Judgment :- ShylendraKumar, J. This criminal contempt petition is registered suo-motu by the registry of this Court on receiving a communication dated 17.2.2011 originating from the office of Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Chickballapur and through proper channel addressed to the Registrar General of the High Court and the learned Senior Civil Judge and CJM., Chickballapur having made a request for initiating contempt proceedings against the accused-an advocate practicing before that Court, for the reason that certain uttering by the advocate in the open court hall on the 10th of February 2011, are according to the learned Judge who has passed the orders in RA No.31/2011 pending before that court and which uttering was out of passion which reads as under in the said letter: “1. As Tahsildar was sitting in the Court Hall from 11-00 AM to 5.00 PM, this Court has ordered in his favour. 2. 50% of the Advocates have seen Tahsildar, visiting the chambers of the Judge at 2.30 PM. 3. I have not seen this type of orders made in my entire career of 40 years at the Bar. 4. Government Advocate knew that the orders would be in his favour, hence he has not entered into the Court, Now he is coming (then it was 5.05 PM) 5. He called the clients before me and told that he had told him earlier to take the transfer of the case but you did not do so and as I told, orders have been made in favour of the Government that is appellants. 6. Earlier this Court had ordered for the stay wrongly, and then vacated the stay and now having stayed has done injustice. 7. This Court acts in accordance with Tahsildar.” Therefore, the learned Presiding Officer of the Court being of the opinion that such words spoken to in the court hall and the conduct of the advocate amount to scandalizing a Court virtually questioning the integrity and honesty of the Judge and that the uttering being directed towards the Presiding Officer and the learned Judge also having indicated as she is rather hurt by such conduct and expression of the advocate, has sent the letter through proper channel for commensurate action in accordance with law, etc. 2. 2. Notice had been issued to the accused and while Registrar General was before this Court on earlier dates as this Court wanted certain clarifications, etc., ultimately issue of summons was ordered by the Court on 8.11.2011 returnable by 21.11.2011. 3. The developments thereafter are indicated as per the orders dated 21.11.2011, 7.12.2011 and 12.12.2011, the first and last orders of which are extracted below: “DVSKJ & CRKSJ: 21st November 2011 CRIMINAL CCC No.16/2011 The accused Mr Srinivasa, advocate, Chickballapur is present before the Court, Mr. G.S. Bhat, Advocate submits that he has filed power for the accused person. 2. However, both the accused person and the counsel for the accused person complain that except for receiving the summons in Form no.1 issued under Rule 8(ii)(b) directing the accused to appear before this Court on 21.11.2011 and show cause why such action as is deemed fit should not be taken against the person, the summons is not accompanied by any papers either the petition or the annexures as is required in terms of Rule 8(ii)(b) of The High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981. 3. Learned counsel for the accused submits that the accused person is not in a position to show any cause in the absence of understanding as to what is the allegation or what are the facts and circumstances leading to the issuing summons in the contempt petition as nothing else is furnished. 4. It is rather surprising that inspite of the very Rule quoted in the summon in form no.1 indicating that summons should be accompanied by a copy of the petition and annexures of the contempt petition, a summons has originated from the registry of this Court without such petition and annexures accompanying the summons. It only reflects, on the laxity prevalent in the registry of this Court which has been noticed quite often of late. 5. In the circumstances, we had summoned Sri Krishna Bhat, Registrar – General of this Court – the complainant in this petition and have apprised him of this inefficiency in the functioning of the registry of the High Court. 6. This is a suo motto contempt petition registered on a letter dated 17.2.2011 addressed to the Registrar – General from Smt. Rajeshwari N. Hegde, Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Chickballapur. 6. This is a suo motto contempt petition registered on a letter dated 17.2.2011 addressed to the Registrar – General from Smt. Rajeshwari N. Hegde, Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Chickballapur. Registry is directed to furnish forthwith a copy of the petition and the annexures of the petition to the learned counsel appearing for the accused person. 7. It is also rather surprising that the cause list does not show the position with regard to the summons sent to the accused person, except that the cause list indicates that the contempt petition is listed for orders and it is suo-motto. 8. Registrar – General is directed to look into all these aspects and ensure that things are set right in the registry and submit an independent report about its development to the Court. 