Judgment V.K. Bali, J.-Judiciary in this country right from Mussifal to Supreme Court is working in trying and tiring circumstances. For variety of reasons and in particular, strength of the Judges at every level being wholly inadequate commensurate to the work load, Judges have to every day transact cases which sometimes may be beyond their capacity. As if this was not enough to test endurance and patience of the Judges, a section of litigating public has added yet another dimension and that is, on gathering an impression during the course of arguments that the result of the case might turn against them, they have started trying to get release of the case from the Bench hearing the matter by directly accusing or showing bias of the Judges hearing the matter. 2. The trend fast growing amongst the litigating public who seek release of their cases on ulterior motives is of recent past and before it might gain any further momentum and vitiate the whole judicial system, it needs to be dealt with and appropriate, guidance, instruction or directions issued. 3. Before we may, however, take that exercise in hand, we would like to give brief facts culminating into filing of the present appeal and the tardy progress that it made. Appellant Ankush Wadhwa was tried for offences under Sections 306, 302 and 201, IPC alongwith Dwarka Prasad. The latter was tried for offence under Section 120-B, IPC. The incident in which appellants were involved pertained to the year 1998. On trial, whereas appellant Ankush Wadhwa was held guilty for offence under Sections 363, 302 and 201 IPC read with Section 120-B, IPC, appellant Dwarka Prasad was held guilty for offences under Sections 119, 201, 217 and 120-B, IPC read with Section 201, IPC by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 4, Kota vide order dated 29.09.2001. Against order of conviction and sentences, appellants filed D.B. Criminal Appeals No. 780/2001 and No. 798/2001. The matter was earlier listed before other Division Bench but later came to be listed before the Division Bench comprising of one of us. On 17.03.2005, arguments were heard in part and the matter was ordered to be listed on 18.03.2005 for further arguments. Arguments remained inconclusive on 18.03.2005 as well but on request made by the learned Counsel for the parties, the case was adjourned to 22.03.2005 for further arguments. On 17.03.2005, arguments were heard in part and the matter was ordered to be listed on 18.03.2005 for further arguments. Arguments remained inconclusive on 18.03.2005 as well but on request made by the learned Counsel for the parties, the case was adjourned to 22.03.2005 for further arguments. When the matter came up for hearing on 06.04.2005, again arguments remained inconclusive and the matter was adjourned for further arguments on 11.04.2005. The matter however came up for hearing on 21.04.2005 when arguments were heard and Judgment was reserved. 4. The appeal involved intricate questions of law and fact and it was for that precise reason that arguments were spread over five hearings. The case was, on dates mentioned above, argued for almost the whole day. On conclusion of arguments, after consultation with each other, when we were about to pen down the Judgment , we received a letter dated 20.04.2005 on 25.04.2005. Author of the letter not only made allegations against one of us but also against the Counsel representing appellant Ankush Wadhwa. Contents of the letter need not be reproduced even though, we have placed the letter on records. Allegations made in the letter, appeared to have been made with the sole objection of getting release of the matter from the Bench presumably and in all probability, on account of some observations that might have been made by the Bench during the course of hearing. Contents of the letter in our view prima facie constitute an offence under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. We issued notice of contempt to the author of the letter Radhey Shyam son of Bhagwat Sharma, 236, Shopping Centre, Kota and then released the case vide orders dated 27.04.2005. On the same day, while issuing contempt notice we passed the following order:- “We had heard arguments in part in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 780/2001 titled Ankush Wadhwa vs. State on 17.03.2005 and, thereafter on 18.03.2005, 06.04.2005 and 21.04.2005. The Judgment was reserved in this appeal and the connected appeal bearing No. 798/2001, Dwarka Prasad Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan. 5. After consultations with each other, when we were about to pen down the Judgment , we received a letter from one Radhey Shyam son of Bhagwat Sharma, 236, Shopping Centre, Kota. The letter is dated 20.04.2005 and has been received in the Court on 25.04.2005. 5. After consultations with each other, when we were about to pen down the Judgment , we received a letter from one Radhey Shyam son of Bhagwat Sharma, 236, Shopping Centre, Kota. The letter is dated 20.04.2005 and has been received in the Court on 25.04.2005. The contents of the letter besides being false and malicious are also scandalous and do, in our opinion, even though prima facie, amount to criminal contempt as defined in Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The contents of the letter also interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings. 6. Issue show cause notice to Radhey Shyam son of Bhagwat Sharma, 236, Shopping Centre, Kota as to why proceedings for criminal contempt be not initiated against him, returnable on 09.05.2005. 