbers of such orders have gone over 50 now Haridwar Pandey to from 30 but there is none to look to these gross and Hon'ble Mr. Justice apparent illegalities even in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. A.S. Anand. ......This is now crossing all the limits. The real fact why these forgeries are being made is not being looked into by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. ..... but Hon'ble Supreme Court is over-looking this vital fact also. Letter dated 25.6.2004 <span class="Hfont">vxj vius /kkjk izokg le>kus addressed to Hon'ble <span class="Hfont">vksj dHkh chp chp es xqLls ds the Chief Justice who <span class="Hfont"> dze es vki dqN ,slh ckrs dg was hearing the present <span class="Hfont"> cSBrs gS ;k ,slh Hkk”kk dk iz;ksx case i.e. Original Cr. Misc. <span class="Hfont">dj cSBrs gS tks v’kksHkuh; vkSj No.7 of 2004 filed by <span class="Hfont">voS/k Hkh gS vkSj ,slh Hkk”kk dk Haridwar Pandey. <span class="Hfont">bLrseky ugh djus ij vki vius vki es de ls de vc ls d`ik fu;=a.k j[ks blh iz;kstu es EkS vkidks ;g i= lh[k ds :Ik es fy[k jgk gwWA vfrfjDr egkf/koDrk Jh ,l- ds ?kks”k tks ojh; vf/koDrk Hkh gS dk vkius vusdks ckj dgk fd vki >wB cksyrs gS esjh le> es ;g Hkh v’kksHkuh; ,oa voS/k Hkh gS vkSj vkidks ,lh ckr ugh dgrh pkfga;sA Letter of Haridwar Pandey Where he has stated that the Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. P. addressed to Hon'ble Mr. Patnaik committed forgery and again .... Justice G. P. addressed to Hon'ble Mr. Patnaik committed forgery and again .... Justice S.N. Jha dated 3.11.2003 <span class="Hfont">vuqyXud i= ds voyksdu ls vkidks rkTtqc gks ldrk gS fd loksZPp U;k;ky; ds rRdkyhu U;k;ewfrZ vc vodk’k izkIr Jh ts-ch- iVuk;d ds ;gk Hkh iSjoh djds Jh jk; us gekjs mu 10 vkosnuks dk fnukad 07-09-01 dks ,d vkns’k es fcuk fdlh fopkj ds [kkfjt djk;k Fkk Tkcfd mues ls 6 vkosnu lu~ 1999 ls mUgh dh fyLV ij gh py jgs Fks vksj fdlh u fdlh :Ik es Jh ukxsUnz jk; ds f[kykQ Fks vkidks ;g tkudj Hkh vk’p;Z gksxk fd gekjs dsl es rRdkyhu U;k;ewfrZ Jh th-ch- iVuk;d th us fnaukd 24-8-2001 dks ,d xyr ikfjr vkns’k es fnukWd 6-0-2001 dks dsl la[;k 164@01 es gokbZVuj dk bLrseky dj loksZPp U;k;ky; es Hkh Jh ukxsUnz jk; ds pyrs tkylkth dh dhfrZeku LFkkfir fd;k gSA U;k;ewqfrZ Jh pUnzekSyh dqekj izlkn dks vkt Hkjs U;k;ky; ck?k ls foykj cuuk iM+k ftldh lwpuk vkidks dks vyx ls fey gh xbZ gksxhA iVuk mPp U;k;ky; es ,slh csbTtrh igys dHkh fdlh U;k;/kh’k dh ugh gqbZ Fkh tSlh U;k;ewfrZ pUnzekSyh th dh vkt Hkjs dksVZ es gqbZ vksj mUgs Lo;a yfTtr gksuk iMkA nq”deZ dk ;gh urhtk gksuk gS pkgs og fdruh gh >wB D;ks ugksA vk’kk gS fd vuqyXu i= dks vki lq{kerk ls i<us dh d`ik djsxsa vkSj U;k;ikfydk dh j{kk ds fy, dqN vius foosd ls djus dh d`ik djsxsA 10. It is true that in SLP 790 of 96 in order dated 11.5.98 the Hon'ble Supreme Court had ordered and directed the trial court to conclude the trial by 31.12.1998 even by fixing date on day to day basis and to conclude the proceeding by 31.12.1998 and if not concluded by then the proceeding was to stand quashed. 11. Then considering the activities of the accused Haridwar Pandey the Hon'ble Supreme Court was compelled to withdraw the said order of SLP No. 790 of 1998 in its order dated 7.9.2001 in SLP (Cr.) No.1901 of 1999 with Which 9 other SLPs and Criminal Misc. cases were heard by the Bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.B. Patnaik and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Ruma Pal. cases were heard by the Bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.B. Patnaik and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Ruma Pal. The Court had to observe as follows: "It may be stated that as the criminal proceedings were continued for a long time at one point of time this Court had itself communicated that the criminal proceedings should be concluded by the specified date or else the proceeding would stand quashed. But then it is only the accused who prevented the proceedings from being concluded which forced this court to modify the earlier order. We have no manner of doubt after examining the relevant papers that the accused is bent upon seeing that the criminal proceeding would not come to a conclusion" Comments of Hon'ble Supreme Court against the accused Haridwar Pandey SLP (Cr.) No. 1899 of Upon hearing counsel the court made following order" 1999 from the judgment Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner says that he and order dated 27.11.1999 would advise the claimant that the writ petitions, Which in Cr. Writ Jurisdiction are on board today and the allegations made therein be with case no. 24035 of 1998 of drawn with unconditional apology. This