Hon'ble LOHRA, J.—Invoking Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short, 'Act of 1971'), Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, a Judicial Officer in the cadre of Chief Judicial Magistrate, while working at Hanumangarh, addressed a letter to this Court for initiating proceedings for Criminal Contempt against the non-petitioners/contemnors. 2. Taking cognizance of the letter and the contents thereof, the Division Bench of this Court initiated contempt proceedings by order dated 28th of October 2009 and the non-petitioners were issued notices. Thereafter, on 4th of January 2010, the contemnors were directed to appear in person before the Court on 18th of January 2010. 3. In the letter addressed to this Court, the petitioner/ complainant Mr. Rajeshwar Singh has narrated a checkered history about a criminal complaint filed by the first non-petitioner under Section 3(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with Section 109, 114, 294, 509, 120-B, Indian Penal Code against the feature film “Delhi-6”, by arraying Rakesh Omprakash Mehra and other artists, and producer of the film as accused persons. 4. The case of the first contemnor-non-petitioner in the said complaint was pleaded by his counsel second non-petitioner Mr. Vishnu Kumar Sharma, Advocate. As per the contents of the letter, the complainant-petitioner made all endeavor to process the criminal complaint by asking the counsel for the first non-petitioner to get the statements of the complainant and other witnesses recorded under Section 200 read with Section 202, Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, but his efforts failed as the counsel Mr. Vishnu Kumar Sharma declined to get the said statements recorded. According to the complainant, the counsel was not keen for taking recourse to Sections 202 & 202 Cr.P.C., and therefore, insisted before the Court/him to order registration of FIR against the persons named as accused in the complaint. 5. Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, the complainant-petitioner, has also castigated the non-petitioners for mis-behaviour with him and use of intemperate language. The complainant-petitioner has also alleged in the letter that when the non-petitioners did not cooperate in the proceedings of the Court for recording statements under Section 200 read with Section 202 Cr.P.C., he in exercise of his judicial discretion examined the entire complaint and found that no case for taking cognizance of any offence is made out against the accused persons, and therefore, dismissed the complaint by dictating order on the same day. 6. 6. As per the version of the complainant, a judicial order passed by him immediately became cause of grievance/annoyance for the second non-petitioner and he started shouting in the Court with a threatening tone. Despite indecency shown by the second non-petitioner, according to the complainant, he advised the second non-petitioner to file appropriate revision petition against the order of dismissal of the complaint. Letter/complaint further states that after about a month of this episode, on 1st of May 2009, both the non-petitioners appeared in the Court of the complainant and informed the Reader of the Court that they want to file a criminal complaint against him (petitioner-complainant herein), and thereupon said information was divulged by the Reader to petitioner-complainant when he was dictating order in some other case in his Chamber. On receiving this information, the petitioner immediately left the dictation in midst and entered the Court-room. After commencing the proceedings of the Court, he immediately called Mr. Vishnu Kumar Sharma and apprised him that he did not have any personal vengeance against him or his client, and a judicial order passed by him in exercise of his discretion may not be taken as cause of acrimony and grievance by him and his client. However, according to the complainant/petitioner, for a very trivial matter, the things were blown out of proportion by the non-petitioners to shape it with unpleasant colour. Letter also indicates that despite good counseling, the second non-petitioner did not mend his threatening tone and uttered that he is a communist and has no faith in God. For avoiding any sort of confrontation thereafter, as per the version of the complainant, he immediately retired to his Chamber for completing dictation. 7. As unfolded in the letter, the sequence of events took yet another ugly turn and at the behest of the first non-petitioner, his counsel the second non-petitioner filed a complaint in his Court under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with Section 506, Indian Penal Code. Upon receiving the complaint, the same was posted for 5th of May 2009 by the petitioner and on the appointed date after perusing the office report and in view of the fact that he was arrayed as accused in the complaint, it was immediately transferred to other Court, i.e. Addl. Upon receiving the complaint, the same was posted for 5th of May 2009 by the petitioner and on the appointed date after perusing the office report and in view of the fact that he was arrayed as accused in the complaint, it was immediately transferred to other Court, i.e. Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) & Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh, by fixing the next date as 6th of May 2009 by him. The said ordersheet was drawn by petitioner-complainant but Vishnu Kumar Sharma refused to sign the ordersheet. Ultimately, the complaint, which was filed against the complainant-petitioner, was dismissed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) cum Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh on 19th of May 2009. 