Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3580 (ALL)

In Re : Zila Adhivakta Sangh Allahabad v. .

2015-11-18

A.P.SAHI, ARUN TANDON, D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, DILIP GUPTA, RAKESH TIWARI, TARUN AGARWALA, V.K.SHUKLA

body2015
JUDGMENT (By the Court) A criminal contempt application, bearing Contempt Application (Criminal) No 31 of 2015 has come up on a reference made by Shri Achchhe Lal Gupta, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No 7, Aligarh1 which was forwarded along with a letter dated 2 August 2015 of the District Judge Shri S K Agarwal. The letter of reference contains allegations against Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh, Ex-President, Civil Bar Association, Aligarh, Shri Jagdish Saraswat, President, Aligarh Bar Association and Shri Ganesh Sharma, Advocate. In his letter, the Magistrate states that on 30 July 2015, after hearing regular bail applications, he had retired to his chamber at 1.30 pm when Shri Ganesh Sharma, Advocate entered his retiring room. Shri Ganesh Sharma had been engaged in a case bearing Case Crime No 166 of 2015 (State Vs Rahul) under Sections 452, 323, 354-B, 504 and 506 of the Penal Code of Police Station Akbarabad. According to the Magistrate, Shri Ganesh Sharma upon entering his chamber placed an envelope before him and asked him to grant bail to the accused in the case. Thereupon, the Magistrate replied that an order which is legally appropriate would be passed and that the envelope should be taken back. Shri Ganesh Sharma thereupon left the chamber and returned about 15 or 20 minutes later together with Shri Jagdish Saraswat, President, Aligarh Bar Association and Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh, Advocate and former President. Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh is alleged to have called upon the Magistrate to grant bail to the accused stating that this is not merely a request but an order. When the Magistrate left his retiring room for the court and was climbing the stairs of the court, he alleges that the three Advocates -- Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh, Shri Jagdish Saraswat and Shri Ganesh Sharma came and insisted that bail should be granted failing which he would face dire consequences. The Magistrate stated that he would pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. Thereupon he alleges that Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh grabbed his collar and punched him on the face and subjected him to abuse. In the course of the incident, his spectacles were broken. Thereafter, all the three Advocates grabbed him by the neck and hand and dragged him from the court to the retiring room where he was assaulted with a sharp object that caused injuries on his palm and finger. In the course of the incident, his spectacles were broken. Thereafter, all the three Advocates grabbed him by the neck and hand and dragged him from the court to the retiring room where he was assaulted with a sharp object that caused injuries on his palm and finger. The band that the Magistrate was wearing was torn in the process. The court muharrir together with the employees of the court and security guards rescued him. On 6 August 2015, a Division Bench of this Court came to the prima facie view that the facts which were disclosed satisfy the ingredients of a criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt Courts Act, 1971 and that the matter required to be proceeded against. Notices were directed to the issued to the aforesaid Advocates through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh to show cause as to why charges may not be framed against them and as to why they should not be tried for committing a criminal contempt. The reference which was made before the Division Bench has been taken up together with the suo motu proceedings before the present Bench of seven Judges of this Court. By the order of this Court dated 14 August 2015, notices were issued to the three Advocates. On 10 September 2015, an affidavit was filed by Shri Jagdish Saraswat, President of the Aligarh Bar Association in response to the notice which was issued by the Court denying that he had participated in the incident. This Court by its order dated 24 September 2015 found that the explanation which was tendered was not adequate for the following reasons: "Prima facie, the affidavit which has been filed by Sri Jagdish Saraswat does not explain what steps were taken by him to inquire into the incident which took place on 30 July 2015 when a Judicial Officer, Achhey Lal Gupta then presiding as the ACJM in the 7th Court at Aligarh was assaulted. A judicial order has been passed by the judge who was assaulted on 25 August 2015 which has been annexed to the affidavit filed by Sri Jagdish Saraswat at Annexure-1. The judicial order contains a detailed account of the incident which took place and specifically names the persons who had assaulted him including Sri Jagdish Saraswat, Sri P.K. Singh and Sri Ganesh Sharma. The judicial order contains a detailed account of the incident which took place and specifically names the persons who had assaulted him including Sri Jagdish Saraswat, Sri P.K. Singh and Sri Ganesh Sharma. Not only this, but it further transpires that the District Bar Association thereafter proceeded to pass a resolution demanding the transfer of the judge. Sri Saraswat is a party to the resolution passed by the District Bar." The affidavits which were filed by Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh and Shri Ganesh Sharma practically in the same terms were also not found to be satisfactory. However, in the interests of justice, a further opportunity was granted to file an explanation. In pursuance of the earlier directions, affidavits have been filed on 2 October 2015. The affidavits state that on 30 July 2015, an emergent meeting was called under the directions of Shri Saraswat as President of the Aligarh Bar Association where a resolution was passed condemning the assault on the Magistrate. However in the same breath, it has been stated that earlier a resolution was passed calling for a strike because by that time a First Information Report had been lodged against Shri Saraswat and two other Advocates. On 10 August 2015, the strike was called off except in regard to the court of the Magistrate Shri Achchhe Lal Gupta who had alleged the assault on him on 30 July 2015. On 18 August 2015, it has been stated that the boycott of the court of the Magistrate was withdrawn by a resolution of the Bar Association. The