Holding

The appellant is not guilty of contempt of court as the preliminary inquiry was bona fide, not intended to scandalize the court, and no contempt occurred.

Summary

A Judicial Magistrate complained that a police officer had used unwarranted language in his courtroom and sent the complaint to the Inspector General of Police, who directed a departmental inquiry. The Sub‑Divisional Police Officer (the appellant) conducted the inquiry, recorded statements of several witnesses and submitted a report finding the officer guilty, as instructed by his superiors. The High Court treated the inquiry as an unauthorized attempt to scandalize the court and held the appellant guilty of contempt, sentencing him to seven days' imprisonment and a fine. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether a bona‑fide departmental inquiry, undertaken without a pending contempt proceeding, could constitute contempt of court. It held that the inquiry was a legitimate exercise of departmental powers, not intended to interfere with or lower the dignity of the court, and that the appellant, not being a party to the contempt proceedings, could not be held guilty. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, acquitted the appellant, and allowed the appeal.

Issues considered

When does a departmental inquiry into a police officer's alleged contemptuous conduct amount to contempt of court?
Whether recording witness statements that contradict a magistrate's order sheet, without court permission, constitutes scandalizing the court.
Whether a person not a party to contempt proceedings can be held guilty of contempt for actions taken in the course of a departmental inquiry.
The appropriate exercise of the power to punish for contempt – necessity of restraint and clear intent to interfere with the administration of justice.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 228, s. 345
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971s. 19

Subjects

contempt of courtdepartmental inquirypolice officer misconductjudicial magistratepower to punish contemptrestraint in contempt proceedingscriminal contempt

Judgment

- RAJESH KUMAR SINGH
v.
A

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH
GWALIOR

MAY 31, 2007
B
[R. V. RA VEENDRAN ANDLOKESHWARSINGH PANTA,JJ.]

Contempt of Courts Act, I 97 I: Section I 9;

Contempt-Use of an unwarranted language by a police officer in a C
Court of Judicial Magistrate-Complaint to Inspector General of Police and
reference to High Court-/. G. directing inquiry and disciplinary action against
erring police officer-Conducting of inquiry and recording of statements of
witnesses by Inquiry Officer-In the Contempt proceedings against the Police
Officer, holding the Police Officer guilty, High Court directed issuance of D
show cause notices to Inspector General of Police and the Inquiry Officer for ·
Contempt of Court-Accepting the explanation and unconditional apology,
High Court dropping the contempt proceeding against Inspector General oi
Police but found the Inquiry Officer guilty of the contempt, accordingly
sentencing him imprisonment for seven days and also fine-On appeal, Held:
Ajier noticing the alleged misbehaviour, Magistrate did not take any action E
against 1he delinquent Police Officer under s.228, /PC nor u/s 345 Cr.P.C.
but preferred a complaint to Inspector General of Police-In pursuance of
such complaint; the Appellant, a Sub-Divisional Police Office was entrusted
with the task of conducting inquiry against the delinquent-Thus, Inquiry
Officer conducted inquiry and recorded statement of witnesses in respect of F
conduct of the delinquent and not in regard to the conduct of the Judge~
Since, no contempt proceedings pending before the High Court when the
inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer, no permission from the Court
before holding such an inquiry warranted-There is no ma 1eria/ to show that
the Statements of Witnesses were recorded with any ulterior motive of helping
the delinquent to create a false defence-Since the Inquiry Officer was not G
party to the contempt proceedings against the Police Officer, no finding of
fact could have been recorded against him-Moreover, the High Court had
completely ignored his explanation and unconditional apology tendered by
him though admitting the same in respect of the Inspector General of Police
869 H
870 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 7 S.C.R.

A by dropping the proceedings against him-Jn fact, inquiry was conducted by y
the appellant bonafidely in pursuance of the instructions of Superior and not
with the intention to scandalize the Court nor any attempt was made to sit
over the order sheet of the Magistrate as found by High Court-Jn the facts
and circumstances of the case the finding of guilt against the Inquiry Officer
totally unwarranted-JPC-s.228-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-s.345.
B
Power of High Court to punish for contempt-Exercise of-Held: It
should not be exercised routinely/mechanically but with circumspection and
restraint-Purpose of granting such power to the court is to ensure that the
faith and confidence of the public in administration not eroded-Care should
c be taken to ensure that there is no scope for complaint of ostentatious
exercise of such power.

