JUDGMENT : S.K. Sahoo, J. This suo motu contempt proceeding was initiated on 3.2.2015 after perusal of the reports dated 20.01.2015 and 01.02.2015 of the learned District Judge, Jagatsinghpur, addressed to the Registry of this Court. This Court after perusing those reports was of the view that it was a fit case to take suo motu cognizance of criminal contempt of Court, as contemplated under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereafter ‘the 1971 Act’) against Ms. Sudha Singh, Superintendent of Police Jagatsinghpur and Smt. Sabita Majhi, S.I. of Police, Paradip Police Station. Notices were issued to both the alleged contemnors as prescribed under the 1971 Act and relevant provisions of Chapter-XVII of the Rules of the High Court of Orissa, 1948, framed under section 23 of the 1971 Act, to show cause as to why a proceeding under the said Act would not be initiated against them and further orders as would be deemed appropriate would not be passed. 2. The first report dated 20.01.2015 submitted by the learned District Judge, Jagatsinghpur relates to interference of respondent no.1 Ms. Sudha Singh, Superintendent of Police, Jagatsinghpur in the judicial work of the learned J.M.F.C. (P), Kujanga. It is stated in the report that on 14.1.2015 the learned Magistrate reported him by way of a confidential letter that a phone call was received from S.P., Jagatsinghpur bearing number 9439440000 by the learned Magistrate. The caller asked the learned Magistrate as to why he was sending Complaint Petition under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and why he was enquiring about ill treatment during police custody. The caller asked the learned Magistrate to stop it or else she would report against him. The caller also threatened him for showing highhandedness by enquiring about the ill treatment on the accused in G.R. Case No.42 of 2015 arising out of Paradip P.S. Case No.9 of 2015 for the offences under sections 399/402 of Indian Penal Code read with section 25/27 of the Arms Act. The caller also threatened him for showing highhandedness by enquiring about the ill treatment on the accused in G.R. Case No.42 of 2015 arising out of Paradip P.S. Case No.9 of 2015 for the offences under sections 399/402 of Indian Penal Code read with section 25/27 of the Arms Act. On enquiry by the learned District Judge, it was found that four accused persons were forwarded on 13.01.2015 in the said G.R. Case No.42 of 2015 and it was found that there was no indication of place of arrest and ground of arrest in the arrest-cum-inspection memo by the I.O. and the names and signatures of the witnesses thereon have not been mentioned which is a clear violation of the direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in D.K. Basu’s case and the requirement of Section 41-B(b) and (c) read with section 50-A of the Cr.P.C. The accused persons were not also examined by the Medical Officer belonging to State/Central Government service, while being forwarded to the Court, as required under section 54 of Cr.P.C. The Case Diary was also not transmitted to the Magistrate violating Section 167(1) of the Cr.P.C. and therefore the J.M.F.C. (P) Kujanga had called for an explanation from the concerned Investigating Officer. According to the learned District Judge, the call made by the S.P., Jagatsinghpur to the JMFC (P), Kujanga is an attempt to interfere in discharge of judicial functions of the Magistrate which is highly contemptuous. It was also indicated that during meeting of the Senior Officers in the Judgeship of Jagatsinghpur for the months of November & December, 2014, the S.P., Jagatsinghpur had left the meeting hall with a word not to attend such meeting henceforth. 3. The second report of the learned District Judge indicates that the respondent no.2 Smt. Sabita Majhi, S.I. of Police, Paradip Police Station (S.J.P.U.) produced a Juvenile in conflict with law before the Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jagatsinghpur in Juvenile Case No.40 of 2015 on 01.02.2015 and during the proceeding, the respondent no.2 threatened the C.J.M. to lodge FIR against him for misbehavior when she was asked to discharge her duty as she refused to identify the signature of the J.C.L. on the bail bond and to release the J.C.L. from custody and put her signature on the order sheet. From the second report, it is further revealed that respondent no.1 Smt. Sudha Singh rang up the learned District Judge in his mobile from her mobile phone and told that J.C.L. was arrested with much difficulties but how could he be released on bail by the C.J.M. The learned District Judge told her that it was a judicial order which can only be assailed in a proper Court and cannot be the subject matter of discussion. The respondent no.1 also informed that the respondent no.2 would also lodge an FIR against the Chief Judicial Magistrate. 4. On notices being issued to both the alleged Contemnors, they appeared and filed their individual show causes. In the show cause dated 19.02.2015, respondent no.1 Ms. Sudha Singh stated, inter alia, as follows:- “17. The deponent has never acted in any manner, so as to cause a Criminal Contempt of Court in terms of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The deponent has always sincerely endeavoured to the best of her efforts to ensure better coordination and harmony in discharge of her duties under law in the context of administration of justice and maintenance of majesty of law. 18. In view of the above, the deponent most humbly reiterates and submits unconditional apology to this Hon’ble Court and assures and further undertakes that all and sincere efforts will be made to ensure further smooth functioning and immediate implementation of the orders/directions of this Hon’ble Court. 