8. On a meaningful consideration of the recitals contained in the letter, it is borne out that the complainant-petitioner has projected a very dismal picture to substantiate the allegation of criminal contempt against the non-petitioners. In the estimation of the complainant, the non-petitioners have made a deliberate attempt to scandalize or lower down the authority of the Court of law and their acts and omissions clearly tantamount to obstructing the process of administration of justice. The whole endeavor of the complainant was to apprise this Court that the serious omissions and commissions by the non-petitioners was deliberate and ill-motivated with a view to denigrate the dignity and majesty of Court of law, and therefore, appropriate action for criminal contempt of Court be initiated against them and they are liable to be punished for their acts and deeds. 9. On behalf of non-petitioner-contemnors, separate replies to the contempt petition were submitted. The first non-petitioner, in the reply, at the threshold tendered unconditional apology with the positive assertion that he has highest regards for judiciary and judicial officers. While adverting to the criminal complaint laid by him against feature film Delhi-6, he has submitted that he felt hurt on watching the film, wherein some dispersing remarks were made against the caste to which he belongs and depicted atrocious/ obnoxious gestures towards the caste as such, which tempted him to file the criminal complaint. He has further submitted that against the order rejecting his complaint by the petitioner/ complainant, a criminal revision is preferred by him and the same is pending consideration before Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Hanumangarh. He has further submitted that against the order rejecting his complaint by the petitioner/ complainant, a criminal revision is preferred by him and the same is pending consideration before Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Hanumangarh. Defending his action, the first non-petitioner has submitted in the reply that he never intended to disregard the petitioner judicial officer or the learned District & Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh and he is keeping judiciary or the judicial officers in highest esteem. In totality, he has submitted in the return that the applications were filed by him bonafide to protect his caste from denigration. Once again the first non-petitioner has reiterated his stand to tender unconditional apology for his role in the entire episode. The non-petitioner No.2 in his reply has also asserted with all humility at his command that he has highest regards for judiciary and judicial officers and tenders unconditional apology for his alleged omissions and commissions. While asserting that he is a practicing lawyer at Suratgarh and Hanumangarh since 2001, it was submitted that he never intended to show disrespect or in any way humiliate or create any pressure on the petitioner. Taking an affirmative stand in his reply, the second non-petitioner has averred that he never hatched any conspiracy against the petitioner nor he has any personal grudge against him. The second non-petitioner has also clarified in the reply that as an Advocate he has conducted the case of his client while showing respect to the Presiding Officer. Lastly, he has prayed for dropping of the contempt proceedings in the interest of justice. 10. After submission of the aforementioned replies on behalf of non-petitioners, one more supplementary reply was submitted jointly by the non-petitioners reiterating their stand that they are keeping judiciary and judicial officers in highest esteem. In their supplementary reply, the non-petitioners have made an attempt to justify their action and categorically denied the allegations that they have threatened the petitioner/complainant. 11. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the non-petitioners has submitted that both the non-petitioners are tendering unconditional apology and further the first non-petitioner has also withdrawn the revision petition, which he has preferred against the dismissal of his criminal complaint by the petitioner on 1st of May 2009. 11. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the non-petitioners has submitted that both the non-petitioners are tendering unconditional apology and further the first non-petitioner has also withdrawn the revision petition, which he has preferred against the dismissal of his criminal complaint by the petitioner on 1st of May 2009. With these submissions, the learned Senior Counsel has urged that now the non-petitioners have shown their remorse for the entire episode and whatever is transpired in the Court during consideration of the criminal complaint filed by the first non-petitioner against the feature film Delhi-6, the proceedings for Criminal Contempt be dropped by accepting their unconditional apology. “Criminal Contempt” is defined under Section 2 (c) of the Act of 1971, which reads as under: 2.(c) “criminal contempt" means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or other-wise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which- (i) scandalizes 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. 12. From a bare perusal of the definition of criminal contempt, it is amply clear that dignity and majesty of law Courts is paramount for the purposes of securing a feeling of confidence of people in general and for due and proper administration of justice in the country, and any attempt to scandalize the Court, or obstruction in the process of administration of justice is to be dealt with sternly. It is a powerful weapon in the hands of law Courts by reason whereof the exercise of jurisdiction must be with due care and caution and for larger interest. The proceedings for contempt are quasi criminal in nature and therefore satisfaction of the Court about the guilt of the incumbent beyond reasonable doubt is insisted in these proceedings as akin to that of criminal proceedings. 