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh had initiated contempt proceedings
against a Police Officer on a reference by one Judicial Magistrate in regard
to a false report submitted by him in his Court. Later, another reference was
D made by another Magistrate in regard to another incident in which the same
police officer had allegedly used an unwarranted language in his Court. The
High Court disposed of the contempt proceedings against the errant police
officer holding him guilty in respect of both incidents and imposed punishment
of three months' simple imprisonment. The High Court further directed
issuance of notices to the Inspector General of Police and the appellant, the
E Inquiry Officer to show cause as to why they should not be punished for
contempt of court, for having enquired into the conduct of a Judge, without
the permission of the High Court and recording the statement made by the
witnesses in favour of the errant police officer, thereby contradicting the
record made by the Magistrate in the order sheet. In response to the Show
F Cause Notice, IG of Police submitted his explanation tendering an
unconditional apology. The High Court accepted the explanation of IG of Police r
and dropped the proceedings against him. The appellant also filed a similar
explanation and also tendered an unconditional apology but the same was not
accepted by the High Court. The High Court framed charges against the
appellant and after considering the replies, held the charges proved against
G him and accordingly sentenced him fo simple imprisonment of seven days and
also imposed fine. Hence, the present appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court
r~

HELD: 1.1. When the police officer allegedly misbehaved in court, it
H
871
...
RAJESH KUMAR SINGH" HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADHYA PRADESH

was open to the Magistrate to initiate action for prosecuting him under section A
228 of IPC or punish him under section 345 Cr.P.C read with section 228
IPC. If the Magistrate was of the view that the contempt committed did not fall
under section 228 IPC, then he could have made a reference to the High Court
for taking action under section 10 of the Act He did not take any action under
section 228 IPC nor under section 345 Cr.P.C. read with section 228 IPC.
Even before making a reference to the High Court for initiating action for B
contempt, he sent a complaint to the Inspector General of Police, requiring
> action against the errant police officer. The action that was required was,
J. obviously departmental disciplinary action. The Inspector General of Police,
acting on the said request, directed the Superintendent of Police to held an
inquiry and take disciplinary action against the errant police officer. The C
Superintendent of Police, in turn, forwarded the complaint and the directive
of the l.G. of Police to the appellant, a Sub Divisional Police Officer with an
instruction to look into the matter and send a detailed report. It is only in
pursuance of such directive from his superiors, the appellant held a
preliminary inquiry in respect of the conduct of the errant police officer. The
inquiry was not in regard to the conduct of the Judge. As the inquiry was D.
against the police officer, the appellant had to give an opportunity to him, to
make his statement. He also had to record the statements of persons, whom
he stated were present at the time of the incident. The inquiry by him was a
prelude to the disciplinary action against the delinquent. In fact, after the
recording of the statements ofseveral witnesses, the appellant submitted a E
report holding the officer guilty of having used unwarranted language in court
and recommending punishment. It cannot, therefore, be said, that recording
the statements of the delinquent, and several other persons the request of the
delinquent in the course of the preliminary inquiry, amounts to holding an
inquiry in regard to the conduct of a Judge. (Para 11) (879-A-C; 880-A-C)
F
1.2. When appellant held the preliminary inquiry, no contempt
proceedings had been initiated by the High Court, in regard to the incident in
question. There was also no other proceedings pending before the Magistrate
or any other court in regard to the said incident. Therefore, the question of
seeking or obtaining the permission of High Court or other court, for holding
such inquiry, did not arise. Unless the inquiry by the appellant was a parallel G
proceeding with reference to a matter pending in court and unless such parallel
proceeding interfered with or, intended to interfere with the pendini: ''ll!l°!
-~ proceeding, there is no interference with administration of justice.
!Para 12] (880-C, D, '!:)
Security and Finance (P) Ltd v. Dattatraya Raghav Agge, AIR (1970) H
872 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 7 S.C.R.

A SC 720, relied on.
...

1.3. Appellant, the Inquiry Officer, neither attributed any improper
motive to the Judge nor abused the Judge. The High Court concluded that the
inquiry and report by the appellant was intended to help the delinquent because
the appellant recorded the statements of only persons who contradicted the
B report of the Magistrate, but did not examine the Magistrate or his Deposition
Writer or Reader of the Court. He stated that he was only holding a
preliminary inquiry as directed by his official superiors; that the statements
of the Deposition Writer and Reader of the Court as also the order-sheet .t
wherein the Magistrate had recorded what transpired in the Court were
C already available on record and, therefore, he did not record their statements
again in the enquiry. Thus, the appellant has given a feasible and reasonable
explanation for not recording the statements of the Magistrate, or his Court
Reader and Deposition Writer. (Para 13) (881-A-D)

1.4. Even if the delinquent or the witnesses named by him stated
D something false, the appellant who recorded their statements·in the course of
preliminary inquiry cannot be held liable or responsible for such statements,
unless there is material to show that he was part of a conspiracy to create
false evidence. There is nothing to show such conspiracy. It is nobody's case
that he wrongly recorded the statements of the witnesses to benefit the
delinquent. The inquiry by him was in pursuance of the complaint by the
E Magistrate demanding action against him and the direction of the Inspector
General of Police to hold an inquiry in connection with disciplinary action
against the delinquent. The Appellant submitted a report holding him had used
unwarranted language in court and that he should be punished. It cannot,
therefore, be said that appellant recorded the statements of witnesses with an
F ulterior motive of helping the delinquent to create a false defence. Therefore,
the High Court's assumption that the entire inquiry by the appellant was with
a view to help the delinquent in regard to the contempt proceeding pending
in regard to the incident in question is obviously erroneous.
!Paras 14 and 17) (881-E, F, G; 883-E)

