Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:46171-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONTR No. 2 of 2024 Court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge Rajnandgaon (C.G.) versus ... Petitioner(s) Raksha Awasthi D/o. Shri Upendra Nath Awasthi Aged About 50 Years Advocate, R/o. Vip Bunglow No. 5, Rohini Vihar, Green Park, Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : None. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Ishita, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 10/09/2025 1. This is an ofÏce reference. 2. This criminal contempt under Section 2(C) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been registered as per Rule 348(1) and 350(1) of the
Legal Reasoning
Chhattisgarh High Court Rules, 2007 as reference under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, in view of a communication sent by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon (for short, the learned ASJ) dated 17.09.2024, forwarded by the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon vide letter No. 2381/One-15-1/2017, Rajnandgaon, 2 dated 25.09.2024, addressed to the Registrar General of this High Court, wherein the learned ASJ has made a complaint that the contemnor has committed a criminal contempt by her conduct in the Court. 3. The learned ASJ has stated in his communication that the said Court had received a Criminal Revision being No. 41/2024 on 28.06.2024 for the first time on transfer in which the counsel for the revisioner, Mr. Ayaz Tanvir had filed an application for early hearing of the petition under Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C. On 29.06.2024, the said Court was hearing the matter and in exercise of its power under Section 397(1) Cr.P.C., the original records of the trial Court/Sub Divisional OfÏcer was summoned and the matter was directed to be listed for appearance of the respondent on 06.07.2024, as directed earlier. On 06.07.2024, the Uncle (Chacha) of the Presiding OfÏcer, since had expired and as such he was on leave, and as per the work distribution, the matter was placed before the Court of Special Judge (Atrocities) on the said date, the respondent No. 1 appeared in person whereas the respondent No. 2 was represented through his counsel and the respondent No. 3, despite service of notice, did not appear. 4. It has been alleged that the kind of insolence shown by the respondent-
Legal Reasoning
Ms. Raksha Awasthi before the said Court on 09.07.2024 by getting angry on the mere basis of the original record of the trial court/Sub- Divisional OfÏcer being summoned, in her personal matters was absolutely unacceptable as a lawyer. The respondent-Raksha Awasthi, on the mere basis of the Court calling the record of the trial court in her personal matter, completely forgot how she should behave in a dignified manner in the Court. The court was sorry to state that the manner in which she crossed all limits of aggression and loud voice in the Court and 3 used words like 'karela neem chadha' and to put the Presiding Judge in the dock on the mere act of sitting in the Court and calling the record of the trial court, was completely contrary to her responsibility of maintaining the dignity, decorum and order and proceedings of the court expected from her as a lawyer. It was further stated that since it was her personal matter, she completely forgot that as an Advocate, she had the responsibility to maintain the dignity of the Court and merely because she was an Advocate practicing in the High Court, does not grant her any leeway to openly commit contempt of Court before a Judge sitting in the District Court. Above all, she also made an application at 3:30 p.m. on the same day alleging that the order sheet of the Court was not written properly and her words were twisted. The learned ASJ has further stated that on 06.07.2024, when the trial Court records were summoned, on that date also, she was in a fit of anger, as informed by the staff of the Court. Hence, looking to her conduct, the learned ASJ had referred the matter for registering a contempt proceeding against the contemnor. 5. This Court, vide order dated 03.10.2024, had issued notice to the respondent/contemnor and the matter was listed on 10.01.2025 on which date, Ms. Ishita appeared on behalf of the contemnor stating that she had filed a reply to the notice and sought discharge from the contempt proceedings. The matter was thereafter listed on 10.02.2025, 05.03.2025, 06.05.2025, 14.07.2025, 14.08.2025. Today, the matter has been heard finally. 6. Today, Ms. Ishita, learned counsel has caused her appearance on behalf of the contemnor Ms. Raksha Awasthy and Ms. Raksha Awasthy is also present in person. 7. Placing reliance on the afÏdavit filed by the contemnor, Ms. Ishita submits 4 that the contemnor is a practicing Advocate with unblemished standing of more than 27 years at the Bar, with experience of thousands of appearances in numerous cases from trial courts and tribunals up to the Supreme Court. She holds the highest regard for the majesty of this Hon'ble Court and the judiciary as an institution which is working as 'guardian angel' for protection of citizens' rights. She never said or meant to say anything against the judiciary and is a firm believer that the authority of the courts is fundamental to the rule of law and had always conducted with utmost respect and deference towards the judicial process. 8. A preliminary objection has been raised by the contemnor stating that (i) there is violation of mandatory procedure established by law under Section 17 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Rule 353 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 2007; (ii) the subordinate Court has no jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act and make the present reference; (iii) her correction application was not made part of the contempt reference material (iv) there has been violation of principles of natural justice as allegation have not been put to the contemnor before making the reference; (v) the reference petition is not duly supported by a valid afÏdavit; (vi) new allegations in the reference order has been introduced. 