ORDER 1. These suo motu proceedings were initiated in pursuance to a reference sent by the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal under section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1971’) for registration of a criminal contempt against respondent/accused Smt. Meenakshi Gajbhe w/o Shrikant Gajbhe with a prayer to punish her under Section 15(2) of the Act of 1971 as she has submitted applications before the Court levelling contemptuous allegations against the Presiding Officer. 2. The facts in nutshell are that a Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.186 of 2015 (Smt. Meenakshi Gajghe v. Shrikant K. Gajghe) under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is pending before the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal. During pendency of the case, the respondent/contemnor who is the applicant in the case has submitted applications dated 4.7.2018 and 18.7.2018 levelling contemptuous allegations against the Presiding Officer. Some other contemptuous acts committed by the contemnor have also been mentioned in the reference. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent/contemnor, but she refused to receive it. The Presiding Officer had recorded the statements of the employees of his Court and submitted the reference along with relevant documents. 3. The High Court took cognizance of the reference and documents annexed therewith and found that the respondent/contemnor has levelled contemptuous allegations against the Presiding Officer with a view to scandalize and lower the dignity and authority of the Court. Hence, with the approval of the Hon’ble Chief Justice, the present criminal contempt has been registered suo motu against the respondent/contemnor. 4. Notice was issued to the respondent/contemnor and a reply has been filed denying all the allegations made in the reference by the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal. It is stated in the reply that she has filed a case under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against her husband and vide order dated 8.12.2015, an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month was directed to be paid to her. But in spite of the recovery warrants issued, the payment has not been made to her. On 18.12.2017 and 29.1.2018 recovery warrants have been issued despite the fact that her husband was present in the court premises. On 8.5.2018 one lady namely Chanda had appeared before the Court and tried to cross-examine her in place of the applicant. But in spite of the recovery warrants issued, the payment has not been made to her. On 18.12.2017 and 29.1.2018 recovery warrants have been issued despite the fact that her husband was present in the court premises. On 8.5.2018 one lady namely Chanda had appeared before the Court and tried to cross-examine her in place of the applicant. An additional return has also been filed reiterating the various allegations against the Presiding Officer. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 6. It is undisputed that a case under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is pending before the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal and during pendency of the case, the respondent/contemnor who is the applicant in the case has submitted two applications dated 4.7.2018 and 18.7.2017 questioning the working of the Judicial Officer and levying allegation regarding corruption and misuse of his position. There are other instances also which come within the purview of criminal contempt enclosed as Annexure M, N, and O in the reference made by the First Additional Principal Judge. 7. Prior to initiation of the contempt proceedings against the respondent/contemnor, an enquiry was conducted by the Registrar (Judicial-II) and the reference made by the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal was found to be correct and a decision was taken to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondent/contemnor keeping in view of the repeated acts done by her. The respondent/accused filed a reply and additional return denying allegations leveled against her. However, she has tendered unconditional apology for the acts done by her vide an application (I.A.No.5249 of 2023) along with affidavit. 8. The respondent/accused filed a reply and additional return denying allegations leveled against her. However, she has tendered unconditional apology for the acts done by her vide an application (I.A.No.5249 of 2023) along with affidavit. 