Judgment Dalip Singh, J.-This Criminal contempt petition arises from the letter dated 24.09.2005 sent by Shri Brijesh Panwar, Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, Itava, District Kota. The letter was treated as contempt petition and notices for criminal contempt were ordered to be issued to the petitioner on 29.09.2005 by this Court. 2. In response to the notice, the non-petitioner contemnor appeared in person before this Court on 210.2005 and was allowed time to file his reply. A reply was filed by the non-petitioner contemnor on 111.2005 and in the reply inter alia at the outset non-petitioner contemnor has submitted an unconditional apology. 3. The matter came up before the Court on 111.2005 and this Court passed following order:-“111.2005 Hon’ble Mr. Justice v.k. bali Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shashikant Sharma Mrs. Nirmala Sharma, PP for the State. Mr. Rajendra Prasad for the respondent contemner. In the first instance we would like to see if the respondent contemner would regret his conduct and sincerely apologies before the concerned Magistrate. We adjourn this case for 211.2005 for the said purpose. It is only after we find out the conduct of the contemner in the matter of apology, that we will consider the matter further on merits. The respondent contemner would be personally present in the Court on the said date. Sd/-Sd/-(Shashi Kant Sharma) (V.K. Bali)” 4. After passing of the aforesaid order, the matter again came up before the Court on 012.2005. On that date, non-petitioner contemnor appeared in person and stated that he had tendered an apology to the concerned Magistrate and apologized for his behaviour and also expressed his regrets. Sd/-Sd/-(Shashi Kant Sharma) (V.K. Bali)” 4. After passing of the aforesaid order, the matter again came up before the Court on 012.2005. On that date, non-petitioner contemnor appeared in person and stated that he had tendered an apology to the concerned Magistrate and apologized for his behaviour and also expressed his regrets. In view of the aforesaid statement, the Court directed for a report to be called from the concerned Magistrate, In pursuance of the aforesaid order, a report dated 112.2005 was sent by the concerned Magistrate to this Court, which is reproduced below:-“Øekad% 433 fnukad 13-12-2005 izs"kd] fczts’k iaokj] flfoy U;k;/kh’k ¼d-[k-½ ,oa U;kf ;d eftLVªsV] bVkok ftyk&dksVk izsf'"kfr] Jheku fMIVh jftLVªkj ¼U;kf;d½ ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; t;iqj ihB] t;iqj A fo"k;%& Mh-ch- vkijkf /kd voekuuk ;kfpdk Øekad 3@2005 ¼ ,MoksdsV easeq> ihBklhu vf /kdkjh }kjk fjiksVZ iszf'"kr fd;s tkus ckcr vkxkeh rkjh[k is’kh 19-12-05½ x%& vkids dk;kZ izlay; dk i= Øekad 15594 fnukad 06-12-05 egksn;] nu gS fd vkids dk;kZ mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr fuosy; dk i= eq>s vkt fnukad 13-12-05 dks izkIr gqvkA ’k fnukad 05-12-05 dh iz bl i= ds lkFk ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ds vknsekf.kr izfr Hkh izkIr a fjiksVZ ryc dh gS fd D;k Jh gfjvks gqbZ gSA eq>ls ekuuh; mPPk U;k;ky; us bl lanHkZ ese vxzoky] vfHkHkk"kd us eq>ls {kek ;kpuk dh] ;k ughaA mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr fuosnu gS fd fnukad 23-11-05 dks vfHkHkk"kd Jh gfjvkse vxzoky mijksDr sizdj.k esa esjs le{k U;k;ky; d{k esa djhc 2-15 cts mifLFkr vk;A mUgksaus eq>ls fnukad 21-09-05 dks tc eSa ihBklhu vf/kdkjh U;k;ky; vfrfjDr ftyk ,oa lS’ku U;k;ky; ¼QkLV Vªsd½ ckjka esa ljdkj cuke xqM~Mh ds izdj.k esa lk{; gsrq mifLFkr gqvk Fkk rc lk{; ds mijkUr vfHkHkk"kd ifj"kn ckjka ds inkf/kdkfj;kas us eq>ls vfHkHkk"kd d{k esa pk;iku ds fy, vkeaf=r fd;k Fkk] rc ml nkSjku vfHkHkk"kd Jh e vxzoky us eq>s Nkrh esa gfjvkslk ekjk Fkk rFkk tku ls ekjus dh /kedh nh Fkh] ml -R; ,oa vijk/k ds ckjs esj mUgksn izdV fd;k A mUgksa {kek ;kpuk dh vkSusa blds fy, [ksus ejss le{k ;g Hkh fuosnu fd;k Zfd iwoZ esa esjs ckjka esa U;k;k/kh’k ds dk;dky ds nkSjku tks fd mUgkssus ejss o U;k;ky; ds izfr vijk/k o voeku fd; s mudh xyrh dks os Lohdkj djrs gS vkSj lHkh xyfr;ksa ds fy, os {kek pkgrs gSaA Jheku dh lsok esa mijksDr fjiksVZ lknj izsf"kr gSA Hkonh;] ¼fczts’k iaokj½ flfoy U;k;k/kh’k ¼d-[k½ ,oa U;kf;d eftLVªsV- bVkok ftyk&dksVk** 5. A perusal of the aforesaid report confirms the fact that non-petitiioner contemnor appeared before the concerned Magistrate on 211.2005 and not only apologized to him but also expressed his regrets for his conduct for the incident dated 21.09.2005 but also for his previous conduct. 6. We have considered the above report and would have discharged the notices issued to the non-petitioner, however, looking to the seriousness of the matter while accepting the fact that non-petitioner contemnor apologized unconditionally and has expressed regrets in respect of his conduct, we are inclined to accept the apology as a mitigating circumstance so as not to punish the non-petitioner, However, looking to the facts and circumstance and the nature of the complaint as well as the past conduct regarding which the complaint has been made, we deem it proper to defer the final order regarding discharging of the notices for a period of six months and would like to observe the conduct of the non-petitioner contemnor during the said period of six months and it is only after we are satisfied that the non-petitioner has in fact stood by his apology and commitment to uphold the majesty of law and respect the law and law officers that the final order regarding the discharge of notices of this criminal contempt petition shall be made. The non-petitioner contemnor is directed to submit as undertaking before this Court that in future he shall always uphold the majesty of law and of the Court and would not commit a similar act. 7. Put up on 01.08.2006.