ORDER : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. Smt.Aditi Thakur, First Civil Judge Class-II, Ambikapur, District Surguja has referred this reference under Section 12 read with Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter called as 'Act of 1971') further read with Rule 350 (1) of the High Court of Chhattisgarh (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter called as 'Rules of 2007') after holding preliminary inquiry under the Rules of 2007 stating inter-alia that conduct of the respondent/contemner in Court proceeding dated 27.2.2021 prima facie falls within the category of criminal contempt as defined under Section 2(c) of the Act of 1971 and therefore, cognizance be taken under Section 12 read with Section 15(2) of the Act of 1971. 2. After receipt of record, this Court by order dated 02.12.2021 finding the case to be worth consideration, took cognizance of criminal contempt and issued notice to the respondent/contemner for his appearance before this Court and accordingly, in response to the notice so issued, the contemner has appeared and firstly filed preliminary reply on 16.12.2021 regretting for proceeding dated 27.2.2021 and further stated that he did not want to tarnish the image of the Court and only an outcome of heat of moment, the incident happened and he has tendered his apology, which was also reiterated in additional reply dated 14.1.2022 and further in para-6 of reply so filed, he has undertaken that this incident will not be repeated in the near future and tendered his unconditional apology. 3. However, detailed additional reply supported by affidavit to the reference on behalf of the respondent/contemner has been filed on 2.4.2022, in which the respondent/contemner has stated that averments made in reference by the said Court are not true, valid & correct and same is not maintainable in law and order-sheet dated 27.2.2021 on the basis of which the reference has been made has also been disputed by the respondent/contemner by stating that the learned trial Judge has levelled incorrect and untrue allegations against him and order-sheets were ante-dated and were prepared after many days of so called incident and even he has not been given sufficient opportunity for filing his reply and explanation in his defence to the show-cause notice issued by the said Judge/Court. Therefore, the present contempt proceeding initiated and referred by the learned trial Court/Judge is not tenable in the eye of law and closure of his opportunity of hearing on 27.3.2021 by the said Court was in violation of principles of natural justice and no case is made out for reference under Section 15(2) of the Act of 1971 against the respondent/contemner for alleged contempt. It has been alleged that the learned trial Judge has manipulated the order-sheet. Therefore, he be discharged from the case by exonerating him from the charges of criminal contempt under Section 12 of the Act of 1971. Additional statement has also been made in the shape of paras-6 to 16. 4. Dr.N.K.Shukla, learned Senior Counsel with Mr.Manoj Paranjape, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/contemner, would submit that reference as made by the learned Judge under Section 12 read with Section 15(2) of the Act of 1971 taking the aid of Rule 350 (1) of the Rules of 2007 is not at all maintainable as preliminary enquiry has not been conducted in accordance with Rule 350(2) of the Rules of 2007 and no reasonable opportunity of hearing has been granted to the respondent herein. He would rely upon the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of In Re: (Under Contempt of Courts Act) v. Indra Datt Nayak, 1994 M.P.L.J. 126. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that contempt jurisdiction has to be invoked sparingly and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record, no case for initiating contempt proceeding is made out in the light of decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Prashant Bhushan and another, in Re, (2021) 1 SCC 745 . Learned Senior Counsel would also submit that the contemner has outstanding practice of 20 years in trial Court and he has excellent track record and he has discharged his professional obligation strictly in accordance with law as an Advocate and he has tendered his unconditional apology that the same will not be repeated in the near future. Therefore, contempt proceedings be dropped and rule issued be discharged. 5. Therefore, contempt proceedings be dropped and rule issued be discharged. 