9. Ms. Ishita submits that the reference letter forwarded by the learned ASJ which forms the basis of the present proceedings, does not disclose any specific factual instance constituting contempt but merely consists of inferences drawn by him. The absence of concrete factual allegations fails to disclose any cause of action and deprives this Hon'ble Court of any material upon which cognizance can validly be taken under the 5 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is further respectfully submitted that the averments typed in bold letters in paragraphs 4 and 6 of the reference letter are vague inferences drawn by the deponent. The words attributed to the contemnor in these paragraphs are incomplete and lack any reference or context to the written or verbal submissions, which ought to have provided a factual basis for this Hon'ble Court to draw inferences. Notably, even within the impugned reference itself, paragraph 7 acknowledges that the contemnor had objected to the alleged attribution of words that she had never spoken in court. However, her objections were not recorded in the order-sheet along with her actual statements/ submissions, leading to an incorrect recording of the order-sheet. Consequently, she was constrained to file an application for the correction of the order-sheet supported by afÏdavit at 3:30 p.m., as already reflected in the order-sheet dated 09.07.2024, yet no order was passed deciding the said application, although the said revision has been dismissed on 08.11.2024 by the learned ASJ (FTC) Rajnandgaon. Accordingly, no contempt is disclosed in the reference forwarded by the said Court. The order-sheet dated 09.07.2024 itself records the objections raised by the contemnor made in open court on the words being attributed to her, and presenting them in the manner portrayed in the order-sheet, the act of filing an application for correction of order- sheet cannot be construed as amounting to criminal contempt of Court as has been alleged in paragraph 7 of the reference letter. 10. Lastly, Ms. Ishita submits that if any words spoken or conduct exhibited by her in the Court of learned ASJ were found inappropriate, the contemnor tenders her unconditional apology. 11. We have considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the 6 materials on record. 12. From the communication of the learned ASJ, it appears that the contemnor did become agitated in Court and raised her voice in protest to the calling of the trial court record in her personal matter. Such conduct was certainly not befitting of an Advocate, who is an ofÏcer of the Court and is expected to maintain dignity, restraint, and respect in the court-room at all times. At the same time, we notice that the allegations essentially pertain to a case where she was appearing in person and no material has been placed on record to show that the contemnor habitually indulges in such behaviour. The contemnor has an otherwise unblemished standing of more than two and a half decades at the Bar. Importantly, she has also appeared in person and has expressed deep regret and tendered unconditional apology for any inadvertent conduct that may have appeared disrespectful. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case to draw proceedings for contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The ends of justice would be served if the contemnor is let off with a strict caution to remain careful in future and to ensure that no act or conduct on her part, whether as an Advocate or as a litigant, should give rise to even an impression of undermining the authority of the Court. 13. Hence, before parting with the case, this Court deems it appropriate to observe the following: (i) As an Advocate, she is an ofÏcer of the Court and is bound by the standards of professional conduct prescribed under the Bar Council of India Rules; (ii) Differences with judicial orders must always be addressed through legal remedies, never through intemperate words or conduct 7 in Court; (iii) Respect for all Courts, including the District Judiciary, is essential to maintain public confidence in the justice delivery system; (iv) With her long standing at the Bar, she should set an example of civility, restraint and professionalism for younger members of the Bar; and; (v) When dealing with personal matters in Court, she must exercise greater restraint so that emotions do not overshadow the dignity of the profession. 14. The contemnor is put on a clear notice that any recurrence of such conduct in future may leave this Court with no option but to take strict action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 15. We also deem it appropriate to remind the District Judiciary that the dignity of the Court is best preserved not by harshness but by patience, courtesy and calm authority. The trial Judges, being the first point of contact for litigants, must handle proceedings with sensitivity. By maintaining composure, restraint and civility even in the face of provocation, the District Judiciary can reinforce public confidence in the justice delivery system and set the highest example of judicial discipline. 16. The notice issued to the contemnor is discharged and the reference
Decision
accordingly stands disposed of. 17. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, to be circulated amongst the Judicial OfÏcers posted in the District, forthwith. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.09.12 18:26:24 +0530