9. Matter be listed on 07.12.2011. Response if any of the accused by 07.12.2011.” “DVSKJ & CRKSJ: 12.12.2011 Crl.CCC No.16/2011 Accused person is present before the court today. Mr. G.S. Bhat, Advocate appears for the accused person, Statement of Objections supported by verifying affidavit of the accused is filed. While the Statement of Objections in the very first paragraph reading as under: 1. The accused has the highest respect to all the Courts and has never indulged in any action which would either scandalize or interfere with the authority of the Courts. In his entire career of spreading over 42 years there has never been any allegation or incident wherein he is accused of any act of scandalizing any court. The accused hereby offers unconditional and unqualified apology. The accused has been practicing for over 42 years and there has never been any instance involving the accused of any offence and the accused submits that he is currently aged 64 years. In the circumstances, the accused prays that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to drop the contempt petition and accept the apology. indicates that the accused is offering unconditional and unqualified apology and the matter could have ended with that, the accused person nevertheless wants to explain the incident/happenings in the court hall on 10.2.2011 from his view point and his angle and ultimately the prayer is as follows: In the circumstances, it is prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the suo motu contempt petition, in the interests of justice and equity. On our pointed query and questioning Mr. On our pointed query and questioning Mr. G.S. Bhat, learned counsel for the accused, submits that in the event of unconditional apology is not accepted, the matter has to necessarily go for trial and not that the accused person can be punished based on unconditional apology etc. In the wake of contents of the statement of objections of the accused and submission of learned counsel for the accused, we cannot infer that the accused is confessing to the wrong doing and the proceedings for initiation of punishment for having committed criminal contempt does not come to an end. Contempt proceedings is registered by the Registrar General of this court after obtaining orders from the Hon’ble Chief Justice and the High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore, represented by the Registrar General is the complainant. The contempt petition is for seeking the following relief: “Wherefore, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court, may be pleased to initiate Criminal Contempt action against the accused herein and punish him in accordance with law.” andit is verified by the Registrar General with regard to the contents of the petition, its correctness etc. The contempt petition is so registered based on the report dated 17.2.2011 originating from the office of the Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Chickballapur and sent to the Registrar General of the High Court through proper channel, i.e., through the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Chickballapur, Chickballapur District, inter alia, indicating the conduct of the accused N.V. Srinivasa, Advocate during his appearance in RA No.31/2011 (originating from OS No.657/2007) between the State of Karnataka and others being the appellants and Smt. Muniyamma and Another as respondents, certain uttering of the Advocate has left the Presiding Officer rather hurt and therefore for initiating necessary action against the said person, the report was being sent through proper channel. The matter had been listed before the court for the first time on 13.9.2011 and the Registrar General was present before the court on that day and had prayed for time to produce certified copy of the order sheet maintained in RA No.31/2011 before the Court of Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Chickballapur. The matter had been listed before the court for the first time on 13.9.2011 and the Registrar General was present before the court on that day and had prayed for time to produce certified copy of the order sheet maintained in RA No.31/2011 before the Court of Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Chickballapur. This court had summoned the District Judge to appear before the court as the requisite information had not been placed before the court in a proper manner as per the order sheet dated 22.9.2011 and 28.9.2011 and at the request of the Registrar General made before this court on 14.10.2011, the matter was directed to be listed on 8.11.2011 and on 8.11.2011 this court directed issue of summons to the accused returnable by 21.11.2011. The bungling in this case did not come to an end as this court noticed as per order dated 21.11.2011 there were shortcomings in the functioning of the registry, particularly, as notice issued to the accused had not been accompanied by copy of the complaint etc. Thereafter, the Registrar General placed a report before this court on 5.12.2011. We had noticed the inconsistency in the statement of objections filed on behalf of the accused even as on 7.12.2011 while passing the following order: “DVSKJ & CRKSJ: 07.12.2011 ORDER ON IA-1/2011 IA No.1/2011 seeking for exemption from personal appearance of the accused person is filed by Sri Muralidhar, learned counsel for the accused. It is indicated that the respondent-accused is unable to appear before the court today as he is suffering from viral fever etc. IA No.1/2011 is allowed. Objection statement with supporting affidavit of the Accused person is placed before the court and while in the first paragraph, the accused offers unconditional and unqualified apology, thereafter it is also averred that the accused is an Advocate of forty two years standing; he had not experienced such a life hitherto; that he has never intended to lower the dignity of the court nor involved in any scandalizing the authority and dignity of the court; that the accused is not guilty of contempt and therefore contempt proceedings may kindly be dropped etc. Registrar General of this court has also placed before this court report in response to our order