8. At this stage, the provision of the Criminal Contempt as defined under section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is required to be seen, which is as under: “Criminal contempt” means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, 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; From the aforesaid, it is apparently clear that if a complaint alleging reckless allegation of misuse of powers and corruption against a Presiding Officer is made, the same falls under the definition of the ‘criminal contempt’. 9. By the words as pointed out hereinabove, attempts were made by the respondent to scandalize and lower the majesty of the Court and also the Judicial Officer. The complaint was got investigated and the allegations leveled by her were found to be reckless and, therefore, with the approval of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice on 26.9.2018, a decision was taken to initiate a criminal contempt proceeding against the respondent/contemnor. She was served with a notice of the same along with relevant materials and also granted opportunity to get her statement recorded before the authorities. It is not in dispute that proper opportunity of hearing was not granted to the respondent to submit her explanation in the enquiry. Thus, the procedure which was required to be followed in the enquiry, has been adhered to by the authorities. Therefore, there is no illegality as far as the procedure adopted in the enquiry is concerned. 10. The sole question for consideration before this Court is that whether the words which are spelt out in the applications made by the respondent/contemnor fall under the definition of ‘criminal contempt’ under section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 or not? 11. 10. The sole question for consideration before this Court is that whether the words which are spelt out in the applications made by the respondent/contemnor fall under the definition of ‘criminal contempt’ under section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 or not? 11. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prashant Bhushan and another, in Reference Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Cri.) 1 of 2020 decided on 14th of August, 2020, reported in (2021) 1 SCC 745 has considered the definition of section 2(c) of the Act of 1971 and has held as under: “It could thus be seen, that it has been held by this Court, that hostile criticism of judges as judges or judiciary would amount to scandalizing the Court. It has been held, that any personal attack upon a judge in connection with the office he holds is dealt with under law of libel or slander. Yet defamatory publication concerning the judge as a judge brings the court or judges into contempt, a serious impediment to justice and an inroad on the majesty of justice. This Court further observed, that any caricature of a judge calculated to lower the dignity of the court would destroy, undermine or tend to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice or the majesty of justice. It has been held, that imputing partiality, corruption, bias, improper motives to a judge is scandalisation of the court and would be contempt of the court.” 12. A Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Baradakanta Mishra v. High Court of Orissa, reported in (1974) 1 SCC 374 has held as under: “49. Scandalisation of the Court is a species of contempt and may take several forms. A common form is the vilification of the Judge. When proceedings in contempt are taken for such vilification the question which the Court has to ask is whether the vilification is of the Judge as a judge. (See Queen v. Gray), [(1900) 2 QB 36, 40] or it is the vilification of the Judge as an individual. If the latter the Judge is left to his private remedies and the Court has no power to commit for contempt. If the former, the Court will proceed to exercise the jurisdiction with scrupulous care and in cases which are clear and beyond reasonable doubt. If the latter the Judge is left to his private remedies and the Court has no power to commit for contempt. If the former, the Court will proceed to exercise the jurisdiction with scrupulous care and in cases which are clear and beyond reasonable doubt. Secondly, the Court will have also to consider the degree of harm caused as affecting administration of justice and, if it is slight and beneath notice, Courts will not punish for contempt. This salutary practice is adopted by section 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The jurisdiction is not intended to uphold the personal dignity of the Judges. That must rest on surer foundations. Judges rely on their conduct itself to be its own vindication. 