G 1.5. In fact no finding could have been record by the High Court in the
Contempt Petition against appellant, as he was not a party to that proceeding.
The observations in the order were made in the context of initiating suo moto
contempt proceedings against the appellant and the IG of Police. The appellant
was entitled to show cause against the initiation of contempt proceedings. He,
in fact, produced documents to show that the statements of witnesses were
H
- RAJESH KUMAR SINGH v. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADHYA PRADESH.

recorded, in a preliminary inquiry directed by the IG of Police, on the A
. complaint of the Magistrate. The explanation has been completely ignored or
873

overlooked by the High Court. (Para 1511882-D, E, F)o

1.6. It is no doubt true that the complaint of the Magistrate and the
directive oflG required 'action', and did not specifically direct an 'inquiry'.
But the "subject" portion of IG's letter specifically states "regarding B
conducting inquiry and taking disciplinary ~ction against the delinquent.
Therefore, the report submitted by the appellant has to be treated as one made
bonajide in pursuance of the instructions of the official superiors directing
him to hold a preliminary inquiry. It was not intended to scandali:ze the court.
Nor was there any attempt by him to sit (in judgment) over the order sheet of C
the Magistrate in his Inquiry report. (Para 161 (883-A, Bl

2.1 The power to punish for contempt is not intended to be invoked or
exercised routinely or mechanically, but with circumspection and restraint
Courts should not readily infer an intention to scandali:ze courts or lowering
the authority of court unless such an intention is clearly established. Nor D
should they exercise power to punish for contempt where mere question of
propriety is involved. (Para 18) (883-E, F)

Rizwan-ul-Hasan v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (19531SCR581, relied
on.
E
2.2. A perception that is slowly gaining ground among public is that
sometimes, some Judges are showing over sensitiveness with a tendency to
treat even technical violations or unintended acts as contempt. It is possible
that it is done to uphold the majesty of courts, and to command respect. But
Judges, like everyone else, will have to earn respect. They cannot demand
respect by demonstration of 'power'. (Para 18) (883-G; 884-A) F

2.3. The purpose of the power to punish for criminal contempt is to
I

ensure that the faith and confidence of the public in administration of justice
is not eroded. Such power, vested in the High Courts, carries with it great
responsibility. Care should be taken to ensure that there is no room for G
complaints of ostentatious exercise of power. Exerci~e of such power, results
in eroding the confidence of the public, rather than creating trust and faith
in the judiciary. Be that as it may. (Para 18) (884-B-C)

3. In the present case, there is no material to show that the appellant
acted with any ulterior motive. But for the complaint and request by the H
874 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 7 S.t.R.

A Magistrate that action should be taken against errant police constable and

-
the directions issued by the l.G. and Superintendent of Police to hold an inquiry,
the appellant would not have held the inquiry. Any such preliminary inquiry
warrants record~ng of statements. / ny bona fide act in the course of discharge
of duties and complying with the directions of the superior officers, should
not land the Inquiry officer in a contempt proceedings. Though, common
B contempt proceedings were initiated against the IG of Police and the appellant,
the High Court dropped the proceedings against the IG of Police who directed
the inquiry, but chose to proceed against the appellant who merely complied
with the directions of the IG of Police. It even ignored the declaration of
bonafides and.unconditional apology. The finding of guilt by the High Court
C is totally unwarranted. (Para 1911884-D, E, Fl

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 321 of
2001.

From the Judgment & Order dated 2.3.2001 of the High Court of Judicature
D of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalour, Bench at Gwalior, in Contempt Petition (Criminal)
No. 5 of2000.

M.C. Dhingra, Gaurav Dhingra and Sanjay Singh for the Appellant.

The Judgment of the Court was· delivered by
E
RV. RA VEENDRAN, J. I. The Appellant was the Sub-Divisional Officer
(Police), Dabra, Gwalior District, during 1998-1999. He has filed this appeal
~oder Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short "the Act"),
being aggrieved by the order dated 2.3.200 I of the Madhya Pradesh High
Court in Contempt Petition (Criminal) No.5 of2000, punishing him with simple
F imprisonment for seven days and fine of Rs.2,000/-.

Factual Background

2. Shri Pradeep Mittal, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dabra, sent a
Report dated I . I I. I 999 to the Inspector General of Police, Gwalior Circle,
G alleging that one Chander Bhan Singh Raghuvanshi, Station Officer, Picchhor
came inside his court Hall and threatened him by. stating "you have not done
good by initiating contempt proceedings against me before High Court. I am
back in Picchhor Police Station and ·1 will see you"; and "I have set many
Magistrates right and I will see you also". The learned Magistrate complained
H that it was unbecoming of a police officer to threaten a Judicial Officer in court
RAJESH KUMAR SINGH o·. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADHYA PRADESH. (R.V. RAVEENDRAN. I.I 875

and interrupt the court proceedings and the misbehaviour warranted stem A
action. The learned Magistrate enclosed a copy of the order-sheet dated
l. l l .1999 (recording the incident) and statements of two witnesses to the
incident (Deposition Writer and Reader of the court).