7. Issue notice to the Advocate General, Rajasthan as well who shall ensure service of the notice of contemner Radhey Shyam son of Bhagwat Sharma. He is also requested to assist the Court in the proceedings which are initiated against Radhey Shyam son of Bhagwar Sharma, 236, Shopping Centre, Kota, by this order. 8. The letter (alongwith the envelope) of Radhey Shyam son of Bhagwat Sharma, in original, be attached with this order.” .9. The matter, thereafter, however came up for hearing on 09.05.2005. On the notice issued to Radhey Shyam, Supdt. of Police, Kota addressed a letter to the Advocate General wherein it was mentioned that after necessary enquiries were made it was revealed that Radhey Shyam son of Bhagwat Sharma, 236, Shopping Centre, Kota was not residing at the given address. It was also mentioned that no person was residing at the given address even in the past as well. On the information as aforesaid, we inter alia observed as follows in our order dated 09.05.2005:- .“From the facts as fully detailed above, what thus transpires is that letters dated 20.04.2005 as also undated letters received by both of us on 29.04.2005 have been written by an unknown person. The letters are thus synonymous. They bear the name of Radhey Shyam son of Bhagwat Sharma who is non-existent. SHO PS Nayapura Kota City has also mentioned in his reports that he had gone through the case file of the criminal appeals and had found that there was no person known as Radhey Shyam in the list of witnesses be it of the complainant or the accused side. 10. SHO PS Nayapura Kota City has also mentioned in his reports that he had gone through the case file of the criminal appeals and had found that there was no person known as Radhey Shyam in the list of witnesses be it of the complainant or the accused side. 10. From the facts as fully detailed above, what really emerges is that someone connected or unconnected with the case has tried for change of bench by employing dubious means. The ploy adopted, be it by connected or unconnected party, if permitted to succeed would cause untold harm to the majesty of law and would become a game to be played with unscrupulous and unethical elements. The question that thus arises is as to whether after coming to know that the letters in question have been addressed by a fictitious person and which could well be at the instance of either of the parties, should the Court let off the matter or contempt notice issued on the basis of letters aforesaid should be taken to its logical ends. .11. Before we may arrive at any conclusion on the question framed above, we would like to have assistance of the President of the Rajasthan High Court Bar Association, Jaipur besides assistance of the learned Advocate General whom we have already requested to do list the matter for hearing on 16.05.2005. .Copy of this order be made available to the learned Advocate General as also President of the Rajasthan High Court Bar Association, Jaipur. They be also provided with all the letters and the reports of the SHO and Supdt. of Police, reference of which has been given in this order. 12. When the matter was being adjourned from time to time, as would be clear from the various orders passed by us in the contempt matter initiated by us, in yet another matter Surendra Bhatia vs. Poonam Bhatia, (DBSAC No. 104/2001), wherein the Bench had heard arguments and Judgment was reserved, received a similar letter from the appellant of the said case. In the said case, the Bench after observing that trend to seek change of Bench on gathering an impression based upon some of the observations that might have been made by the Bench in Court is increasing, considered desirability or otherwise, of transferring the case to some other Honble Bench. In the said case, the Bench after observing that trend to seek change of Bench on gathering an impression based upon some of the observations that might have been made by the Bench in Court is increasing, considered desirability or otherwise, of transferring the case to some other Honble Bench. Notices were issued to the learned Counsel appearing for the parties as also Advocate General and the President, Rajasthan High Court Bar Association, Jaipur. In our order dated 211.2005 recorded in contempt matter arising out of DBSAC No. 104/2001 on the basis of arguments addressed by the learned Counsel, as mentioned above and on the basis of judicial precedents we have already held that in case a litigant might endeavour change of the Bench when arguments have been heard and Judgment is reserved and further that change of Bench has been sought only under an impression that the result of the case might turn against the party writing the letter, the Bench should not release the case. In this case, however, we had already released the case and, therefore, the only question that needs our attention is as to whether the contempt notice that was issued to Radhey Shyam son of Bhagwat Sharma who happens to be a non-existent person and yet when it clearly appeared to us that it was either of the parties of this case which had addressed the letter on fictitious name, we should take the contempt notice of its logical ends. 13. The galaxy of lawyers assisting the Court have in unision urged that the contempt notice issued by this Court should not be dropped particularly when from the contents of the letter and attending facts and circumstances of the case it is quite apparent that it was either of the parties of the case which had indulged in writing the letter with the sole purpose of getting release of the case from this Bench. 