50. But if the attack on the Judge functioning as a judge substantially affects administration of justice it becomes a public mischief punishable for contempt, and it matters not whether such an attack is based on what a judge is alleged to have done in the exercise of his administrative responsibilities. A judge's functions may be divisible, but his integrity and authority are not divisible in the context of administration of justice. An unwarranted attack on him for corrupt administration is as potent in doing public harm as an attack on his adjudicatory function.” From the aforesaid judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the definition provided under section 2(c) of the Act of 1971, it is apparently clear that even an attempt to scandalize or lower the authority of a Court falls under the definition of ‘criminal contempt’. 13. The words which are mentioned in the applications dated 4.7.2018 (Annexure-B) and 18.7.2018 (Annexure-C) on the basis of which the proceedings of the criminal contempt have been initiated, are questioning the working of the Judicial Officer and levying allegation regarding corruption and misuse of his position. 13. The words which are mentioned in the applications dated 4.7.2018 (Annexure-B) and 18.7.2018 (Annexure-C) on the basis of which the proceedings of the criminal contempt have been initiated, are questioning the working of the Judicial Officer and levying allegation regarding corruption and misuse of his position. Relevant paragraphs of the Annexure B and C read as under: ^^U;kf;d fjdkMZ ls vukosnd dh vk; lk{; dks xk;c dj fcuk Ánf'kZr djok;s vkosfndk dks Áfrijh{k.k gsrq foo'k fd;k x;k ,oa vkosfndk ds viw.kZ Áfrifj{k.k ls iwoZ Áfrifj{k.k esa dh x;h vkifRr esa ihBklhu vf/kdkjh Jh ;ksxs'k nRr 'kqDyk }kjk vi'kCnksa dk bLrseky dj vuSfrd :i ls vkosfndk dk Hkj.k&iks"k.k LFkfxr dj fn;kA** pank uked efgyk ls vkosfndk ds Ádj.k esa vkosfndk cukdj QthZ Áfrijh{k.k fnukad 8-5-2018 dks vf/koDrk Áeksn lDlsuk ,oa ihBklhu vf/kdkjh ;ksxs'k nRr 'kqDyk th }kjk djus dk Á;kl fd;k tk jgk gSA vfof/kd :Ik ls pank ds gLrk{kj ,oa vf/koDrk vkns'k if=dk esa vafdr djus mijkUr ihBklhu vf/kdkjh Jheku ;ksxs'k nRr 'kqDykth }kjk vfof/kd vekuoh; v'yhy 'kCnksa dks bLrseky dj vkosfndk ls cksyk fd%& 1- vkosfndk vuqlwfpr tutkfr dh efgyk gS fdlh xSj czkg~e.k vuqlwfpr tkfr tutkfr eqfLye oxZ dks fgUnqLrku esa jgus o thus dk vfèkdkj ugha gSA 2- ;ksxs'k nRr 'kqDy fuEu tkfr ds ekuo ckck lkgsc Hkhejko vEcsMdj }kjk jfpr lafo/kku dks ugha ekurs gaSA ;ksxs'k nRr 'kqDy dk U;k;ky; iafMr ;ksxs'k nRr 'kqDy ds Lo;a ds dkuwu ls pyrk gSA 3- eSa ;ksxs'k nRr 'kqDy vf/koDrk Áeksn dqekj lDlsuk }kjk vukosnd ls ÁkIr djok;h x;h ikap yk[k :i;s fj'or mijkar rqEgsa vkosfndk dks vkRegR;k djus gsrq foo'k dj jgk gSA 4- eSaus ;ksxs'k nRr 'kqDyk us U;kf;d fjdkMZ ls nLrkost xk;c djok;s ijh{k.k ls iwoZ Áfrijh{k.k gsrq foo'k dj rqEgkjk Hkj.k&iks"k.k jksd fn;k vkosfndk ds lkFk ?kVuk dkfjr djus gsrq olwyh ugha djok;h vkosfndk ,oa vNwr Hkkjrh; lafo/kku us ;ksxs'k nRr 'kqDyk dk D;k m[kkM+ fy;kA 5- pank ls QthZ Áfrijh{k.k djokus dk Á;kl fd;k vkSj rsjk Ádj.k Hkh fujLr dj nsaxsA l= U;k;ky; mPp U;k;ky; loksZPp U;k;ky; ;k ;ksxs'k nRr 'kqDykth viuh tsc esa j[krk gSA rqEgkjs fy, vPNk gS fd vkRegR;k dj ysa ns'k esa xSj czkg~e.k dh la[;k rks de gksxhA** (Emphasis supplied) On 18.7.2017 another application has been filed leveling contemptuous allegations against the Presiding Officer, which read as under: ^^1- ;g fd ihBklhu vf/kdkjh Jh ;ksxs'k nRr 'kqDyk th ds vekuoh; O;ogkj ds vfrfjDr fof/k dk etkd cukdj j[kk x;k gSA** 5- fnukad 4-7-2018 dks vkosfndk ds tcjnLrh Áfrijh{k.k djok;s ,oa dbZ Cysad vkns'k if=dkvksa esa 'kfDrcy dk Á;ksx dj gLrk{kj djok;s x;sA fdUrq vkosfndk ds Áfrijh{k.k ds fjdkMZ dks xk;c dj fn;k ,oa lk;adky dks vukosnd o mlds vf/koDrk dks vius ilZuy dsfcu esa cqykdj yxHkx 30 fefuV rd Jheku ;ksxs'k nRr 'kqDykth }kjk mDr okrkZ dh x;hA** 6- pank vf/koDrk&vukosnd ds fof/k ls vKku vf/koDrk Áeksn dqekj lDlsuk }kjk ihBklhu vf/kdkjh Jheku ;ksxs'k nRr 'kqDy dks fn;k x;k 5 yk[k pank ¼fj'or½A** (Emphasis supplied) 14. The order sheets of the trial Court show that the matter was listed before the trial Court on 30.10.2017 for recording of evidence of the accused, but he remained absent and was proceeded