dated 21.11.2011 calling for response in the context of the notice which had been issued to the respondent – accused of the registering of contempt case before this court had not been accompanied by the copy of the complaint and annexures etc. The explanation is that the Assistant Registrar incharge of the matter was handicapped due to the fact that the concerned assisting Clerk was on earned leave for a month and that he had not been provided with an alternative Assistant to handle such matters; that while the Assistant Registrar was burdened with heavy work and the fact that the notice had not been put up with the complaint or annexures has escaped his attention; that for want of manpower substitute could not be provided to the Assistant Registrar etc. Registrar General who had been called to the court to ascertain as to who will present the complaint before the court because the Registrar General is the complainant in the suo motu contempt case and has apprised us that the proposal is to issue warning to the Senior Assistant who has the responsibility to oversee preparation of notice and accompanying annexures etc and not to the Assistant Registrar etc. Be that as it may, we find that there is no systematized procedures in such matters and one important aspect which should never be lost sight of is that any notice that is issued from this court in any matter should always be accompanied by copy of the petition, annexures or memorandum of appeal or complaint and not dispatching a notice for appearance of the respondent or the accused. Registrar General to ensure that this procedure is streamlined in the registry. In this confused state of affairs, we direct the Registrar General to refrain from issuing any warning or to pass any adverse remarks on any employee of the High Court, much less to the gullible and helpless Senior Assistant, who should not be made a scapegoat for follies that occur at higher levels. In this confused state of affairs, we direct the Registrar General to refrain from issuing any warning or to pass any adverse remarks on any employee of the High Court, much less to the gullible and helpless Senior Assistant, who should not be made a scapegoat for follies that occur at higher levels. The Registrar General has placed before the file relating to the complaint being registered in the High Court on the basis of the letter from the Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Chickballapur for awarded to the High Court through proper channel i.e., through the District & Sessions Judge, Chickballapur in order to ascertain as to who decided to register the complaint and also as to who will present the case on behalf of the complainant. Registrar General has apprised us that the practice higherto is that no special arrangement is made nor the Registrar General appears, but if a direction is given by the court, necessary arrangements or follow up action will be taken etc. We are of the considered opinion that a decision as to either the Registrar General should appear in the complaint of this nature and present the case before the court or to engage a counsel on behalf of the complainant is necessarily a matter to be decided on the administrative side and therefore it is proper that the Registrar General to place the file before the Hon’ble Chief Justice and apprise the Hon’ble Chief Justice and seek suitable orders in this regard. It is also desirable that procedure in this regard is streamlined as it is a matter of routine that complaints of this nature from learned Judges in the subordinate courts are received in the High Court regularly and they cannot receive a different treatment every time such complaints are received, but once the procedure is streamlined, an uniform treatment to all such matters are ensured. We direct the matter to be listed again, on 12.12.2011 for further orders in respect of this matter. The accused to appear before this court on 12.12.2011. We direct the matter to be listed again, on 12.12.2011 for further orders in respect of this matter. The accused to appear before this court on 12.12.2011. Registrar General to obtain necessary orders in the meanwhile and to place it before the court or if any other arrangement is done, it can be brought to the notice of the court.” The Registrar General has placed before this court submission note relating to this case reading as under: “SUBMISSION NOTE OF THE REGISTRAR GENERAL IN CRIMINAL CCC NO.16/2011. As directed by this Hon’ble Court on 7.12.2011, the undersigned placed a copy of the order before the Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice for kind perusal. On perusal of the entire order, the Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice passed the following order: “Neither the Registrar General nor any other Registrar of the High Court shall appear in the contempt petition and present the case before the Court nor shall the High Court as an eo-nominee complainant engage a Counsel for prosecuting such contempt petitions” Hence the report. Sd/ Bangalore (P Krishna Bhat) Dated: 9.12.2011 Registrar General We had directed the Registrar General to appear in the court hall along with the Registrar (Judicial) and the file relating to passing of the order by the Hon’ble Chief Justice was also produced. The contempt petition though is indicated as suo motu in the cause list, is not really suo motu petition, but a contempt petition registered on the complaint of a Judicial Officer in a court which is subordinate to the High Court i.e., the Judge presiding over the Court of the Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Chickballapur before whom RA No.31/2011 is pending. We had entertained a doubt for taking