may be done with- the High Court of in a period of four weeks from today. List the matter after Judicature at Patna. four weeks. Quorum : Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.B. SLP (Crl.) No. 1901/99 should be shown as main item. Patnaik and Honble Mrs. Ruma Pal. SLP 1897 of 1999 (Crim- ..... It appears that the impugned order filed in the case is inal and 1901 and others different than the relief which is being sought for. SLPs) Order dated 24.11.2000 Quorum : Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. B. Patnaik and Hon'ble Mr. Justice U.C. Banerjee Order dated 19.4.2002 "Upon hearing the counsel the Court made following in SLP no. 1901/99 against orders. "This petitioner has appeared in person to pursue Haridwar Pandey an application challenging the order of the Registrar Quorum: Hon'ble Mr. Refusing to register the petition. The petition that was Justice G.B. Patnaik filed before the Registrar was for modification of order and Hon'ble Mr. Justice of the Court dated 7.9.2001. The Court has shown enough Brijesh Kumar. sympathy to the petitioner not only by entertaining several applications. but also by engaging counsel. Amicus to assist the petitioner with the object that whether any relief to be granted to him. Justice of the Court dated 7.9.2001. The Court has shown enough Brijesh Kumar. sympathy to the petitioner not only by entertaining several applications. but also by engaging counsel. Amicus to assist the petitioner with the object that whether any relief to be granted to him. But notwithstanding the same the petitioner has been filing applications after applications. On 7.9.2001, on consideration of all the applications pending, the court refused to entertain the same and application for review was filed. which was also disposed of by circulation. Thereafter when the present application was filed the Registrar considered the circumstances and refused to entertain the same. On examining the entire materials and after hearing the petitioner at length, we see no justification for entertaining the present application. It is dismissed accordingly. Be it stated that the criminal prosecution pending before the special Judge. Patna is lingering for a long tin e and this Court has been directing from time to time for early disposal of the matter. We do not know whether it is the petitioner who is responsible for protracting the litigation or the State though both the petitioner as well as the State refute the same. It is not necessary for us to examine the correctness of the rival stand on this score. Suffice it to say that the pending criminal proceeding must be concluded as the petitioner has been making several frivolous application. No doubt, when the liberty of a person is concerned, the Court sympathetically examines the grievance of the under-trial but that does not mean that any citizen would misuse the liberty that is granted when somebody appears in person. To us, it appears that in the case in hand the petitioner has been abusing the advantage that is granted to him merely because he appears in person. We direct the Special Judge. Patna to conclude the pending proceedings as expeditiously as possible and submit a report to this Court." 12. On 26.6.2004 this Court required the Registrar General to submit a report on the state of record. The applicant Haridwar Pandey repeated his age old habit of writing to the judges to hear the matter. He wrote to this Court. Thus, the report was sought from the Registrar General. On 26.6.2004 this Court required the Registrar General to submit a report on the state of record. The applicant Haridwar Pandey repeated his age old habit of writing to the judges to hear the matter. He wrote to this Court. Thus, the report was sought from the Registrar General. The Registrar General examined the letter which the applicant Haridwar Pandey wrote to the Court and in pursuance of the order examined all the record available in the High Court and placed his comments with six annexures. The annexures to the report are matters of record either communications addressed by the applicant to judges or the orders of the High Court or the Supreme Court. 13. The report of the Registrar General is reproduced below : "Before the Bench presided over the Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shashank Kumar Singh. 14. In compliance to the order of the Bench of Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shashank Kr. Singh in Original Misc. No.7 of 2004 in order dated 24.6.2004 the Registrar General begs to submit this report. 15. Haridwar Pandey as it appears from his letter itself is an accused in Vigilance Case no. 32 (IV) 78. 