5. Mr.Sunil Otwani, learned Additional Advocate General with Mr.Soumya Rai, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, would submit that considering the material available on record, prima facie it is a case where the contempt jurisdiction has rightly been invoked by this Court for proper administration of justice as the act of the respondent/contemner tends to undermine the dignity and authority of the Court and contemptuous statement which has been made before the trial Court on 27.2.2021 is calculated to malign the image of the Court/Judge, as such, it is a case where the contempt jurisdiction has appropriately been invoked and apology tendered by the contemner is not just & proper, as such, preliminary objection deserves to be rejected. 6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 7. This Court by order dated 02.12.2021 took cognizance of contempt and finding prima-facie case, issued notice to the respondent/contemner. In reply/additional reply, preliminary objection as to maintainability of criminal contempt reference has been raised stating that no inquiry contemplated by Rule 350(2) of the Rules of 2007 was conducted before referring the matter to this Court and he has not been afforded proper opportunity of hearing. 8. The High Court in exercise of its Rule Making Power has framed the Rules of 2007 for taking cognizance for consideration of the reference made by subordinate Court under Section 15(2) of the Act of 1971. Rule 350 of the Rules of 2007 is relevant which is extracted hereinbelow for sake of convenience:- “350.(1) Reference under Section 15(2) of the Act may be made by subordinate Courts either suo motu or on an application received by it. (2) Before making a reference the subordinate Court shall conduct a preliminary enquiry by issuing a show cause notice accompanied by copies of relevant documents, if any, to the contemner and after receiving the reply, if any, of the show-cause notice the Subordinate Court shall write a concise reasoned order of reference indicating why contempt appears to have been committed.” 9. The respondent/contemner is said to have committed contempt on 27.2.2021, pursuant to which, preliminary inquiry proceeding was initiated by registering MJC No.3/2021 in compliance with Rule 350(2) of the Rules of 2007 and by order dated 19.3.2021, the respondent/contemner was issued show-cause notice along with copy of ordersheet dated 27.2.2021 fixing the date for hearing dated on 27.3.2021. The respondent/contemner is said to have committed contempt on 27.2.2021, pursuant to which, preliminary inquiry proceeding was initiated by registering MJC No.3/2021 in compliance with Rule 350(2) of the Rules of 2007 and by order dated 19.3.2021, the respondent/contemner was issued show-cause notice along with copy of ordersheet dated 27.2.2021 fixing the date for hearing dated on 27.3.2021. Order-sheet dated 19.3.2021 states as under:- 19-3-2021 bl U;k;ky; esa yafcr O;ogkj okn Øekad&237,@2009 ¼xq:pj.k flga ,ao vU; fo:) gjoa'k flag ,oa vU;½ es ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 19-03-2021 ds ifjizs{; es vf/koDrk Jh jkto/kZu flag ds fo:) U;k;ky; dk voekuuk vf/kfu;e 1971 dh/kkjk 12 lgifBr/kkjk 15¼2½ ds rgr fofo/k vkijkf/kd izdj.k iathc} fd;k tkosA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; NŸkhlxढ] fcykliqj }kjk U;k;ky; dk voekuuk dk;Zokgh ds laca/k esa cuk;s x;s fu;e & 2007 ds fu;e&350 es v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk U;k;ky; dk voekuuk vf/kfu;e 1971 ds rgr dk;Zokgh fd;s tkus ds iwoZ izkjafHkd tkap dh vko';drk crkbZ xbZ gSA vr% vijksDr izkjafHkd tkap ds ifjis{; es vf/koDrk Jh jkto/kZu flag dk dkj.k crkvks lwpuk i= izsf"kr fd;k tkosA dkj.k crkvksa lwpuk i= d lkFk O;ogkj okn Øekad&237,@2009 ¼xq:pj.k flag ,oa vU; fo:) gjoa'k flag ,oa vU;½ dh vkns'k if=dk fnukad 27-02-2021 dh izfrfyfi layXu dh tkos vkSj dkj.k crkvksa lwpuk i= ds rkfeyh gsrq dk;kZy;] ekuuh; ftyk ,oa l= U;k;k/kh'k vafcdkiqj dh vksj ls izsf"kr fd;k tkosA dkj.k crkvks lwpuk i= dh ikorh bl fofo/k vkijkf/kd izdj.k eas layXu fd;k tkosA lkFk gh bl izdj.k es O;ogkj okn Øekad&237,@2009 ¼xq:pj.k flag ,oa vU; fo:) gjoa'k flag ,oa vU;½ dh vkns'k if=dk fnukad 27-02-2021 dh lR;izfrfyfi ,oa vkns'k if=dk fnukad 19-03-2021 dh lR;izfrfyfi layXu fd;k tkosA izdj.k vukosnd dh mifLFkfr@dkj.k crkvks lwpuk i= ds tokc gsrq fu;r fd;k tkrk Gsa izdj.k mifLFkfr@tokc gsrq fnukad 27-03-2021 lgh@& ¼Jhefr vfnfr Bkdqj½ izFke O;ogkj U;k;k/kh'k oxZ&2@ U;kf;d eftLVsªV izFke Js.kh vafcdkiqj] ljxqtk¼NŒxŒ½ In compliance of order dated 19.3.2021, on 27.3.2021 the respondent/contemner entered into appearance through his counsel Shri Rameshchandra Shukla and filed an application seeking time to file reply, which was granted by order dated 27.3.2021 which states as under:- 27/03/2021 11:15 cts vukosnd Jh jkto/kZu flag dks iqdkj yxkbZ xbZA vukosnd Jh jkto/kZu flga vuqifLFkrA izdj.k esjs le{k FkksM+h nsj i'pkr is'k gksA lgh@& ¼Jhefr vfnfr Bkdqj½ izFke O;ogkj U;k;k/kh'k oxZ&2@ U;kf;d eftLVsªV izFke Js.kh vafcdkiqj] ljxqtk ¼NŒxŒ½� iqu% ‘Pk 12%30 cts vukosnd Jh jkto/kZu flag dks iqdkj yxkbZA vukosnd Jh jkto/kZu flag vuqifLFkrA izdj.k esjs le{k pk;dky i'pkr is'k gksA Lkgh@& ¼Jhefr vfnfr Bkdqj½ izFke O;ogkj U;k;k/kh'k