The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently sentenced a man to ten days in jail in a suo motu criminal contempt case filed against him for making baseless allegations of corruption against a district judge.
A bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Vishal Mishra noted that the accused had filed a complaint with the High Court’s principal registrar, questioning the work of a judicial officer and alleging corruption and misuse of his position.
The High Court ruled that the accused’s words in the complaint clearly met the definition of ‘criminal contempt’ under section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act.
The proceedings against the accused, Krishna Kumar Raghuvanshi, were initiated in response to a referral made by Additional District Judge SPS Bandela under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act.
The reference was used to file both civil and criminal contempt charges against Raghuvanshi. These charges stemmed from his defiance of the court’s orders in a temple-related dispute, as well as his distribution of a letter via WhatsApp that slandered the image, reputation, and prestige of the court.
An investigation was conducted by the District Judge (Vigilance) prior to the initiation of contempt proceedings, and the complaint made by the contemnor against the judicial officer was found to be incorrect.
The complaint was closed, but it was decided to initiate contempt proceedings against the contemnor in light of his complaint.
The contemnor’s counsel justified his action in filing the complaint while also tendering an unconditional apology.
He stated that the temple at issue in the case before the judicial officer was a private trust, and thus directing the revenue authorities to intervene and lock the donation box was unnecessary.
The Court determined that the arguments used to justify the contemnor’s actions were ineffective because no explanation was provided for making reckless allegations against the judicial officer.
Furthermore, the complaint was duly investigated and found to be without merit by relevant authorities, according to the Court.
As a result, the Court found the contemnor guilty under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act and determined that he was punishable under Section 12 of the Act.
During the sentencing phase, counsel for the defendant pleaded for a light sentence, suggesting that only a fine be imposed.
The Court, however, determined that a fine alone would not suffice. As a result, the contemnor was sentenced to ten days in prison, as well as a 2,000 fine to be paid within seven days.
Failure to pay the fine within the specified time frame would result in an additional ten days in prison, the Court ordered.