cognizance of the present complaint/report against the accused person in the wake of the provisions of section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, particularly, the proviso, reading as under: “10. We had entertained a doubt for taking cognizance of the present complaint/report against the accused person in the wake of the provisions of section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, particularly, the proviso, reading as under: “10. Power of High Court to punish contempts of subordinate courts – Every High Court shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction, powers and authority, in accordance with the same procedure and practice, in respect of contempts of courts subordinate to it as it has and exercises in respect of contempts of itself: Provided that no High Court shall take cognizance of a contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a court subordinate to it where such contempt is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). It was in the wake of such statutory provision, this court had directed the Registrar General of this court to find out as to who will be presenting the petition before the court, whether the Registrar General who is the complainant or any arrangement can be made for appearance of any counsel on behalf of the complainant. With the present order passed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice on the administrative side having been placed before the court and the Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice having passed an order that neither the Registrar General nor any other Registrar of the High Court shall appear, they have been virtually restrained from doing so and that no counsel also can be engaged for prosecuting or presenting the contempt petition and virtually the accused having not confessed to the accusation, the matter necessarily may have to go for trial unless this court is otherwise inclined to drop the proceedings accepting so called unconditional apology of the accused person. If the matter goes for trial, there will have to be a counsel to assist the court and we notice that in this state of affairs the court is left with no choice but to direct the learned Advocate General to appear and conduct the proceedings in this case in terms of Rules – 10 and 11 of the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981, reading as under:- 10. Hearing of Cases and Trial:- (i) The accused may file his reply duly supported by an affidavit on or before the first date of hearing or within such extended time as may be granted by the Court. (ii) Upon consideration of the reply filed by the accused and after hearing the parties, the Court may drop the proceeding and discharge the accused. (iii) If the court, upon hearing, is satisfied that there is prima facie case, it shall proceed to frame the charge and furnish a copy of the same to the accused. (iv) The charge shall be read over and explained to the accused and the Court shall record his plea, if any. (v) if the accused pleads guilty, the Court may adjudge him guilty and proceed to pass such sentence as it deems fit; (vi) If the accused pleads not guilty, the case may be taken up for trial on the same day or posted to any subsequent date as directed by the Court. 11. Conducting of Proceedings:- The Court may direct the Advocate General or any other Advocate to appear and conduct the proceedings against the accused.” We therefore direct the learned Advocate General to appear in this case and to conduct the proceedings against the accused and for such purpose, we direct the matter to be listed on 14.12.2011. We particularly need assistance on the question – as to whether the allegations made against the accused can constitute an offence punishable under Indian Penal Code, particularly, having regard to the report of the Judicial Officer of the sub-ordinate court and having regard to the provisions of proviso to section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and section 228 of the Indian Penal Code. Registry to ensure that complete set of papers are made available to the learned Advocate General forthwith, including this order.” 4. We have heard Sri K.M. Nataraj, learned Additional Advocate General and the legal position as on 15.11.2011 which is reflected in the order passed yesterday as under: “DVSKJ & CRKSJ: 15.12.2011 Crl.CCC No.16/2011 Accused is present in the court today. Mr. Nataraj, learned Addl. Advocate General has appeared for the State as requested in terms of our order dated 12.12.2011. The learned Addl. Mr. Nataraj, learned Addl. Advocate General has appeared for the State as requested in terms of our order dated 12.12.2011. The learned Addl. Advocate General has illuminated the dim corners of the scope of operation of Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, by drawing our attention to the decisions of the Supreme Court (a) AIR 1952 Supreme Court 149(b) AIR 1959 Supreme Court 102 (V 46 C 18) (c) AIR 2004 Supreme Court 721. The cumulative effect of these decisions and the legal position that emerges on perusal of these decisions of the Supreme Court, is that the proviso is operative only in a situation where criminal conduct alleged against a person, constitute contempt within the scope of Section 228 of Indian Penal Code; a conduct which is neither less nor more and precisely only that and in any situation where it is a conduct which is of such nature to be lesser or greater than to constitute an offence under Section 228 of IPC i.e. a conduct which is inclusive of an offence beyond the scope of Section 228 of the Act, the proviso is not attracted. It is also submitted that in the wake of this legal position unless the factual position is examined the picture as to whether the proviso is attracted and operates as an embargo to proceed further picture will not be complete and to hear on this possibility, particularly, G.S. Bhat, learned counsel for the respondent – Accused, for such purpose list tomorrow. We place on record our appreciation of the valuable assistance rendered by Sri. Nataraj, learned Addl. Advocate General in illuminating the legal position.” 