oxZ&2@ U;kf;d eftLVªsV izFke Js.kh vafcdkiqj] ljxqtk¼NŒxŒ½ iqu%'p 01%30 ctsA vukosnd Jh jkto/kZu flag dh vksj ls jes'kpUnz 'kqDyk vf/koDrk e; odkyrukek mifLFkrA izdj.k vkt vukosnd dh mifLFkfr ,oa dkj.k crkvks lwpuk i= ds tokc gsrq fu;r gSA vukosnd dh vksj ls mifLFkr vf/koDrk Jh jes'kpanz 'kqDyk ds }kjk ,d vkosnu varxZr dkj.k crkvks lwpuk i= dk tokc izLrqr djus gsrq le; iznku fd, tkus ckcr is'k fd;k x;kA mDr vkosnu is'k dj] ;g fuosnu fd;k x;k gS fd U;k;ky; }kjk izsf"kr dkj.k crkvks lwpuk i= dk tokc izLrqr djus gsrqq ,d ekg dk le; fn;k tk,] fdarq muds }kjk vius rdZ es ,d lIrkg dk le; fn, tkus dk fuosnu fd;k x;k gSA vfHkys[k dk ifj'khyu fd;k x;kA vfHkys[k ds ifj'khyu ls nf'kZr gS fd izdj.k vkt vukosnd dh mifLFkfr ,oa vukosnd dks tkjh dkj.k crkvks lwpuk i= ds tokc gsrq fu;r gS] fdarq vukosnd dh vksj ls dkj.k crkvks lwpuk i= dk tokc is'k djus gsrq ,d ekg dk le; pkgk x;k gS] muds }kjk dkj.k crkvks lwpuk i= dk tokc izLrqr djus gsrq le; nsus dk mfpr ,oa l)kfod dkj.k ugha crk;k x;k gS] vr% vkosnd dk dkj.k crkvks lwpuk i= dk tokc is'k djus gsrq ,d lIrkg dk le; vFkkZr~ fnukad 03-04-2021 dh frfFk vafre volj dh Vhi d lkFk iznku fd;k tkrk gSA vukosnu] vf/koDrk Jh jkto/kZu flag dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd mDr izdj.k dh vkxkeh frfFk 03-04-2021 dks vko';d :i ls dkj.k crkvks lwpuk i= dk tokc izLrqr djs] vU;Fkk izdj.k es tokc dk volj lekIr dj] fof/k vuqlkj dk;Zokgh dh tk ldsxhA izdj.k okLrs tokc gsrq fnukad 03-04-2021 lgh@& ¼Jhefr vfnfr Bkdqj½ izFke O;ogkj U;k;k/kh'k oxZ &2@ U;kf;d eftLVsªV izFke Js.kh vafcdkiqj] ljxqtk ¼NŒxŒ½ 10. After the time was granted to file reply fixing the date for reply on behalf of the contemner on 3.4.2021, again on that day (27.3.2021) at 3.30 p.m. learned counsel for contemner appeared and filed an application for transferring his case to some other Court, which was taken on record and on 3.4.2021 application for transferring his case to other Court was considered and rejected. Since no reply was filed and the said Court waited for reply by the contemner to be filed, but no reply was filed on behalf of the contemner, the trial Court considered the issue and passed an order making reference to this Court under Section 15(2) of the Act of 1971 read with Rule 350 (1) of the Rules of 2007. 11.A careful perusal of the proceeding would show that on 27.3.2021 the contemner appeared through his counsel and sought time for filing reply and that was granted by the Court though that application was not supported by affidavit and date was fixed for 3.4.2021 and immediately thereafter on same date (27.3.2021), though time had already been granted, yet the contemner filed another application for transferring his case to some other Court, which was fixed for 3.4.2021 and ultimately, it was rejected on 3.4.2021 finding no merit on that objection/application for transfer to other Court. 12. The application dated 27.3.2021 filed by the contemner would show that the contemner submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court and took a calculated chance by submitting to jurisdiction of the Court and sought time to file reply and the trial Court accepting his request for time to file reply, granted time till 3.4.2021 to file reply, but immediately thereafter on the same date the contemner filed another application for transferring his case to other Court, which was also not supported by affidavit, which was rejected on merits on 3.4.2021 and thereafter the Court considered the issue for making reference and finding the case worth for reference, made it to this Court. 13. 13. The aforesaid narration of the facts would show that the respondent/contemner anyhow wanted to protract the preliminary proceeding and having made an application for filing reply and having been granted time for filing reply took u-turn by filing another application for transferring his case to any other Court, which was also not supported by affidavit, which shows that sufficient opportunity was granted to the respondent/contemner for filing reply, which he did not avail and failed to file reply and thereafter right to file reply was closed and reference was made to this Court. Therefore, his argument in this regard that no proper preliminary inquiry was conducted and no opportunity was granted him in accordance with Rule 350(2) of the Rules of 2007 has no force and preliminary objection in this regard is hereby rejected. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the contemner in the matter of Indra Dutt Nayak (supra) is clearly distinguishable to the facts of the present case as in that case no preliminary inquiry was conducted at all. 14. Since detailed reply supported by affidavit has already been filed and this Court has also taken cognizance of contempt and issued notice to the contemner, let the matter be listed for final hearing in the week commencing 11th July, 2022.