16. In this regard, it is relevant to mention that in respect of the said case for disproportionate assets by Haridwar Pandey. Criminal Misc. case and even SLPs in the Hon'ble Court had been filed which would appear from the report earlier submitted by the Joint Registrar (Judicial) in which more than 50 CWJCs and Criminal Misc. cases have been shown, 20 SLPs and at least 15 pending Criminal cases have been indicated (Flag 'A', Flag 'B' and Flag 'C'). Annexure 1 shows the order sheet which speaks volumes about the delay in disposal of the case because of the petitioner. 17. The report of the Joint Registrar (Judicial) dated 14.5.2004 attached herewith may be treated the part of this report. (Annexure II). 18. Petitioner, Haridwar Pandey, files petitions in the trial courts and this Court levelling indecent and vulgar allegations against the Presiding Officer. Similarly, even against the Hon'ble Judges of Patna High Court, he has been making statements and levelling allegations groundless and false, which scandalizes and tends to scandalize or lowers or tends to lower the authority of the Court, interfere or disturb administration of Justice. Similarly, even against the Hon'ble Judges of Patna High Court, he has been making statements and levelling allegations groundless and false, which scandalizes and tends to scandalize or lowers or tends to lower the authority of the Court, interfere or disturb administration of Justice. The allegations levelled against, the Hon'ble Judges of the Patna High Court are to the extent of clear abuse against the Judges. In the instant case before the Bench of Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shashank Kr. Singh, petitioner addressed a letter the Hon'ble the Chief Justice containing certain insinuations which may prejudice or interfere the due course of Judicial proceeding. The letter is Annexure III to this report. 19. Though there have been numerous letters written by Haridwar Pandey, some are put herewith for the kind perusal of the Court. 1. Letter dated 9.8.2003 2. Letter dated 15.5.2003 3. Letter dated 3.5.2003 4. Letter dated 14.5.2002 5. Letter dated 30.6.2002 6. Letter dated 14.4.2002 7. Letter dated 25.3.2002 8. Letter dated 25.3.2002 9. Letter dated 23.3.2002 10. Letter dated 24.1.2000 Under Secretary, Govt. of India forwarding letter of Sri Haridwar Pandey. 11. Letter dated 30.4.2001 12. Letter dated 9.4.2001 13. Letter dated 25.2.2001 which are Annexure IV series. 20. Some of the letters aforesaid are addressed to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India by name. Also relevant to mention are letters by name to the Hon'ble Judges before whom this case had been pending, e.g. letter dated 3.5.2003 and 15.5.2003 addressed to Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.K. Prasad. Then again letter dated 14.5.2002 is addressed to Hon'ble the Chief Justice letter dated 30.6.2002 also addressed to the Chief Justice of India, Hon'ble Supreme Court. 21. The report of the Joint Registrar(Judicial) Annexure III show that Haridwar Pandey had also made derogatory statement against the Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court in his petition filed before the trial court when his S.L.Ps. were disposed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.B. Patnaik and Hon'ble Justice Ruma Pal which can be verified from the records. 22. Against the proceedings before the Court of Hon'ble Mr. were disposed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.B. Patnaik and Hon'ble Justice Ruma Pal which can be verified from the records. 22. Against the proceedings before the Court of Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.K. Prasad and its subsequent hearing and Hon'ble Judges of Patna High Court, and after the decision in those matters, petitioner Haridwar Pandey has filed this Original Contempt Case No. 7 of 2004 against none else but the Hon'ble Judges of Patna High Court who had heard applications and passed order. The matter has been placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shashank Kumar Singh. While the matter was being heard the petitioner sent confidential letters to Hon'ble the Chief Justice by his name on 18.6.2004 aforesaid which by itself tends to interference with administration of justice. He has referred to order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 12.5.1998 which has also been mentioned in the report of the Joint Registrar (Judicial) and Haridwar Pandey has concealed the fact that the said order dated 12.5.1998 had already been recalled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 7.9.2001 in S.L.P No. 1901 of 1999 and this also speaks of concealing and misleading the Court even on the face of the records Annexure V series. 