Chandrakant Chaganlal ShahversusState of Maharashtra

                                                       15 WP 685-26.DOC

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

               WRIT PETITION NO. 685 OF 2026


Chandrakant Chaganlal Shah                             ...Petitioner
      Versus
State of Maharashtra                                 …Respondent

Mr. Chandrakant C Shah, Petitioner-in-person.
Mr. A R Metkari, APP for the Respondent-State.

                       CORAM        :     N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                       DATE         :     20th FEBRUARY 2026

Oral Order:

1.   Heard the petitioner-in-person.

2.   The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 29th January,

2026 passed by the learned Magistrate, First Class, Mulund.

3.   By the said order the learned Magistrate had issued a

notice of Contempt of Court to the petitioner, purportedly, for

being rude to the Presiding Officer. It further appears that, the

learned Magistrate has withdrawn the said notice, as the

petitioner had orally apologized.

4.   The petitioner submitted that, though the notice has been

withdrawn, the issuance of notice for alleged of contempt of

Court was without jurisdiction, and thus, the notice be declared

null and void. It was submitted that, the learned Magistrate has

no jurisdiction to take action for contempt of Court. Reliance

SAINATH                             1/3
                                                         15 WP 685-26.DOC

was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of

Daroga Singh & Ors. Vs. B. K. Pandey1.

5.   I    have   perused    the   notice   issued   by   the   learned

Magistrate. Undoubtedly, the title of the notice is notice of

Contempt of Court. However, the notice is required to be read as

a whole. Nomenclature of impugned notice is not of decisive

significance. On careful perusal of the notice, it becomes evident

that, the learned Magistrate took umbrage at the manner in

which the petitioner interacted with the learned Magistrate,

while the later was discharging his judicial functions. The

relevant part of the notice reads as under :-

              “But, you have rudely made statement that other
         matters are being taken up, but I have been
         discriminated. Therefore, it is told by the Court that
         this is not a manner in which you have supposed to
         talk with the court. Then, you per contra relied the
         court that this court has also no manners to talk.

             This Court is already entrusted with the remand
         duty of four police stations, bail etc. This Court has
         also repeatedly informed about the same to you,
         despite it, you are insisting to take the matter and not
         only this talking rudely with the Court. Therefore,
         your explanation is hereby called as to why action for
         Contempt of Court shall not initiated against you.”

6.   The aforesaid contents of the notice prima facie indicate

that, the action would clearly fall within the ambit of the

1    2004 (5) SCC 26
SAINATH                             2/3
                                                   15 WP 685-26.DOC

provisions contained in Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860. Moreover, since the learned Magistrate has withdrawn the

notice, there is no propriety in entertaining the petition any

further.

7.   It is, however, clarified that, the action of the learned

Magistrate in issuing the notice to the petitioner appeared to be

relatable to the offence punishable under Section 228 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860.

8.   Subject to the aforesaid clarification, the petition stands

disposed.



                                       [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




SAINATH                          3/3