ex-parte. On 27.3.2018, an objection was taken by the respondent/contemnor not to grant opportunity to the accused to lead evidence as he was proceeded exparte and prayed for sending him to jail. On rejection of the objections, she did not appear for cross-objection. Therefore, the learned trial court passed the order keeping the order of interim maintenance in abeyance. Thereafter, the aforesaid applications Annexures B & C were filed making allegations on the Presiding Officer. On 4.5.2018, an application (Annexure-M) for mercy death was filed before the trial Court and on rejection of the application vide order dated 12.5.2018 (Annexure-N), the respondent/contemnor has appended a note on the order-sheet to the effect that bribe/money has been demanded from her. Thereafter, again on 1.11.2017 when the husband of the respondent/contemnor was convicted with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and till rising of the court, a note has been appended by her on the order-sheet (Annxure-O) that no punishment was imposed upon the husband/accused. 15. From the perusal of the aforesaid, it is clear that she has made allegations against the working of the Presiding Officer. She has gone to the extent that the official records have been destroyed, the Presiding Officer has taken money/bribe and therefore, he is not sending the accused to jail despite the repeated requests and has made mockery of the Court. The same clearly falls under the definition of ‘criminal contempt’ under section 2(c) of the Act of 1971. The language mentioned in the applications scandalizes and lowers the authority of the Court and amounts to causing hindrance/disturbance in the judicial proceedings. There is hierarchy of courts being made under the judicial system. A party or his counsel being aggrieved by any order or proceedings may approach the superior court or may raise his/her grievance to the complaint cell or superior officer. Making reckless allegations against the working of a Judge is not permissible and the same amounts to criminal contempt of court. A party or his counsel being aggrieved by any order or proceedings may approach the superior court or may raise his/her grievance to the complaint cell or superior officer. Making reckless allegations against the working of a Judge is not permissible and the same amounts to criminal contempt of court. The reply/explanation which has been given by the respondent and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent/contemnor to justify the said action is of no help to her as there is no explanation for making such reckless allegations against the Judicial Officer, who is working in the interest of public at large. Even in the enquiry conducted by the Registrar Judicial (II) of this court with regard to the veracity of the allegations leveled against the Presiding Officer, the allegations were found to be baseless and reference has been found to be correct. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, the respondent/contemnor is held guilty of committing criminal contempt as defined under section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and, therefore, is liable to be punished under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. 17. We have heard Shri Kunal Dubey, learned counsel on the quantum of punishment to be awarded to the respondent/contemnor. He pleads that a sentence of fine alone may be awarded. She is a poor lady and facing great hardship. She was not aware of the requirements of law. Therefore, she may be pardoned. 18. The respondent/contemnor has filed an application (I.A.No.5249 of 2023) tendering unconditional apology. She has categorically stated that she was disturbed due to family disturbances and was never given proper legal advice. She was not aware of the requirements of law. She has completed her LL.B course and has recently enrolled as an advocate in the year 2019. The punishment order will ruin her entire career. 19. Considering the submissions and overall facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it just and appropriate to impose a fine of Rs.2000/- upon the respondent/contemnor to be paid by her before the Registry of this Court within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, failing which, she is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of ten days. She is warned to remain cautious in future while dealing with court cases. 20. Accordingly, the criminal contempt proceedings are disposed off.