23. Relevant to mention is that Haridwar Pandey is filing application In trial Court, Hon'ble High Court and even in Hon'bie Supreme Court in the pending cases and also after the orders are passed. allegations and derogatory statements are made against the Presiding Officers of the Trial Court Judges of the Patna High Court and even the Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The glaring example in the matter is a copy of the petition filed in the court of Special Judge Vigilance in Vigilance PS. Case No. 37(4) 78, in which remarks have been made against Hon'ble Supreme Court Judges lowering the authority of the Hon'ble Apex Court, Annexure VI. The approach of Haridwar Pandey in filing the applications before the Hon'ble Court and writing letters to the Presiding Hon'ble Judges in course of the proceeding and after the proceeding is over, lowers the authority of the Court, prejudices or interfere with the due course of the judicial Proceeding interferes or obstructs the administration of Justice." 24. The approach of Haridwar Pandey in filing the applications before the Hon'ble Court and writing letters to the Presiding Hon'ble Judges in course of the proceeding and after the proceeding is over, lowers the authority of the Court, prejudices or interfere with the due course of the judicial Proceeding interferes or obstructs the administration of Justice." 24. Letter by Applicant Haridwar Pandey which contains derogatory, contemptuous and abusive statements against Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court and Hon'ble Judges of the High Court and Presiding Officers of the trial court are 1. Letter dated 24.1.2000 2. Letter dated 9.4.2001 3. Letter dated 30.4.2001 4. Letter dated 25.2.2001 5. Letter dated 23.3.2002 6. Letter dated 25.3.2002 7. Letter dated 14.4.2002 8. Letter dated 30.6.2002 9. Letter dated 14.5.2002 10. Letter dated 3.5.2003 11. Letter dated 15.5.2003 12. Letter dated 9.6.2003 13. Letter dated 18.6.2004 14. Letter dated 10.7.2003 15. Letter dated 3.11.2003 16. Letter dated 26.6.2004 25. The applicant addressed these communications to the High Court, regardless whether the cause is pending consideration and sub judice, or abusing the judge or judges, if the decision went against him or not to his liking. He spared no one. He threatened and terrorized judges right within the privacy of their homes. 26. The English law calls contempt in the face of the court ex facie curie. In so far as the applicant is concerned he fires his attack on judges with a double barrel. He writes it on record. He places it in letters, and as annexures in an application or a petition. His letters contain a mouthful for the judges. He makes currilous statements against the judges or the Court. He sends his letters by recorded mail. He sends letters to the judges at their residence or chambers, and this virtually amounts to contempt in the lap of the judge. His recorded attacks on High Court judges who hear his cases, he marks copies to the Supreme Court Judges and other dignitaries nationwide. His recorded derogatory attacks on Supreme Court Judges, he hides the record stealthily by placing on the record of district courts. High Court Judges are in his line of fire in his letters to them and applications in Court. 27. His recorded derogatory attacks on Supreme Court Judges, he hides the record stealthily by placing on the record of district courts. High Court Judges are in his line of fire in his letters to them and applications in Court. 27. Normally courts have an occasion to deal with one contempt Such are the recorded cases, in the journals, whether at the High Court or dealt with in appeal by the Supreme Court. 28. A scurrilous attack on the judges, a defamatory statement at the bar of the court on the judges, abusive statements in court before the judge hearing the matter are instances of criminal contempt. Derogatory or defamatory statements made by a judicial officer against the High Court or the judges hearing the matter and the matter being judged by the Supreme Court which found it difficult not to sentence even though the health of the judicial officer has broken down but yet conviction was ordered. These are some of the instances which have been dealt with in courts. Most of the cases are decisions of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that an attack on the court and the judges is an attack on the institution. In belittles the institution in the eyes of the people. Judges cannot defend themselves. The