AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The instant writ petition has been filed on 20.7.2011 and it was listed today for admission/hearing.
After hearing Mr. Ashok Pandey, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. Umesh Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State and perusal of the record, we dismissed the writ petition as perusal of the FIR prima-facie shows commission of cognizable offences but the Counsel for the Petitioners insisted that the reasons should be assigned for dismissing the writ petition. Therefore, it was provided that reasons will be dictated later on, as today this Court is loaded with heavy rush of work as it has also been assigned the work of another court too.
Petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following prayers:
(I) issuea writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quashing the report of opposite party No. 2 if any after summoning the same from concerned Respondents.
(II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing Chief Justice to hold inquiry against opposite party No. 2 and to proceed under Contempt of Courts Act against the said Respondent No. 2.
(III) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite party No. 3 to conduct inquiry in the matter afresh in compliance of the Hon''ble Court order dated 08-04-2011 passed in writ petition No. 1922(MB) of 1997.
(IV) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the first information report registered at case crime No. 1165 of 2011 Under Sections 409/419/420/421/467/468/471 IPC at Police station Kotwali Nagar Sultnapur contained as Annexure No. 8 of writ petition.
(V) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite party No. 4 not to arrest the Petitioners in Case Crime No. 1165/2011 Under Sections 409/419/420/421/467/468/471 IPC at Police Station Kotwali Nagar Sultanpur.
(VI) To pass any other suitable order or direction which is deemd just and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be passed.
(VII) To allow the writ petition with costs.
Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the impugned FIR has been lodged without conducting any inquiry and also submitted that the allegations against the Petitioner are wholly false and incorrect. Now, on the basis of the FIR, the police is harassing Petitioners and it is apprehended that they would be arrested without any rhyme and reason.
From the record, it reflects that the Petitioners have earlier filed a writ petition No. 1922(MB) of 1997 in which an interim order was granted. After the exchange of pleadings, Counsel for the Petitioners made a statement that the said writ petition may be dismissed as not pressed, which was opposed by the Respondents therein and as such vide an order dated 30.7.1997, the stay order was vacated. Thereafter, this writ petition came up for orders before a Division Bench of this Court on 8.4.2011 and the Division Bench while disposing of the writ petition, directed that Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur to hold an inquiry. The order dated 8.4.2011 read as under:
Court No. -25 Case:
MISC. BENCH No. -1922 of 1997 Petitioner:
Ram Nayak Tiwari (Before Criminal Contempt) Respondent:
Nagar Palika Parishad,Sultanpur, Through Chairman Petitioner Counsel:
B.K. Singh, S.C. Shukla Respondent Counsel:
C.S.C., A.K. Bajpai, R.U. Pandey Hon''ble Abdul Mateen, J. Hon''ble Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.
Heard Shri Ashok Pandey learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Shri A. K. Bajpai learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties it comes out that after obtaining interim order dated 21.05.1997 the Petitioners prayed for dismissal of the petition as withdrawn. This prayer of the Petitioners was opposed by the learned Counsel for the Respondents who submitted that as to how the Petitioners could be allowed to go when they have approached this Court with unclean hands and have committed fraud upon the Court in getting interim order on the basis of forged documents annexed as annexures, as such, vide order dated 30.07.1997 this Court had vacated interim order granted on 21.05.1997 and directed for issuance of notices to the Petitioners to show-cause as to why and under what circumstances they have pressed their case on the basis of so-called forged annexures.
As to whether the annexures, which have been annexed along with the petition, are forged or not can be very well looked into by an authority where the original and forged are evaluated and inquiry is conducted. Accordingly, we dispose of this petition with a direction to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur to hold an inquiry and see as to whether the annexeures annexed with this petition are forged or not and if the same are found to be forged, to lodge an FIR and take appropriate action against the Petitioners. If the annexures are not found to be forged, the matter shall stand dropped.
Let record of this petition be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur in a sealed cover by the Registrar of this Court. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur shall inform this Court with respect to outcome of the inquiry. "
The Chief Judicial Magistrate in compliance of the aforesaid order of this Court ascertained the facts and after receipt of the report from the Executive Officer and being satisfied that the annexures enclosed with the writ petition No. 1922(MB) of 1997 are forged, lodged the FIR which has been registered at Case Crime No. 1165/2011, under Sections 409, 419, 420, 421, 467, 468, 471 IPC, PS Kotwali Nagar, Sultanpur.
We have gone through the contents of the First Information Report, prima facie, which discloses commission of cognizable offence. Furthermore, the aforesaid FIR has been registered by the CJM in compliance of the order dated 8.4.2011 and as such this Court cannot sit in appeal and examine the correctness of the judgment passed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court.
The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
Order Date: 25.7.2011
After the aforesaid order having been dictated, Mr. Ashok Pandey, learned Counsel for the Petitioners continued to disturb the proceedings of the Court. The Court requested the learned Advocate to please leave the dais and allow other Counsel to argue the case but all went in vain. Then the Court asked him not to compel us to draw proceedings against him, then he started shouting in the Court and uttered that four times earlier also this Court, i.e. Lucknow Bench had issued contempt notice, but nothing has been done and he is ready to face again. Sri Ashok Pandey did not leave the dais and as such, this Court with a pain called the Court Officer and asked him to call the police personnel. Thereafter, Sri Ashok Pandey sat on the chair adjoining to the dias. After completion of the fresh petitions listed today, Sri Ashok Pandey again came at the dias and surprisingly, instead of showing respect and maintain dignity of the Court, he again started shouting in the Court and in addition to the aforesaid remarks to the Court, he uttered that this Division Bench ought not to have heard the matter as the then Hon''ble Chief Justice has ordered that the cases in which he is Counsel, shall not be listed before the Bench of which one of us, namely, Rajiv Sharma, J. Is a member
Sri Pandey is guilty of concealment of facts and the above statement is wholly baseless as the Registry has informed that the then Hon''ble Chief Justice Sri H.L. Gokhale, has passed an order for not listing the pending cases for certain reasons and the list is appended to the application moved by Sri Pandey. It may be noted that this order was passed on 18.2.2009 and it relates to the cases pending at the relevant time. Moreover, it has also been informed by the Registry that even this order dated 18.2.2009 was subsequently recalled. The instant writ petition is not a pending matter as it is fresh writ petition and has been filed in July, 2011.
We are constrained to record the falling professional norms among the Lawyers with pain because it is strongly felt that unless the trend is immediately arrested and reversed, it will have very deleterious consequences for the administration of justice. An advocate is under an obligation to maintain dignity, decorum and order in the court. The liberty of free expression should not be utilized to make unfounded allegations against any institution, much less the judiciary. Because of the conduct of Sri Pandey, not only, it hampered judicial proceedings but it also tends to lower the dignity of the Court.
Taking into consideration the entire conduct of Sri Ashok Pandey in Court, ex-facie it amounts to serious and deliberate interference with the administration of justice which is a ''criminal contempt'' as defined u/s 2(c) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Registry is directed to issue notice to Sri A. K. Pandey, R/o 5/1243, Vikram Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow to show cause as to why criminal contempt may not be drawn against him u/s 2 (C) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Sri Ashok Pandey shall file his reply within three days.
List the matter on 28.7.2011.
After passing the aforesaid orders, Sri Ashok Pandey did not leave the dias and under the compelling circumstances, we asked the court officer to call the police personnel of the High Court to take away Mr. Ashok Pandey out of the Court. In compliance thereof, Mr. Ashok Pandey was removed by the police personnel from the Court.