19. The deponent further most humbly submits her unconditional apology to the Hon’ble District, Judge, Jagatsinghpur, the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate First Cloass (P), Kujang for any perceived misunderstanding which was never intentional nor could have ever been perceived by the deponent and further undertakes that all and sincere efforts will be made to ensure further smooth functioning and immediate implementation of the orders/direction of the respective Hon’ble Courts. 20. The deponent further submits that the sequence of the events/incidents are most unfortunate and craves the indulgence of this Hon’ble Court and reiterates her unconditional apology and most humbly submits that she shall uphold the Majesty of Justice and the Constitution of India, as she has always done, especially being duty bound having taken the solemn oath while joining the Indian Police Service in the year 2007. 21. 21. The deponent further most humbly reiterates and prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to most graciously accept her unconditional apology tendered and the above proceedings be dropped and closed.” In the show cause dated 19.02.2015, respondent no.2 Smt. Sabita Majhi stated, inter alia, as follows:- “12. That I humbly submit that neither I had any intention to disobey the direction of Hon’ble C.J.M.-cum-Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jagatsinghpur nor I had threatened the Hon’ble Principal Magistrate to lodge F.I.R. On the other hand I had discharged my lawful duties by putting my signatures in the margin of the order sheet and did not disobey the order of the Hon’ble Principal Magistrate and if my submission before the Hon’ble Principal Magistrate has ever created any disobedience of Hon’ble Principal Magistrate, I beg unconditional apology for such of my behavior. I further pray your Lordships may be pleased to drop the contempt proceeding initiated against me.” Respondent no.1 Ms. Sudha Singh by way of an additional affidavit dated 19.03.2015 has stated, inter alia, as follows:- “2. The preliminary show-cause affidavit dated 19.02.2015 was filed, inter alia, unconditionally apologizing for giving any occasion for any impression that the deponent had any intention of acting in any manner whatsoever that would interfere or tend to interfere with the intent to obstruct the administration of justice. The apology is not conditional in nature. While unconditionally apologizing, the deponent had placed on record the explanatory narration of events as they actually took place along with supporting documents available with the deponent. 3. The deponent most humbly reiterates that the apology tendered in the preliminary show-cause affidavit dated 19.02.2015 is not conditional in nature in any manner. 4. The deponent most humbly reiterates and submits unconditional apology to this Hon’ble Court and assures and further undertakes that all and sincere efforts will be made to ensure further smooth functioning and immediate implementation of the orders/directions of this Hon’ble Court. 5. The deponent further most humbly submits her unconditional apology to the Hon’ble District Judge, Jagatsinghpur, the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate First Class (P), Kujanga for any perceived misunderstanding which was never intentional nor could have ever been perceived by the deponent and further undertakes that all and sincere efforts will be made to ensure further smooth functioning and immediate implementation of the orders/direction of the respective Hon’ble Courts. 6. 6. The deponent further submits that the sequence of the events/incidents are most unfortunate and craves the indulgence of this Hon’ble Court in reiterating her unconditional apology and most humbly submits that she shall uphold the Majesty of Justice and the Constitution of India, as she has always done, especially being duty bound having taken the solemn oath while joining the Indian Police Service in the year 2006. 7. The deponent further most humbly reiterates and prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to most graciously accept her unconditional apology tendered and be further pleased to direct that the above proceedings be dropped and closed.” Similarly, respondent no.2 Smt. Sabita Majhi in her additional show cause affidavit dated 19.03.2015 has stated, inter alia, as follows:- “2. That I humbly submit that neither I had any intention to disobey the direction of Hon’ble C.J.M.-cum-Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jagatsinghpur nor I had threatened the Hon’ble Principal Magistrate to lodge F.I.R. On the other hand I had discharged my lawful duties by putting my signature in the margin of the order sheet and did not disobey the order of the Hon’ble Principal Magistrate and as my submission before the Hon’ble Principal Magistrate created disobedience of Hon’ble Principal Magistrate, I beg unconditional apology for such of my behavior. I further pray your Lordships may kindly be pleased to drop the contempt proceeding initiated against me.” 5. Both the respondents appeared before this Court in person on number of occasions in connection with this contempt proceeding. We have heard Mr. Jayant Das, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1 Ms. Sudha Singh Mr. Ramani Kanta Pattanaik, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 Smt. Sabita Majhi and Mr. Janmejaya Katikia, Addl. Government Advocate. Law is well-settled that so far as criminal contempt is concerned, it is a matter entirely between the Court and the alleged contemnor. It