RAJESH KUMAR SINGH versus HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH GWALIOR

Citation: [2007] 7 S.C.R. 869 · Decided: 31-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
RAJESH KUMAR SINGH 
v. 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH 
GWALIOR 
MAY 31, 2007 
[R. V. RA VEENDRAN ANDLOKESHWARSINGH PANTA,JJ.] 
Contempt of Courts Act, I 97 I: Section I 9; 
A 
B 
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 ma1eria/ 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 
B 
totally unwarranted-JPC-s.228-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-s.345. 
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 
E 
issuance of notices to the Inspector General of Police and the appellant, the 
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

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.