3. Shri N.K. Tripathi, I.G. of Police, sent the complaint to the
Superintendent of Police, Gwalior under cover of letter dated I 0. I 1.1999 with B
a direction to take necessary action. The subject of the letter stated "Regarding
>
conducting an inquiry and taking disciplinary action against Raghuvanshi".
,I
The Superintendent of Police (Sri Pradeep Runwaal) in tum forwarded the
I.G.'s letter along with the Magistrate's complaint and its enclosures, to the
appellant herein who was at that time the Sub-Divisional Officer (Police), C
Dabra, under cover of letter dated 17. I l. I 999, with a direction to personally
look into the matter and send a detailed report ("Vistrit Teep").

4. As per the said directions, the appellant conducted an inquiry. He
recorded the statements of Raghuvanshi and several witnesses cited by the
said Raghuvanshi, namely M.P. Sharma (President, Bar Association, Dabra), D
Mahendra Kumar (a litigant), Bal Kishan and Jagdish (Police Constables},
Suresh Kumar (Asst. Prosecution Officer), B. S. Thakur, Jaswant Singh Parihaar
and Mahesh Dubey (Advocates) who stated that they were present at the
time of the incident in court on 1.1 I .1999 as also Rajendra Prasad Sharma
(constable who had accompanied Raghuvanshi). All these witnesses stated E
that there was no unbecoming conduct or misbehaviour on the part of
Raghuvanshi and that he had shown respect to the learned Magistrate. The
appellant submitted a report dated 27.11.1999, in regard to his inquiry, to the
Superintendent of Police, recording a finding that the documents and statements
disclosed that Raghuvanshi had used unwarranted language in Court which
was improper and recommended punishment.

5. Long prior to the incident on· I .11.1999, the High Court had initiated
contempt proceedings (Contempt Petition No.2 of 1999) against Raghuvanshi
on an earlier reference by Sri Pradeep Mittal, Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Dabra, in regard to a false report submitted by Raghuvanshi to his court in
April, 1998. The second reference made by the learned Magistrate in regard G
to the incident of l.11.1999, was also placed before the High Court, in the
pending contempt proceedings. The High Court took note of the second
...""" reference on 12.1.2000 and issued a show cause notice to Raghuvanshi. In
response to it, Raghuvanshi submitted his reply stating that he had not
misbehaved with the Judge. In support of his defence; he produced the H
876 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 7 S.C.R.

A Inquiry Report dated 27.11.1999 submitted by the appellant to the
Superintendent of Police along with the statements of the witnesses examined
in the inquiry. The High Court disposed of the contempt proceedings against
Raghuvanshi by order dated 22/29.5.2000 holding him guilty in respect of
both incidents and imposed a punishment of three months' simple
imprisonment. In regard to the second reference, the High Court held that
B Raghuvanshi had not only misbehaved with the Judge on 1.11.1999, but had
also raised a false defence by alleging tlat the learned Magistrate had acted
with malice against him. In the course of the said order the High Court dealt
with the report dated 27.11.1999 of the appellant (which was produced by
Raghuvanshi) thus:
c "According to the respondent (Raghuvanshi), the Presiding Officer
on account of malice had initiated the contempt proceedings. According
to him, he had gone to the Court of Mr. Mittal in connection with
some Court worl'., Shri Mittal asked him as to why he did enter in the
court without being called whereupon he stated that he come there
D on account of some official work. In support of this submission he has
relied upon Annexure-R/6. A perusal of Annexure.-R/6 would show
that he was not required to appear as a witness in the court of Shri
Mittal. According to him, at the time of the alleged meeting number
of lawyers were present in the court. Accord=ng to him, Shri MP
Shanna, Virendra Thakur, S.P. Shanna, J.S. Parihar, Mahesh Dubey and
E number of litigants were present in the court. According to him, the·
Presiding Officer Shri Mittal had sent a copy of the complaint to the
Inspector General of Police, who in his tum directed for departmental
enquiry. In the said enquiry statements of number of witnesses were
recorded. He has producc:d those statements at Annexure-R/8
F collectively. He has relied upon the statements of as many as 12
persons which were recorded on 24.11.1999, 26.11.1999 and 27.11.1999.
These 12 statements do not contain the statements of the complciinant
Shri MittP-l. Not even a single document has been produced in the
..
Court to show that the Inspector General of Police ever authorized the
S.D.O.(P) to record the statements of the witnesses. Nobody knows
G as to how said S.D.O.(P) came to know about the names of the
witnesses. If these statements were .recorded in the departmental
enquiry then copy of the charge-sheet or such relevant documents
could be filed. If these statements were recorded in a preliminary
enquiry such an order could be produced in the Court to show that
H these statements were recorded in the preliminary enquiry."
RAJESH KUMAR SINGH v. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADHYA PRADESH. IR.V. RAVEENDRAN. I.I 877
While disposing of the contempt proceedings against Raghuvanshi, A
the High Court in its order dated 22/29.5.2000, directed notices to be issued
to the Inspector General of Police, Gwalior and the appellant, to show cause
why they should not be punished for contempt of court, for having enquired
into the conduct of a Judge, without the pennission of the High Court