13. Hon’ble Apex Court, in a recent judgment in case of National Fertilizers Limited vs. Tuncay Alankus & Anr. The proceedings for contempt are quasi criminal in nature and therefore satisfaction of the Court about the guilt of the incumbent beyond reasonable doubt is insisted in these proceedings as akin to that of criminal proceedings. 13. Hon’ble Apex Court, in a recent judgment in case of National Fertilizers Limited vs. Tuncay Alankus & Anr. ( (2013) 9 SCC 600 ), while relying on a judgment of Lord Denning in Bramblevate Ltd., In re, has reiterated that contempt proceedings are quasi criminal in nature, and therefore, standard of proof in these proceedings is akin to criminal proceedings. The Hon’ble Apex Court made following observations in Para 35 to 37: 35. In Chhotu Ram vs. Urvashi Gulat i this Court in paras 2 and 3 of the judgment held as under: (SCC pp 532-33) “2. As regards the burden and standard of proof, the common legal phraseology ‘he who asserts must prove’ has its due application in the matter of proof of the allegations said to be constituting the act of con-tempt. As regards the ‘standard of proof’, be it noted that a proceeding under the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court in terms of the provi-sions of the Contempt of Courts Act is quasi-criminal, and as such, the standard of proof required is that of a criminal proceeding and the breach shall have to be established beyond all reasonable doubt. 3. Lord Denning (in Bramblevale Ltd., In Re) lends concurrence to the aforesaid and the same reads as below: (Ch.p.137A-B & E : All ER pp. 1063 H-1064 B). “A contempt of court is an offence of a criminal character. A man may be sent to prison for it. It must be satisfactorily proved. To use the time-honoured phrase, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is not proved by showing that, when the man was asked about it, he told lies. There must be some further evidence to incriminate him. Once some evidence is given, then his lies can be thrown into the scale against him. But there must be some other evidence…. Where there are two equally consistent possibilities open to the court, it is not right to hold that the offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt.” 36. Mr. There must be some further evidence to incriminate him. Once some evidence is given, then his lies can be thrown into the scale against him. But there must be some other evidence…. Where there are two equally consistent possibilities open to the court, it is not right to hold that the offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt.” 36. Mr. Banerjee submitted that a charge of contempt may also be established on preponderance of circumstances and in support of the submission he relied upon a decision of this Court in Rajendra Sail vs. M.P. High Court Bar Assn. 37. We have gone through the decision relied upon by Mr. Banerjee and we find that in Rajendra Sail, the Court held the contemnor guilty on the basis of “preponderant circumstances”. In other words, all the circumstances taken together led to the unimpeachable finding of the contemnor’s guilt. But that is not to say that in Rajendra Sail this Court relaxed or diluted the standard or degree of proof to establish the guilt of contempt. 14. We have examined the petition for contempt and considered the subsequent events about withdrawal of the revision petition by the first non-petitioner (complainant) against the order of rejection of his criminal complaint. Besides that, we have also given our thoughtful consideration to the unconditional apology and repentance shown by both the non-petitioners. Analyzing the aims and objects of the Act of 1971, we sincerely feel that scandalizing the Court or tendency to lower down the authority of Court is a matter of grave concern and this Court cannot grant latitude to an individual, who has made an affirmative attempt to obstruct process of administration of justice. However, the Court is quite conscious that contempt jurisdiction is to be resorted sparingly with utmost care and caution. 15. It is trite that respect is to be commanded and not to be demanded and the contempt of Court is not to be used as a lethal weapon to penalize someone on trivial issues like hot altercations during judicial proceedings. Repentance is a tool which condones all sorts of misdemeanors and if the apology tendered by the contemnor is coming from the heart, it is not in fitness of things to continue with the contempt proceedings against the erring individual. Repentance is a tool which condones all sorts of misdemeanors and if the apology tendered by the contemnor is coming from the heart, it is not in fitness of things to continue with the contempt proceedings against the erring individual. Therefore, in the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the case and the remorse shown by the contemnors by tendering unconditional apology at the earliest possible opportunity without contesting the contempt notice, we feel persuaded to accept their unqualified apology. One more mitigating factor for taking a benevolent and charitable view in the matter is the fact that first non-petitioner contemnor has withdrawn his criminal revision petition laid by him against the dismissal of his criminal complaint in relation to feature film, Delhi-6. Thus, on objective analysis of the entire fact scenario, we feel disinclined to continue with the contempt proceedings in the matter. 16. Accordingly, we accept the unconditional apology tendered by the non-petitioner-contemnors and drop the proceedings. The contempt proceedings are accordingly closed and notices are discharged.