is for the Court in the exercise of its discretion to decide whether or not to initiate a proceeding for contempt. The Court may in the exercise of its discretion accept an unconditional apology from the alleged contemnor and drop the proceeding for contempt or even after the alleged contemnor is found guilty, the Court may, having regard to the circumstances, decline to punish him. The apology tendered by the alleged contemnor should impress the Court to be genuine and sincere. The Court may in the exercise of its discretion accept an unconditional apology from the alleged contemnor and drop the proceeding for contempt or even after the alleged contemnor is found guilty, the Court may, having regard to the circumstances, decline to punish him. The apology tendered by the alleged contemnor should impress the Court to be genuine and sincere. In case the apology is hollow and there is no real remorse or regret and it was made only to escape from the rigour of the law, the Court may not accept such apology. It is the duty of the Court to erase an impression that unconditional apology is not a complete answer to the matters relating to contempt of Courts. An apology is not a weapon of defence to purge the guilty of their offence; nor it is intended to operate as a universal panacea, but it is intended to be evidence of real contriteness. An apology is to be offered at the earliest opportunity but if it is offered at a time when the contemnor finds that the Court is going to impose punishment, it ceases to be an apology and it becomes an act of a cringing coward. It is not incumbent upon the Court to accept the apology as soon as it is offered. Before an apology can be accepted, the Court must find that it is bona fide and is to the satisfaction of the Court. However, Court cannot reject an apology just because it is qualified and unconditional provided the Court finds it is bona fide. Purpose of proceeding in contempt is mainly to uphold the dignity of the Court and instil confidence in the mind of the people about sanctity of orders by the Courts of Justice. (Ref:- AIR 1974 SC 2255 , Baradakanta Mishra Vs. Justice Gatikrushna Mishra, (2001) 8 Supreme Court Cases 650, Pravin C. Shah Vs. K.A. Mohd. Ali, AIR 1955 SC 19 , M.Y. Shareff Vs. Hon’ble Judges Nagpur, (1991) 3 Supreme Court Cases 600, M.B. Sanghi Vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana, (1972) 3 Supreme Court Cases 839, Mulk Raj Vs. State of Punjab, (2010) 11 Supreme Court Cases 493, Ranveer Yadav Vs. State of Bihar.) 6. K.A. Mohd. Ali, AIR 1955 SC 19 , M.Y. Shareff Vs. Hon’ble Judges Nagpur, (1991) 3 Supreme Court Cases 600, M.B. Sanghi Vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana, (1972) 3 Supreme Court Cases 839, Mulk Raj Vs. State of Punjab, (2010) 11 Supreme Court Cases 493, Ranveer Yadav Vs. State of Bihar.) 6. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective parties and also gone through the show cause affidavits as well as additional affidavits filed by the respondents. The separation of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary constitutes the basic feature of the Constitution. Article 50 of the Constitution of India deals with separation of judiciary from executive. The executive and judiciary are independent of each other within their respective spheres. As a part of constitutional scheme, neither the executive nor the legislature should attempt to interfere with the functions of the judiciary operating within its own sphere. Any threat to judicial independence needs to be dealt with strong arm of law. We are of the view that the sequence of the unfortunate incidents which took place depicts that alleged contemnors/respondents who are supposed to remain within their bounds have tried to cross the ‘Laxman Rekha’. However the majesty of law and the dignity of the Court do not permit to be unduly touchy over the issue particularly when there is repentance on the part of the respondents and they have tendered unqualified apology which appears to us to be genuine and sincere and has been offered at the earliest opportunity. Since the alleged contemnor-respondents have expressed remorse and regret for the unfortunate incidents and have also tendered unconditional apology, we are inclined accept the same. However, looking at the reports of the learned District Judge, Jagatsinghpur, we think it proper that both the respondents Ms. Sudha Singh and Smt. Sabita Majhi should appear before the learned District Judge, Jagatsinghpur as well as Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagatshinghpur and additionally the respondent no.1 Ms. Sudha Singh shall appear before J.M.F.C.(P), Kujanga in person within a week from today in the respective Courts during the Court hours and tender unconditional apology in open Court. Sudha Singh and Smt. Sabita Majhi should appear before the learned District Judge, Jagatsinghpur as well as Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagatshinghpur and additionally the respondent no.1 Ms. Sudha Singh shall appear before J.M.F.C.(P), Kujanga in person within a week from today in the respective Courts during the Court hours and tender unconditional apology in open Court. We hope that the respondents-contemnors henceforth shall maintain the dignity of the Court and shall discharge their duties in right earnest and they will not act in any such manner which undermines the authority of a judicial officer. They are required to act with restraint and conduct themselves in a dignified and respectful manner. With the aforesaid expectations, present contempt proceeding is dropped. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Vinod Prasad, J. : I agree.