6. In compliance with the said direction, contempt proceedings were' B
initiated against the appellant and Shri N.K. Tripathi (l.G. Police), in Contempt
Petition No.5 of2000 and show cause notices dated 3.7.2000 were issued to'
them. Shri N.K. Tripathi, IG of Police, filed a statement submitting that on
receiving the complaint dated I. l l. l 999 from the learned Magistrate against
Raghuvanshi, he merely wrote to the S.P., Gwalior to enquire into the matter C
and take disciplinary action against Raghuvanshi; that there was no inte.ntion'
to hold any inquiry into the conduct of the Judge; and that after the inquiry
against Raghuvanshi, and the report submitted by the appellant, a penalty of
Rs.500/- was imposed on Raghuvanshi for misbehaviour. He asserted that he
did not create any false or forged document as alleged in the show cause
notice dated 3.7.2000. He also submitted an unconditional apology. The High D
Court accepted the said explanation of Sri N. K. Tripathi, IG of Police and
dropped the proceedings against him, by the following order dated 3.11.2000:

"As regards notice to N.K. Tripathi, we have perused the record.
From his reply, he has not directed any enquiry against the conduct '
of the Judge. N.K. Tripathi has only directed to take action within a E
period of 15 days and intimate the action to the Court. He has not '
directed an enquiry. Therefore, no prima facie case is made out
against N.K. Tripathi and notice to N.K. Tripathi is discharged".

7. The appellant also filed a reply similar to the reply filed by LG. of
Police, with an unconditional apology. The High Court did not, however, , F
accept the appellant's explanation and apology. It framed the following charges
. _ against the appellant on IO. I l.2000, which according to the High Court
. amounted to contempt of court:

(i) that he inquired into the conduct of a Judge and submitted the
report scandalizing the court in order to protect the erring official G
(Raghuvanshi) who misbehaved in the court.
(ii) that with an intention to lower the dignity of the court, he sat
·~ (in appeal) over the order-sheet dated l. l l. l 999 of the Judicial
Magistrate and recorded a separate finding.
H
878 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 7 S.C.R.

A (iii) that with an intention to scandalize the court and to lower the
dignity of the court, he recorded statements against the Judicial
Officer without any authority of law with an oblique motive.

8. The appellant filed replies/explanations dated 28.7.2000, 10.11.2000
and 30.11.2000 to the show cause notice and the charges, which are ~ummarized
B below:

(a) The learned Magistrate had lodged a complaint dated 1.11.1999
against Raghuvanshi with the IG of Police, who forwarded it to
the Superintendent of Police for inquiry and necessary
disciplinary action who, in tum, sent it to him. with a direction
c to hold &n inquiry and submit a detailed report. Accordingly, he
enquired into the conduct of Raghuvanshi and found him guilty
of misbehaving in Court and recommended his punishment.

D
Holding an inquiry and submitting a report as directed by his
superior officers does not amount to contempt. He did not hold
any inquiry in regard to the conduct of the Judicial Officer.
...
(b) As the inquiry was against Raghuvanshi, he was bound to give
due opportunity to Raghuvanshi before deciding upon
departmental action. The statements of several witnesses were
' of Raghuvanshi. When he recorded
recorded as per the request
the statements of various persons and submitted his report
E dated 27.11.1999, no other proceedings were pending against
Raghuvanshi in regard to the incident dated 1.11.1999. Therefore,
there was no question of taking any pennission from court; for
holding the inquiry.

(c) He did not create any false or forged document. He acted bonafide.
F Neither the act of holding an inquiry nor the act of recording the
statements of witnesses was with the intention of scandalizing
or lowering the authority of any Court or interfering with the due
course of any judicial proceeding or interfering or obstructing
the administration of justice.
G The High Court by the impugned order dated 2.3 .200 I rejected the explanation
and held that all three charges were proved and imposed the punishment of
seven days' simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/-. The said order is
under challenge in this appeal. ~