5. Accused is present today before the Court. We have heard Sri G.S. Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the accused. 6. Mr. We place on record our appreciation of the valuable assistance rendered by Sri. Nataraj, learned Addl. Advocate General in illuminating the legal position.” 5. Accused is present today before the Court. We have heard Sri G.S. Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the accused. 6. Mr. Bhat submits that the legal position in so far as this Court exercising jurisdiction in terms of Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act is as submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General and as is the law which is declared by the Supreme Court in the following three decisions namely in the case of Ramakrishna Reddy vs. State of Madras reported in ( AIR 1952 SC 149 ; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Revashankar reported in ( AIR 1959 SC 102 ) and followed and applied in the case of Arun Paswan, Sub-Inspector vs. State of Bihar reported in ( AIR 2004 SC 721 ) is and further supplemented by Sri S.G. Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the accused by the following decisions i.e., Daroga Singh vs. B.K. Pandey reported in ( AIR 2004 SC 2579 ) and Rajesh Kumar Singh vs. High Court of Judicature of M.P. reported in ( AIR 2007 SC 2725 ). 7. The legal position that emerges on perusal of these judgments is that the bar which is indicated in the proviso to Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, will come into play only in a situation where the conduct of the accused constitutes an offence precisely within the parameters of Section 228 of IPC and anything else or more would get back to the main Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Another requirement as noticed by the Supreme Court for attracting the provisions of Section 228 of IPC is that conduct being one of interfering or obstructing the course of action by a public servant, who is functioning as a judicial officer or in the conduct of judicial proceedings in the presence of such judicial officer. 8. Another requirement as noticed by the Supreme Court for attracting the provisions of Section 228 of IPC is that conduct being one of interfering or obstructing the course of action by a public servant, who is functioning as a judicial officer or in the conduct of judicial proceedings in the presence of such judicial officer. 8. In the instant case, while this being the conduct in view of the Court has fully and squarely made even as per the communication originating from the very presiding officer, contents and objectionable conduct and words uttered by the accused person even prima facie appears to be of a larger ethic than merely being confined to the objectionable uttering being vis-a-viz the presiding officer alone. 9. It is well settled law that in such a situation the matter goes beyond the scope of Section 228 of IPC and does spill over for recognition and action under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act. 10. On an over all examination, we are satisfied in the instant case that this is a matter where the High Court can and has to exercise jurisdiction under Section 10 of the Act not necessarily the proviso alone plays part. 11. The proviso being an exception and the Court having taken the view that it calls a restrictive interpretation, we are satisfied that, this is a case where the proviso is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case as noticed above and therefore, we proceed further in the matter. 12. However, at this stage, Sri Bhat, learned Counsel appearing for the accused person has placed before the Court an affidavit of the accused person reading as under: “AFFIDAVIT I. N.V. Srinivasa, Advocate, No.743, Subbarayanapet, Chickballapur, now come to Bangalore do hereby state on solemn affirmation as under: 1. I am the accused in the above case and I am fully conversant with the facts of the case. Hence, I am competent to swear to this affidavit. 2. I hereby tender unconditional and unqualified apology for the incident on 10.02.2011 that took place before the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) and C.J.M. at Chickaballapur in R.A.No.31/2011. I have repented for the same and request this Hon’ble Court to accept the apology and drop the proceedings.” 13. Hence, I am competent to swear to this affidavit. 2. I hereby tender unconditional and unqualified apology for the incident on 10.02.2011 that took place before the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) and C.J.M. at Chickaballapur in R.A.No.31/2011. I have repented for the same and request this Hon’ble Court to accept the apology and drop the proceedings.” 13. Sri Bhat, learned Counsel submits that the accused person – a practicing advocate expresses his regret and tenders unconditional and unqualified apology and his intention was never to bring down the reputation of the Court much less scandalizing the Court or judicial officer. 