Judgment :- SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J 1. This criminal contempt of court case, registered suo motu by the registry of this court as per directions of the Hon’ble Chief Justice, a petition under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short, the Act) read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, is praying for initiating contempt proceedings against the sole accused by name Ajaykumar Makhija, Ajay Clothing Industries, No 56, Tubinakere Industrial Area, Mandya District. 2. A letter dated 23.2.2011, addressed to the Registrar of this court by one Abdul Rawoof s/o Ameer Jan, General Secretary, National Human Rights Services, Beemanahalli post, Devalapura hobli, Nagamangala taluk, Mandya district, is the basis on which this contempt petition has been registered. 3. The letter discloses that the respondent-accused has displayed a board on the subject site at No.56, KIADB Industrial Area, Tubinakere village, Mandya district and prominently carrying the name of ‘Ajay Clothing Industries’ and also having at the top an inscription to the effect that ‘by the order of honourble High Court of Karnataka’ and at the bottom in small print to the effect that ‘trespassers will be prosecuted’, and the person who has addressed the letter being of the impression that the board though quotes an order of the High Court as source for displaying a board of this nature, that too on a property which, in the opinion of the author of the letter, is valued at a sum of Rs.4.00 crore, is an action without bona fides by the accused and may be possibly in collusion with police officers and not having given particulars of the case number etc., a suitable action for the same should be initiated for misusing court’s name for such display board etc. 4. 4. It transpires that the very accused person was writ petitioner before this court in WP Nos 18014-16 of 2010, impleading the Karnataka industrial areas development board by its chairman, the directorate of industries and commerce by its president and the assistant secretary, KIADB, zonal office, K R S Road, Mysore as respondents 1 to 3 respectively, questioning the legality of an order/intimation dated 14-5-2010, said to have been issued by the third respondent in the petitions, which was Annexure-L to the said writ petitions and the said petitions have been disposed of in the following terms: Order On 5.4.2008, respondent was allotted industrial area of Maddur Taluk for setting up textile factory. The case of the petitioner is that effective possession was not handed over due to dispute between the respondents and local people. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he has submitted a plan on 6.1.2010 for approval and sought permission. But however, his request is not considered. In the meantime, a show cause notice is issued by the respondent; copy of which is produced at Annexure-L calling upon the petitioner to remedy the breaches within 120 days failing which the respondent will resume possession of lands leased. The said show cause notice is questioned in this writ petition. 3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner makes available a copy of resolution of respondent No.2 indicating that one year time is granted to the petitioner to commence the activities. Indeed, what is questioned is only the show cause notice. It is open for the petitioner to reply to the show cause notice with reference to the resolution passed by the respondent No.2. On such explanation given, respondent No.2 shall consider the same having regard to the resolution passed by him. If the petitioner makes an application for sanction of the plan, the same shall be considered by respondent No.2 in accordance with law. Petitions stand disposed of accordingly. 5. On such explanation given, respondent No.2 shall consider the same having regard to the resolution passed by him. If the petitioner makes an application for sanction of the plan, the same shall be considered by respondent No.2 in accordance with law. Petitions stand disposed of accordingly. 5. We notice that the contempt petition while reveals these facts and has with it the letter of said Abdul Rawoof as Annexure-A, Annexure-B is a photograph of the very display board, which we can infer, is obtained as a result of a direction issued to the principal district judge, Mandya district to investigate the matter and submit a report to the High Court as per the orders of the Hon’ble Chef Justice passed on 29-6-2011 and the report of the district judge itself having annexed as Annexure-C to the contempt petition and the order passed by a learned Single Judge in WP Nos 18014-16 of 2010 is placed as Annexure-D along with the contempt petition. On receipt of the report, the Hon’ble Chief Justice having perused the report and having approved a note put up by the registry to the following effect: A. XXX B. Whether Criminal Contempt of Court Case against Sri Ajaykumar Makhija, Ajay Clothing Industries, No 56, Tubinakere Industrial Area, Mandya district may be initiated for displaying the board that ‘By order of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka – Trespassers will be prosecuted’ without disclosing the number of the case in which this court has passed an order and thereby misused the name of this court and as ordered by the Hon’ble Chief Justice in terms of his order dated 15-7-2011, which facts we have gathered by examining the file relating to this case wherein the registry had obtained orders from the Hon’ble chief Justice on the administrative side for such development. It is thereafter, the present contempt petition has been registered and the matter is listed before us for preliminary hearing, indicating it is registered suo motu. 6. Even after perusal of all the petition averments and Annexure-A to D, we are not able even form a prima facie opinion that the conduct of the respondent-accused, even by accepting the entire petition pleadings and annexures at their face value, does in any way come near the concept of criminal contempt, we find as per Section 2(c) of the Act, reading as under: 2. Definitions – In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires – (c) ‘criminal contempt’ means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter of the doing of any other act whatsoever which – (i) scandalises or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner; Of all the three possibilities mentioned in Section 2(c) of the Act for an act to constitute criminal contempt, the present situation if at all has to be brought within the scope of Section 2(c)(i) of the Act. 7. While it may be a fact that the display board does not mention the case number and such particulars of the case in which a possible order in favour of the accused might have been passed, what all it says is that trespassers will be prosecuted and there is an order passed by the High Court of Karnataka also to this effect. 8. While prosecuting trespassers is as per law and the courts are meant to uphold the law, we do not see any act or conduct on the part of the accused person which can be characterized as either scandalizing or tends to scandalize or lower or tend to lower the authority of the High Court even by display of the board without mentioning the case number etc., and at any rate, we are of the definite opinion that the conduct of the respondent-accused can never constitute an action in the nature of criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2(c)(i) of the Act. 9. We have no choice but to reject this contempt petition even at the threshold. 10. Before parting, we cannot help but to strike a note of caution that contempt power conferred on the high court, both under the provisions of the Act and under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, is a very solemn, valuable potent of power, which should be put to use in cases where it is necessary and inevitable. 10. Before parting, we cannot help but to strike a note of caution that contempt power conferred on the high court, both under the provisions of the Act and under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, is a very solemn, valuable potent of power, which should be put to use in cases where it is necessary and inevitable. Use of such vast and drastic power in trivial matters can only belittle the sanctity and efficacy of this jurisdiction and in fact may be counterproductive, as in the name of protecting the image of judiciary, upholding the dignity of courts etc., what will actually happen is to the contrary and the image and dignity of the court may, on the other hand, will not remain the same in the perception of common man of the country. 11. Courts are meant to uphold law, enforce rule of law, provide protection to affected citizens in accordance with law, protect the weak and gullible from the oppression of the strong and mighty and also from the tyranny of persons who are in authority and to inspire confidence amongst members of the society that they will get such protection and their grievance, will be redressed in accordance with law when they approach courts. 12. Courts are meant to ensure that liberty and freedom are retained and no one is unduly or illegally deprived of his/her liberty and freedom. Court proceedings are not of any comfort or convenience to any person who is arraigned as a respondent in a civil case or an accused in a criminal case, but on the other hand, can cause considerable hardship, misery and much more to persons who have to appear before courts and answer to court notices and summons. Every court proceeding, whether civil or criminal, should be initiated bona fide, for a definite purpose and not as a matter of course or just because process of court is available. 13. This contempt petition is rejected.