Whether the appellant is guilty of contempt?
H
RA.IESH KUMAR SINGH v. HIGH COURT OF JUDIC"TURE OF M"DHV" PR4DESH. IR.V. R"VEENDR"N. I.I 879
9. The question whether Raghuvanshi committed contempt of court on A
1.11.1999 was decided by the High Court by its order dated 22/29.5.2000 in
Contempt Petition No. 2 of 1999. We are not concerned with the acts of
Raghuvanshi or the decision against him. The question before us is whether
the appellant committed contempt by his following acts : (a) holding ab
inquiry in regard to the incident dated 1.11.1999 and recording the statements
of several witnesses (who stated that they were present at the time of the B
incident) in the course of such inquiry, without the permission of the High
Court; and (b) recording the statements made by the witnesses that
Raghuvanshi had not misbehaved with the learned Magistrate, thereby
contradicting the record made by the learned Magistrate as to what transpiretl
(in the order-sheet dated 1.11.1999 of a suit which he was hearing). C
10. The High Court has held that holding an inquiry in respect of the
conduct of Raghuvanshi on 1.11.1999 amounted to holding an inquiry into the
conduct of the learned Magistrate and that was not permissible without the
permission of the High court. The High Court has also held that recording
the evidence of several witnesses by appellant, to the effect that Raghuvanshi D
.did not misbehave with the Judge (which contradicted the learned Magistrate
who had reported that Raghuvanshi had misbehaved with him), was with the
ulterior intention of helping Raghuvanshi to create a defence of malice on the
part of Magistrate. The High Court concluded that these acts amounted to
scandalizing the court and interfering with the administration of justice.
E
11. When Raghuvanshi misbehaved in court, it was open to the learned
Magistrate to initiate action for prosecuting Raghuvanshi under section 228
of IPC, or punish him under section 345 Cr.P.C read with section 228 IPC. If
the learned Magistrate was of the view that the contempt committed did not
fall under section 228 IPC, then he could have made a reference to the High F
-- Court for taking action under section 10 of the Act. The learned Magistrate
did not take any action under section 228 IPC nor unde~ section 345 Cr.P.C.
read with section 228 IPC. Even before making a reference to the High Court
for initiating action for contempt, the learned Magistrate sent a complaint to
the Inspector General of Police on 1.11.1999 itself, requiring action again~t
Raghuvanshi. The action that was required was, obviously departmental G
disciplinary action. The Inspector General of Police, acting on the said
request, directed the Superintendent of Police to hold an inquiry and take
disciplinary action against Raghuvanshi. The Superintendent of Police, In
tum, forwarded the complaint dated J.l l.1999 of the Magistrate and the
directive of the LG. of Police dated 10.11.1999 to the appellant,_ with an H

(

\
880 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 7 S.C.R.

A instruction to look into the matter and send a detailed· report. It is only in .,.
pursuance of such directive from his superiors, the appellant held a preliminary
inquiry in respect of the coMuct of Raghuvanshi. The inquiry was not in
regard to the conduct of the Judge. As the inquiry was against Raghuvanshi,
the appellant had to give an opportunity to him, to make his statement. He
also had to record the statements of persons, whom Raghuvanshi stated were
B present at the time of the incident. The inquiry by the appellant was a prelude
to the disciplinary action against Raghuvanshi. In fact, after the recording
of the statements of several witnesses, the appellant submitted a report
holding Raghuvanshi guilty of having used unwarranted language in court
and recommending punishment. It cannot, therefore, be said, that recording
--
C the statements of Raghuvanshi, and several other persons the request of
Raghuvanshi, in the course of the preliminary inquiry, amounts to holding an
. inquiry in regard to the conduct of a Judge.

12. When appellant held the preliminary inquiry, no contempt
proceedings had been initiated by the High Court, in regard to the incident
D of 1.11.1999. There was also no other proceedings pending before the learned
Magistrate or any other court in regard to the incident dated 1.11.1999.
Therefore, the question of seeking or obtaining the permission of High Court
or other court, for holding such inquiry, did not arise. Unless the inquiry by
· the appellant was a parallel proceeding with reference to a matter pending in
E court and unless such parallel proceeding interfered with or, .intended to
interfere with the pending court proceeding, there is no interference with
administration of justice. We may in this context refer to the decision of this
Court in Security and Finance (P) Ltd v. Dattatraya Raghav Agge, AIR
(1970) SC 720. This Court held that an authority holding an inquiry in good
faith in exercise of the powers vested in it by a statute is not guilty of
F contempt of Court, merely because a parallel enquiry is imminent or pending
before a Court. This Court pointed out that to constitute the offence of
Contempt of Court, there must be involved some act calculated io bring a
Court or a Judge of the Court into contempt or to lower his authority or
something calculated to obstruct or interfere with the due course of justice
on the lawful process of the Court. Applying the said principle, the act of
G appellant holding the preliminary inquiry, cannot be considered to be contempt
of court.

