JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH) 1. As indicated in the last order, the parties have already been heard in length but since it was thought just and proper to hear the alleged contemnor in person, hence we decided to hear him before passing the final judgment and directed for his personal appearance. The contemnor has appeared in person. He has explained that series of litigation started because his daughter had to lodge a criminal case under Section 498A and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act against her husband and his relations. According to him, after the said case was lodged on 25.4.1999 the in-laws of his daughter gained over the police and attempted to make her case weak and therefore, she filed complaint before the Magistrate and her statement and statement of witnesses were recorded under Section 164 CrPC. According to him, order was passed by the Magistrate for recording such statement on 29.5.1999. Before the statements could be recorded on 31.5.1999, in the night of 30.5.1999 police came to his house and arrested him and his son. For this a criminal case was lodged by his daughter on 31.5.1999 before the CJM, Bhojpur. Allegedly, the police left his son but implicated him in a false case under Section 376 of the IPC bearing Nawadah PS Case No.123/99 dated 30.5.1999 and he was sent to jail on 31.5.1999. He was granted bail when the prosecutrix in the case under Section 376 IPC allegedly made statement before the Magistrate that the case was false. 2. The alleged contemnor admitted that he had written the letter under reference dated 6.3.2010 and brought the same, affixed with stamps, on the record of the sessions case. His defence is that Presiding Officer of the sessions court who has made the reference for present contempt proceeding had caused mental agony and humiliation to him and in his perception the Presiding Officer was protecting the concerned police officers and, therefore, he rejected the prayer of the contemnor for discharge from the case. He also claimed that he was not aware of the niceties of the law that he should have sent the complaint to the higher authorities and should not have brought it on record of the concerned sessions court. He also claimed that he was not aware of the niceties of the law that he should have sent the complaint to the higher authorities and should not have brought it on record of the concerned sessions court. He has further submitted that he wanted his version and documents to be available on record and, therefore, he filed the contemptuous petitions before the sessions court. He has tendered apology and has pressed that it be accepted because his act was not deliberate or intentional. 3. This contempt proceeding was initiated on receipt of letter of Shri Panchanan Sharma, ADJ II, Ara along with original record of Miscellaneous (Contempt) Case NO.1/ 2010 of his court which were forwarded by the District and Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Ara for initiation of the instant proceeding against the Contemnor, Shri Rajendra Upadhya, an accused of Sessions Trial No.95/ 2009 under Section 376 of the IPC. The letter of the Addl. District and Sessions Judge II, Bhojpur, Ara dated 8.7.2010 is to the effect that letter or petition of the contemnor dated 6.3.2010 was written and filed with a view to lower down the prestige of the sessions court and hence, notice had been issued to him in the Miscellaneous (Contempt) Case No.1/2010 initiated by the concerned sessions court and after concluding the proceeding in that case reference was made to this Court. The records received from the court concerned include the letter dated 6.3.2010 which was filed by the contemnor in the court below and thus made public. The letter bears the signature of the contemnor and admittedly he has sent that letter to higher authorities and also brought the same on the record of the Sessions Trial No.95/ 2009. 4. Learned counsel for the State drew our attention to various paragraphs of the letter dated 6.3.2010 particularly paragraphs at internal page 4, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, 19 and 20 to highlight that repeatedly the contemnor has alleged that the court had gone into collusion with police authorities including the concerned Deputy Superintendent of Police and one Advocate and was protecting them and had passed orders for that purpose after ignoring the truth. It was shown that throughout the letter there was repeated statement that the court had rather deliberately ignored the relevant records and had committed irregularity by concealing the truth. 5. It was shown that throughout the letter there was repeated statement that the court had rather deliberately ignored the relevant records and had committed irregularity by concealing the truth. 5. According to learned counsel for the State, the statements made in the letter written by the contemnor are clearly contumacious as they tend to scandalize and lower the authority of the court. It was further submitted that it was with a view to interfere with the due course of the judicial proceeding so that concerned court may not proceed with the matter. 6. On behalf of the contemnor a defence was taken that the letter is in the nature of a complaint against the Presiding Officer of the concerned court made to the High Court and the other higher authorities and hence, it is immune from the charge of contempt by virtue of Section 6 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The other defence is that writing of the letter in question does not amount to publication which is necessary to constitute criminal contempt. He placed reliance upon a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Court on its own Motion v. Ram Piara Comrade, reported in 1973 Cri. L.J 1106. In that case the contemnor had made a complaint to High Court as well as to the Governor and the Chief Minister against Presiding Officer of Subordinate Judiciary using intemperate language. The court found that primarily the complaint was meant for the High Court and hence, the action was protected by Section 6 of the Act. 7. So far as the present case is concerned, in our considered view, protection under Section 6 is no longer available to the contemnor once he decided and brought the letter in question on the records of the concerned sessions court. Such publication or making public of the contumacious letter was beyond the scope of Section 6 of the Act which saves only complaint to the High Court or any other subordinate court if it is made in good faith concerning the Presiding officer of a subordinate court. Such publication or making public of the contumacious letter was beyond the scope of Section 6 of the Act which saves only complaint to the High Court or any other subordinate court if it is made in good faith concerning the Presiding officer of a subordinate court. Since the letter was not confined to the High Court or any other subordinate court but was brought on the record of the court concerned making it a part of the judicial record, good faith alone cannot be a protection in the instant case. Such protection is available only in terms of Section 6 of the Act where the complaint is not to that court but to any other subordinate court or High Court concerned. There is no difficulty in our view in holding that the contemnor by his deliberate act of bringing the letter on the record of the concerned sessions court made the required publication which is necessary for constituting criminal contempt. 8. The main issue which remains to be considered is whether the statements made in the letter dated 6.3.2010 make out a criminal contempt or not. In other words, whether the allegations scandalize or lower down the authority of the court or not or whether it interferes or obstructs the administration of justice in any other manner. On going through the letter in question specially the relevant paragraphs pointed out by learned counsel for the State, we are in agreement with submission advanced on behalf of the State that the statements made in the letter against the Presiding Officer tend to scandalize and lower down the prestige of the court. Bringing it on record of the sessions court, in our view, also tends to interfere with and obstruct the administration of justice. 9. In view of aforesaid discussions and findings, we hold the opposite party guilty of criminal contempt of the court of learned ADJ II, Bhojpur, Ara. 10. Coming to the question of punishment, at the outset we have recorded the submissions made by the contemnor in person. 9. In view of aforesaid discussions and findings, we hold the opposite party guilty of criminal contempt of the court of learned ADJ II, Bhojpur, Ara. 10. Coming to the question of punishment, at the outset we have recorded the submissions made by the contemnor in person. They are corroborated by facts stated in his show cause and those facts are sufficient to create an impression that the contemnor was under great distress on account of developments in his family which had led to filing of criminal case by her daughter and subsequent case against the contemnor under Section 376 of the IPC which according to the contemnor was handiwork and creation of in- laws of his daughter in collusion with some police officials. In such a situation he lost the required balance and instead of sending his letter only to the High Court and higher officials, he also brought it on the record of the concerned sessions court. His defence is that he was under great mental strain and not aware of the grave implications of such an act and that he wanted his defence and submission to come on record. Considering the entire facts, we are persuaded to accept the apology tendered by the opposite party before us in Court. Hence, instead of imposing any sentence, he is let off with a warning not to repeat such act in future. The contempt proceeding is finally disposed of.