JUDGMENT : 1. The minimum facts that are required for determining this petition, which has been posted for maintainability, is as follows: i) The petitioner-in-person has filed Crl.O.P.(MD) No.611 of 2011 to call for the records of the FIR No.201 of 2006 and S.R.No.5576 of 2008 from the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichy and set aside the same. ii) In the present affidavit that has been filed by the petitioner-in-person in support of the contempt petition, he has alleged that on 07.07.2015, Mr.Anbarasu, who acted as the Public Prosecutor before this Court had made a statement before this Court on 07.07.2015 in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.611 of 2011 to the effect that “Police had already closed the case on 'Mistake of fact and Law'”. This statement, according to the petitioner, is false and therefore, contempt action should be take against Mr.Anbarasu. Since the office felt that the contempt petition is not maintainable, the same was posted before me for deciding the issue of maintainability. 2. Mr.S.J.Sundar Singh / Part-in-Person has reiterated his stand that the present contempt petition is maintainable. But, he was not able to show the provisions of law in support of his contention. 3. Be that as it may, this Court perused the records and found that there is no order passed on 07.07.2015 regarding the alleged statement of Mr.Anbarasu, Public Prosecutor in-Charge. Even there is one that cannot lead to contempt action as prayed for by the petitioner. The Contempt of Courts has been defined under Section 2 (b) (c) of the Act, which reads as follows: “2(b) “civil contempt” means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a Court; 2(c) “criminal contempt” means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which- (i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, 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.” 4. In the opinion of this Court, the above said allegations made by the party-in-person against Mr.Anbarasu, that he made such representation, does not fall in any of the categories of contempt enumerated above, inasmuch as, a) there is no record on the file of this Court that such representation was made; b) there is no record to show that this Court had passed any orders, pursuant to the said representation, resulting in obstruction of administration of justice. In the result, the objection raised by the Registry as to the maintainability of this contempt petition is upheld and this petition stands dismissed as not maintainable.