14. Before however we take that exercise in hand, we would like to mention that learned Counsel assisting the Court have relied upon Rule 324 of the Rule of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, 1952, Section 345, CrPC, Sections 14 and 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India as also the judicial precedents Mritunjoy Das & Anr. vs. Sayed Hasibur Rahaman & Ors., ( 2001 (3) SCC 739 ), Prem Surana vs. Addl. Munsif and Judicial Magistrate & Anr., 2002 (6) SCC 722 , S.K. Sundaram : In Re, ( 2001 (2) SCC 171 ), Advocate General of Kerala vs. Thevar Tharakan, (1961 (2) CrLJ 109), In Re: Suit No. 1947 of 1952, ( AIR 1959 Cal 174 (FB)) and In Re Hiralal Dixit and two Ors., ( AIR 1954 SC 728 ), in their endeavour to show that contents of the letter received by us are contemptuous and fall within the definition of criminal contempt as per provisions contained in Section 2(c)(ii) of the Act. We, however, do not wish to delve on this point as, interest of justice, fair play and equity would require us to go into this question after hearing the person who may be instrumental in writing the letter in question either by himself or on a fictitious name or getting it written from someone of his confidence. 15. Learned Counsel assisting the Court, for taking the contempt notice to its logical ends, have once again relied upon the provisions of the statute as mentioned above and the very same judical precedents. We do not once again for parity of reasons comment on this aspect as well but for to only say that prima facie contents of letter dated 20.04.2005 amount to criminal contempt as defined in Section 2(c)(ii) of the Act as that much indeed has to be said for making up our mind so as to take the contempt notice to its logical ends. We have really pondered over the issue, examined and re-examined the same but ultimately, we are convinced that act, such as the one under issue, if pushed under the carpet, will encourage litigants in indulging into dubious methods. We are cautious that Courts are benevolent but one cannot forget the famous words of George Barnard Shaw on the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi that “It is dangerous to be too good”. 16. We are cautious that Courts are benevolent but one cannot forget the famous words of George Barnard Shaw on the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi that “It is dangerous to be too good”. 16. Honble the Supreme Court in T.V. Satyapal (Supra), ( AIR 1977 SC 2421 ), when it was faced with a litigant who had embroilled his adversary in multi-facet litigation and despite the generosity of the Honble Judge of the High Court dealing with the matter, had accused him of bias, observed that Pathology of litigative addiction ruins the poor of this country and the Bar has a role to cure this deleterious tendency of parties to launch frivolous and vexatious cases. It also observe that long arm of law must throttle such litigative caricatures if the confidence and credibility of the community in the judicature is to survive. . . . The contempt power of the Court is meant for such persons as the present petitioner. 17. In view of the discussion made above, we order that an enquiry be made so as to ascertain the real author of the letter dated 20.04.2005. If in the enquiry so made it may transpire that it is either of the parties to this litigation which has indulged in writing the letter in question or the letter has been manoeuvred by the parties, obviously contempt notice shall be issued and if the enquiry results into a finding that the letter has been addressed by someone wholly unconnected with the parties, contempt proceedings shall be dropped. We direct the State of Rajasthan to make an enquiry into the matter and for the purpose aforesaid, we appoint Mr. P.C. Kala, IPS, Dy. Inspector General of Police (Crimes), Jaipur as Enquiry Officer who in the matter of enquiry shall be assisted by Supdt. of Police, Kota. We are sanguine that the officer appointed by us as Enquiry Officer would submit his report as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six weeks from the date he may receive a copy of this order. Copy of this order be sent to the DIGP (Crimes), Jaipur/Supdt. of Police, Kota immediately, through the Advocate General, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 18. Copy of this order be sent to the DIGP (Crimes), Jaipur/Supdt. of Police, Kota immediately, through the Advocate General, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 18. Before we may part with this order, we would like to mention that contents of the letter and other circumstances do give some indication as to which of the two parties might have indulged in manoeuvring letter dated 20.04.2005 but we leave it entirely to the Enquiry Officer to determine as to which party, if any, was instrumental in writing the letter in question and send his report in the manner, as indicated above.