13. Let us next examine whether recording the statements of some
persons, amounted to scandalizing the court, if those statements were contrary
H to the report of the incident contained in the order-sheet dated I. I J .1999.
RAJESH KUMAR SINGH "· HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADHYA PRADESH, (R.V. RA YEENDRAN. J I . 881

Attributing improper motive to a Jlidge or scurrilous abuse of a Judge will ' A
- amount to scandalizing the court. Raghuvanshi was found to be guilty of
such conduct and he was punished. The appellant neither attributed any
improper motive to the Judge, nor abused the Judge. The High Court concluded
that the inquiry and report by the appellant was intended to help Raghuvanshi,
because the appellant recorded the statements of only persons who
contradicted the report of the learned Magistrate, but did not examine the 'B
learned Magistrate or his Deposition Writer or Reader of the court. The
appellant has given a feasible and reasonable explanation for not recording ,
the statements of the learned Magistrate, or his Court Reader and Deposition
Writer. He has stated that he was only holding a preliminary inquiry as
directed by his official superiors; that the statements of the Deposition Writer C
and Reader of the court as also the order-sheet wherein the learned Magistrate
had recorded what transpired on 1.11.1999, were already available on record
and therefore, he did not record their statements again, in the inquiry. In fact,
the very first para of the Inquiry Report dated 27 .11.1999 states that he had
perused the letter dated 1.11.1999 of Sri Pradip Mittal, JFMC, Dabra, the order
sheet and the statements of Deposition Writer and Reader recorded by the 'D
Magistrate.

14. The High Court has next found fault with the appellant for recording
the statements of witnesses, which contradicted what was recorded by the
learned Magistrate in the order-sheet, and has concluded that this must have E
been done to help Raghuvanshi to create a defence in the contempt
proceedings. Even if Raghuvanshi or the witnesses named by him stated
something false, the appellant who recorded their statements in the course of
preliminary inquiry cannot be held liable or responsible for such statements,
unless there is material to show that Appellant was part of a conspiracy to
create false evidence. There is nothing to show such conspiracy. It is nobody's F 1

case that he wrongly recorded the statements of the witnesses to benefit
Raghuvanshi. The inquiry by appellant was in pursuance of the complaint by
the learned Magistrate demanding action against Raghuvanshi and the
direction of the Inspector General of Police to hold an inquiry in connection
with disciplinary action against Raghuvanshi. The Appellant submitted a
report holding Raghuvanshi had used unwarranted language in court and that G
he should be punished. It cannot, therefore, be said that appellant recorded
the statements of witnesses with an ulterior motive of helping Raghuvanshi
to create a false defence.

15. The High Court's conclusion that appellant prepared the report to H
882 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 7 S.C.R.

A support the defence of Raghuvanshi by recording the statements of some
witnesses against the learned Magistrate is in fact based on an assumption
that the order dated 22/29.5.2000 in Contempt Petition No. 2of1999, while.
directing initiation of contempt action, had recorded such a finding. This is
evident from the following observation of the High Court in the impugned
B judgment:

. "In Contempt Petition No. 2of1999, allegations levied against Chandra
Bhan Singh Raghuvanshi were found proved and it was also recorded
that the then Sub-Divisional Officer (Police), Dabra, without any
authority of law has recorded the statements of persons in a manner
to give handle to said Chandra Bhan Singh Raghuvanshi, to make
c allegation of malice against the Presiding Officer."

But we find that the order dated 22/29.5.2000 does not contain a finding that
Appellant had "without any authority of law recorded the statements of
persons in a manner to give handle to RaghuvaIJshi to make allegations of .
D malice against the Presiding Officer". All that the order dated 22/29.5.2000
stated was that no document had been produced to show that JG of Police
had authorized the SDO (P) to record the statements, and if the statements
had been recorded in pursuance of any order, such order could be produced
in court (in the proposed contempt proceedings) to show that the statements
were recorded in the preliminary enquiry. Jn fact no finding could have been
E recorded in the order dated 22/29 .5 .2000 against appellant, as he was not a
party to that proceeding. The observations in the order dated 22/29.5.2000
were made in the context of initiating suo moto contempt proceedings against
the appellant and the JG of Police. The appellant was entitled to show cause
against the initiation of contempt proceedings. The appellant in fact produced
F documents to show that the statements of witnesses were recorded, in a
preliminary inquiry directed by the IG of Police, on the complaint of the
Magistrate. The explanation that he held the inquiry and recorded the
statements on the directions of the IG of Police conveyed by the
Superintendent of Police and that the statements of witnesses were recorded
at the instance of and on the request of Raghuvanshi has been completely
G ignored or overloo~ed by the High Court.