14. We have given our anxious consideration to the affidavit and the submissions made at the Bar, while we have no doubt in our mind that the contents of the letter prima facie taken at their face value do indicate the contemptuous conduct on the part of the accused person and do attract the action warranted in respect of the criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2 (c)(iii) of the Act and the matter could have gone further on this aspect. We are fully satisfied that the accused has expressed his genuine regret and has tendered unconditional and unqualified apology before this Court expressing regret about his conduct and we are satisfied that his tender is in a bonafide manner and therefore, in the circumstances, we would accept the unconditional and unqualified apology and drop further proceedings in contempt jurisdiction, in the interest of justice and in the larger interest of upholding the dignity and majesty of Courts and the judicial system. 15. In passing such order, we are to some extent persuaded by the view taken by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Kiran N. Makasare vs State of Maharashtra reported in 1998 Criminal Law Journal 1939 and the observations contained in para-4 reading as below: “4. We have heard learned Advocates for the parties. The proposed action has been taken by the learned Judge under Section 228 of IPC. To constitute an offence under this section, the act must be done intentionally and with intent to insult the Court. In the instant case, we do not think that there was intention on the part of the petitioner to insult or interrupt the Court. The proposed action has been taken by the learned Judge under Section 228 of IPC. To constitute an offence under this section, the act must be done intentionally and with intent to insult the Court. In the instant case, we do not think that there was intention on the part of the petitioner to insult or interrupt the Court. In our opinion, the whole affair has been blown out of proportion and might have been more quietly settled. There is no doubt that a Judicial Officer is entitled to maintain the dignity of the Court but he should not be too sensitive and too ready to take offence where none is intended. The law allows some latitude to a member of the Bar acting bona fide in the discharge of his professional duty so long as his conduct is not so gross so as to lead to an inference that his intention is to insult or interrupt the Court. We feel that the incident was of a trivial nature and there was really no need to resort to the provisions of Section 345, Cr.P.C. It is true that the petitioner repeatedly protested against recording certain statements in the order as being made by him. But every protest made in fact does not interrupt the Court but it is the duty to listen to such protest even if they may delay the proceedings. So long as they are made bona fide, they do not constitute interruption which the section punishes as contempt. In somewhat similar matter arising out of proceedings against a pleader under Section 228 of Indian Penal Code, this Court in In re Dattatraya Venkatesh Belvi, (1904) 6 Bom LR 541 observed that there ought to be a spirit of give and take between the bench and the Bar in such matter and every little persistence on the part of a pleader should not be turned into an occasion for a trial unless the pleader’s conduct is so clearly vexatious as to lead to the inference that his intention is to insult or interrupt the Court. We, however, make it clear that we do not say that we approve the petitioner’s persistence but after he had expressed his sincere regrets in his affidavit, we do not see any point in continuing with the proceedings under Section 345, Cr.P.C. We, therefore, quash the show cause notice issued by the learned Judge under Section 345, Cr.P.C. Petition is accordingly disposed of. Rule is made absolute accordingly. The bail bond given by the petitioner stands cancelled.” 16. Before parting, we would only like to observe that the justice dispensation system as it prevails in an society and country i.e., comprising of Courts, Judges and assisted by the members of the Bar, constitutes one family and the entire system exists for the benefit of the members of the society. Judges and the members of the Bar are instrumentalities in the task of dispensing justice; in the process of providing relief to aspiring litigants who approach Courts and in accordance with the laws and the constitution of the Country. The Mutual respect for one another is a sine qua non for the healthy functioning of this system and it is highly desirable that while members of the bar should necessarily have freedom and liberty to put across their client’s case in a befitting manner without any fear or apprehension and they should be allowed to do so and at the same time, they should also maintain commensurate respect to the judicial officers and at all times ensure that the decorum and dignity of the Court proceedings is maintained. 17. An errant conduct whether on the part of the members of the Bar or even on the Bench, ultimately results in denial of justice to the litigant for whose benefit the entire system exists, will fail. This should be avoided at all times and at all times and at any cost. 18. While in the heat of the moment or in a moment of disappointment or disenchantment, a word or two may slip out, beyond the limits of tolerance, they should be taken with a pinch of salt and should not be given undue importance and we expect the members of the Bar as well as the members of the Judiciary to conduct themselves in such a manner that a fair, healthy and conductive atmosphere prevails in the court hall always. 19. 19. We only expect and impress upon the accused person instances of this nature are to be avoided in future, as otherwise, the law can take its course and the consequences may not be very pleasant. With such hope and expectation, this contempt proceedings is dropped.