Advocates have stated that they had surrendered in the Court on 19 August 2015 in Case Crime No. 471 of 2015 and they were taken into custody. They were enlarged on bail on 25 August 2015 by the District Judge, Aligarh and were released from jail on 26 August 2015. Prima facie, having considered the disclosures which have been made in the affidavits which have been filed by the three Advocates, we are of the view that a case has been made out for proceeding against them in the jurisdiction to punish for criminal contempt and for framing charges against Shri Jagdish Saraswat, Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh and Shri Ganesh Sharma in regard to the alleged incident of assault on Shri Achchhey Lal Gupta on 30 July 2015 in the precincts of the District Court at Aligarh. Accordingly, following charge is framed: "You, Shri Jagdish Saraswat, Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh and Shri Ganesh Sharma assaulted Shri Achchhe Lal Gupta, then Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh on 30 July 2015 in the precincts of the District Court at Aligarh, as stated in the reference letter dated 30 July 2015 of Shri Gupta which was forwarded along with a letter dated 2 August 2015 of Shri S K Agarwal, District Judge, Aligarh and are, therefore, guilty of criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971." We grant a further period of three weeks to the three Advocates to file their replies to the charges as framed. The proceedings shall now be listed on 11 December 2015 at 2.00 pm. The registers of the Aligarh Bar Association and the Civil Bar Association, Aligarh, which have been produced before the Court are returned to the learned counsel to be produced before the Court on the next date of listing. We have considered the reply which has been filed by Shri Hari Om Varshney, who had recorded the minutes of the joint meeting of the Aligarh Bar Association and the Civil Bar Association. No role has been ascribed to Shri Varshney in regard to the alleged incident of assault on the Magistrate. Having considered the reply which has been filed by Shri Hari Om Varshney, we deem it expedient in the interest of justice to drop the proceedings against him. The proceedings against Shri Hari Om Varshney are accordingly dropped. Re: Incident at District Court Lucknow In pursuance of the previous order of this Court dated 29 October 2015, Smt Richa Joshi, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow has submitted her comments. We direct that a copy of the comments be supplied to Shri Shiv Raj Mohan Nigam, Advocate so as to enable him to submit a response, if any, by the next date of listing. The Registry shall furnish a copy of the comments to Shri Nigam during the course of the day. Re: Incident at District Court Allahabad We have considered the replies filed by Shri Raj Kumar Ojha and Shri C P Tiwari, Advocates. Having duly considered the replies, we deem it appropriate in the interest of justice not to pursue the proceedings against the two Advocates any further. The proceedings against these two Advocates are accordingly dropped. Re: Incident at District Court Allahabad We have considered the replies filed by Shri Raj Kumar Ojha and Shri C P Tiwari, Advocates. Having duly considered the replies, we deem it appropriate in the interest of justice not to pursue the proceedings against the two Advocates any further. The proceedings against these two Advocates are accordingly dropped. However, we direct the District Judge, Allahabad, having regard to the material which has been placed on the record before the Court, to submit a report to this Court in the event that he comes across any breach of discipline by the two Advocates in future. The explanation which has been tendered by the President and Secretary of the District Bar Association, Allahabad are accepted and no further proceedings are required. However, we direct that both the President and Secretary shall take necessary steps to ensure that proper order is maintained by the Advocates in the precincts of the District Court at Allahabad and that no incident of manhandling of any litigant or police officers who are deputed on duty takes place. This order, it is clarified, shall not affect the pendency of criminal proceedings or the criminal misc writ petition which shall be dealt with independently on its own merits, by the Division Bench assigned according to roster. In respect of the incident which is alleged to have taken place in the court room of Smt Swati, Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad on 29 July 2015 involving an assault on two accused who were produced before the Court in Case Crime No 117 of 2015 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 and 307 of the Penal Code, we consider it appropriate to direct that a comment/report of the Judicial Magistrate be obtained. The report shall be placed in these proceedings on the next date of listing. The District Judge, Allahabad shall forward the comment/report of Smt Swati, Judicial Magistrate to the Registrar General of this Court. Re: Incident at District Court Pratapgarh We have considered the affidavits which have been filed by the Advocates in relation to the alleged incident in the District Court of Pratapgarh, namely: (i) Shri Vinod Chandra Tiwari; (ii) Shri Santosh Pandey; (iii) Shri Dinesh Kumar Pandey @ D K Pandey; (iv) Shri Abhishek Tiwari; and (v) Shri Anil Kumar Tiwari. Re: Incident at District Court Pratapgarh We have considered the affidavits which have been filed by the Advocates in relation to the alleged incident in the District Court of Pratapgarh, namely: (i) Shri Vinod Chandra Tiwari; (ii) Shri Santosh Pandey; (iii) Shri Dinesh Kumar Pandey @ D K Pandey; (iv) Shri Abhishek Tiwari; and (v) Shri Anil Kumar Tiwari. Having considered the affidavits, we deem it expedient in the interests of justice not to pursue the proceedings against the aforesaid five Advocates any further. We accordingly drop the proceedings against them and the order restraining them from entering the premises of the District Court at Pratapgrah stands withdrawn. The Court has been assured and an undertaking has been furnished through Counsel that all necessary steps shall be taken to ensure that the conduct and behaviour of the aforesaid Advocates in the premises of the District Court and outside meets the standards expected of a member of the legal profession. The District Judge, Pratapgarh shall report any incident of non-compliance to the Registrar General of this Court. List on 11 December 2015 at 2.00 p.m.