16. The police department had issued a circular dated 14.9.1999 (read·
with para 36 of MP Police Regulations) which required that whenever any
complaint was received against police, a report should be sent at the earliest
after holding nece~sary inquiry into such complaints.The letter of the IG of
.H Police and the Superintendent of Police also make it clear that the appellant
RAJESH KUMAR SINGH,. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADHYA PRADESH. IR.V. RAVEENDRAN. I.I 883

was required to hold an inquiry in connection with initiating a disciplinary A
action against the Raghuvanshi. It is no doubt true that the complaint dated
1.11.1999 of the Magistrate and the directive of IG dated 10.11.1999 required
'action', and did not specifically direct an 'inquiry'. But the "subject" portion
of IG 's letter dated I 0.11.1999 specifically states "regarding conducting inquiry
and taking disciplinary action against Sub-Inspector C.B.S. Raghuvanshi".
Therefore, the report submitted by the appellant has to be treated as one :B
made bona fide in pursuance of the instructions of the official superiors
directing him to hold a preliminary inquiry. It was not intended to scandalize
the court. Nor was there any attempt by the appellant to sit (in judgment) over
the order sheet dated 1.11.1999 of the learned Magistrate in his Inquiry report
dated 27.11.1999.
,. c
17. It is also necessary to notice that the High Court proceeded on an
erroneous impression that contempt proceedings against Raghuvanshi in
regard to the incident of 1.11.1999 were pending when appellant held the
inquiry in November, 1999 and submitted his report dated 27.11.1999, and·
therefore such inquiry by the appellant must have been with the intention of:
helping Raghuvanshi to prepare a defence in the Cortempt Proceedings. · D
Contempt Petition No.2of1999 which was pending in November, 1999 did not
relate to the incident of 1.11.1999 at all, but -elated to a false report given by·
Raghuvanshi in April, 1998, which had nothing to do with the incident o~
1.11.1999. In the said contempt proceedings relating to the false report given.
in 1998, the High Court took cognizance of the second reference made by the:
Magistrate in regard to the incident of 1.11.1999, only on 12.1.2000. Therefore,; E
the High Court's assumption that the entire inquiry by the appellant was with
a view to help Raghuvanshi in regard to the contempt proceeding pending;
in regard to the said incident on 1.11.1999 is obviously erroneous.

18. This Court has repeatedly cautioned that the power to punish for:
contempt is not intended to be invoked or exercised routinely or mechanically,! F
but with circumspection and restraint. Courts should not readily infer an:
intention to scandalize courts or lowering the authority of court unless such:
intention is clearly established. Nor should they exercise power to punish fo~
I
contempt where mere question of propriety is involved. In Rizwan-u/-Hasarl,
v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, [1953] SCR 581, this Court reiterated the well1
settled principle that jurisdiction in contempt is not to be invoked unless ther(j G
1s real prejudice which can be regarded as a substantial interference with the
due course of justice. Of late, a perception that is slowly gaining groun~
among public is that sometimes, some Judges are showing oversensitivenes~
with a tendency to treat even technical violations or unintended acts as
contempt. It is possible that it is done to uphold the majesty of courts, an~
to command respect. But Judges, like everyone else, will have to earn respect. H

'f
884 SUPREME COURf REPORTS [2007) 7 S.C.R.

A They cannot demand respect by demonstration of 'power'. Nearly two ,.
centuries ago, Justice John Marshall, the Chief Justice of American Supreme
Court warned that the power of Judiciary lies, not in deciding cases, nor in
imposing sentences, nor in punishing for contempt, but in the trust, confidence
and faith of the common man. The purpose of the power to punish for criminal
B contempt is to ensure that the faith and confidence of the public in
administration of justice is not eroded. Such power, vested in the High Courts,
carries with it great responsibility. Care should be taken to ensure that there
is no room fr·f complaints of ostentatious exercise of power. Three acts, which
i
are often cited as examples of exercise of such power are : (i) punishing
persons for unintended acts or technical violations, by treating them as
C contempt of court; (ii) frequent summoning of Government officers to court
(to sermonize or to take them to task for perceived violations); and (iii) making
avoidable adverse comments and observations against persons who are not
parties. It should be remembered that exercise of such power, results in
eroding the confidence of the public, rather than creating trust and faith in
D the judiciary. Be that as it may.

19. There is no material to show that the appellant acted with any
ulterior motive. But for the complaint and request by the learned Magistrate'
that action should be taken against Ragh1,1vanshi and the directions issued
by the l.G. and Superintendent of Police to hold an inquiry, the appellant
E would not have held the inquiry. Any such preliminary inquiry warrants
recording of statements. Any bona fide act in the course of discharge of
duties and complying with the directions of the superior officers, should not
land the Inquiry officer in a contempt proceedings. Though, common contempt
proceedings were initiated against the IG of Police and the appellant, the High
Comt dropped the proceedings against the JG of Police who directed the
F inquiry, but ~hose to proceed against the appellant who merely complied with
the directions of the JG of Police. It even ignored the declaration of bonafides
and unconditional apology. The finding of guilt is totally unwarranted.
·"
20. We, therefore, hold that the appellant is not guilty of contempt of
court. Consequently, we allow this appeal and set aside the order of the High
Court dated 2.3.2001 b contempt petition No.5 of 2000 and acquit and
exonerate the appellant of all charges.

S.K.S. Appeal allowed.