court cannot offer a defence. In one matter, the Supreme Court said if a Chief Minister faces allegations by legislators he can always reply to the allegations when the legislature is in session. But, if the Chief Minister were to attack the court and the judges, the latter are defenceless. This court has noticed some of the cases. There cases are : Baradakanta Mishra Vs. Registrar of Orissa High Court, and another : AIR 1974 Supreme Court 710, M.R. Parashar and others Vs. Dr. Farooq Abdullah and others: AIR 1984 Supreme Court 615, L.D. Jaikwal Vs. State of U.P. : (1984) 3 Supreme Court Cases 405, M.B. Sanghi Vs. High Court of Punjab & Haryana and others: AIR 1991 Supreme Court 1834, Pritan Pal Vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh: AIR 1992 Supreme Court 904, In re. Vinay Chandra Mishra : (1995) 2 Supreme Court Cases 584, In Re. Dr. D.C. Saxena and Dr. D. C. Saxena Vs. Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India : AIR 1996 Supreme Court 241, In Re. Ajay Kumar Pandey: AIR 1998 Supreme Court 3299. 29. High Court of Madhya Pradesh: AIR 1992 Supreme Court 904, In re. Vinay Chandra Mishra : (1995) 2 Supreme Court Cases 584, In Re. Dr. D.C. Saxena and Dr. D. C. Saxena Vs. Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India : AIR 1996 Supreme Court 241, In Re. Ajay Kumar Pandey: AIR 1998 Supreme Court 3299. 29. Now why would the applicant Haridwar Pandey stretch the litigation in which even the Supreme Court gave a direction that it must proceed day to day and conclude? 30. Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 (Ordinance No. 38 of 1944) provides for attachment of property of persons found to have committed any "scheduled offence". By amendment an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act has also been included as scheduled offence. The Criminal Law Amendments Ordinance 1944 has been adopted in the Prevention of Corruption Act with certain amendments in Section 29. 31. By this amendment the power of attachment was given to the District Judge but then Section 3, lays down that it is the State Government or the Central Government as the case may be which can authorize an application for making a statement to the Court of District and Sessions Judge. The government did not authorize the making of an application for attachment of the property of Haridwar Pandey and. this placed him in an advantageous position of being free from an attachment order on the properties In his possession liable to be attached under the said Ordinance during the course of the trial. Therefore, the accused has a calculated intention to keep alive the trial till he lives so that the trial may not conclude during his life time. If the charges are proved then attachment of property is a foregone conclusion. But, If there is no attachment, then after his death the proceeding will be consigned. The property, ought to have been attached during the pendency of the trial coming under the scheduled offence. but if remained free from attachment on account of non authorization of application under Section 3 by the State Government, and taking undue advantage of the same. accused Haridwar Pandey delays the disposal of the case to the extent that he delayed the matter of his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. for about Six years by filing frivolous S.L.Ps. accused Haridwar Pandey delays the disposal of the case to the extent that he delayed the matter of his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. for about Six years by filing frivolous S.L.Ps. at the Hon'ble Supreme Court duly dismissed and frivolous petitions and miscellaneous cases in the High Court and in midst of them making derogatory and defamatory statements against the Hon'ble Judges under a well thought out intention to divert the real matter 1 iS8u8 32. What the applicant has filed, is Itself contempt and he was told by the Court that this is contempt. As the Supreme Court summed up the situation, the applicant himself denies the opportunity to himself to take a defence. He unabatedly commits contempt in the face of, at the Bar of, and behind the back of the Court. He attacks the Court front and back repeatedly. If the Court offers him an opportunity to retract from his war of attrition waged on the Courts, he offers a counter attack. He virtually tears up the opportunity in the face of the Court, any division of it and this Court. He balks at Section 14. He did this at Supreme Court. He does it at the High Court. And, this is his defence. He expresses no contrition anywhere. 33. The applicant, Haridwar Pandey is a vexatious litigant. This is sufficiently projected from the record. From its origins in trying to stall proceedings of a charge which he faces under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in the matter of Special Case No. 158/83. to ensure that this proceeding lingers, never terminates almost one hundred litigations were engineered. The Supreme Court has certified that the-petitioner has been abusing the advantage that is granted to him merely because he appears in person". At one stage, the Supreme Court, anticipating that the applicant would make an apology, observed "the allegations made therein be withdrawn with unconditional apology." No apology was given. The Supreme Court further observed when it came to the conclusion that the petitioner does not desire the criminal case against him to conclude that "we have no manner of doubt after examining the relevant papers, that the accused is bent upon seeing that the criminal proceeding will not come to a conclusion." That the applicant comments upon judges with indignity in his pleadings is a matter of record. The applicant writes to the judge who does his case, and threatens him with embarrassment, expressing his impressions about the judge. The applicant, Haridwar Pandey is a nighttime prowler, he stabs the Court from the back. He is a vexatious litigant and contemptuous contemner. He intimidates the Court by words and by publication. He scandalizes the Court and does so to lower the authority of the Court. He interferes with the due course of judicial proceedings, he obstructs the administration of justice. He expects an order in his favour, else he has scurrilous remarks against the judges who try his case, with a verdict that is not platable to him. From the lowest court of the land to the highest the applicant has no respect for the public justice system and abuses it with impunity. He does not apologize to the Court. He was tested on this once by the Supreme Court. This leaves the court with no option. With his vexatious conduct to barrage the courts with litigation and in them about the judges he commits repeated contempt. The Court finds him guilty of contempt in the face of the Court. In these very proceedings he justifies making remarks against the trial judge, the High Court judges. He desired the Court to see the record and it reveals that he has unsavoury remarks for the Supreme Court judges also, to put it mildly. Such a person cannot be shown any compassion or kindness. The applicant uses the Court as a theatre to abuse judges and courts. Such a litigant must receive the maximum sentence which the low provides. This is six months. 34. The applicant Haridwar Pandey declares himself as old and sick, in an attempt to win more lenient treatment. He has enough energy to file a record breaking 100 cases and write volumes, and further energies which go into the making of allegations against judges. He has the strength the determination and all the energy of a school boy, in making scurrilous allegations against the Courts as a system and the Hon'ble Judges who discharge their functions within the system. It is best that he bides his peace and the curtailment of his liberty in the confines of the jail. 35. He has the strength the determination and all the energy of a school boy, in making scurrilous allegations against the Courts as a system and the Hon'ble Judges who discharge their functions within the system. It is best that he bides his peace and the curtailment of his liberty in the confines of the jail. 35. For having committed contempt in the face of the Court, the applicant be taken into custody to serve a sentence with simple Imprisonment for a term of six months. It is no use imposing a fine on such an applicant. Let him be taken into custody to serve out this sentence. 36. The trial judge before whom special case no. 158/83 arising out of Vigilance PC Case No. 37 of 1978 is pending shall proceed, with recording the applicant's statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for which ample opportunities have been provided to the applicant. This aspect has been noticed by the Supreme Court also. The Supreme Court also directed that the matter will proceed on day to day basis, on the day fixed the applicant shall appear at the trial. If he is difficult with the trial court it shall proceed according to law. So ordered. Consigned. 37. The State of Bihar, should consider enacting a legislation for prevention of vexatious litigation as other States have done. This will save public and the taxpayers money wasted on repeatedly generated vexatious litigations and conserve the time of the Courts to purposeful resolution of cases. I agree.