Criminal Contempt Petition No. 5 of 2014. Case: Anita Purushottam Hiranandani Vs Dwarka Revchand Hiranandani and Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Contempt Petition No. 5 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Shreepad Murthy i/b Shobha Mehra, Advs. and For Respondents: Party-in-Person |
| Judges | V.M. Kanade and Anuja Prabhudesai, JJ. |
| Issue | Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Sections 15(1)(b), 2(c) |
| Judgement Date | December 01, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
V.M. Kanade, J.
-
Heard.
-
In the present case, operative part of the order was pronounced on 1st December, 2014. Rule was granted on 14th July, 2014 and it was served on the Respondents. Respondents were directed to file reply within four weeks. Reply accordingly has been filed on 21/09/2014.
-
Brief facts giving rise to the present Petition are as under:-
-
Petitioner is the wife of Respondent No. 1's brother. There were certain disputes between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 in respect of residential flat occupied by the Petitioner. According to the Petitioner, she and her husband are residing in the said flat and Respondent No. 1 initially filed a Suit in this Court being Suit No. 1286 of 2010 which is now transferred to the Bombay City Civil Court being Short Cause Suit No. 3694 of 2013. Petitioner has also initiated criminal complaints against Respondent No. 1 and two others. Similarly, Respondent No. 1 and deleted Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 also have filed criminal complaints against the Petitioner herein. According to the Petitioner, Respondent No. 1 and deleted Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have committed various acts of contempt which are punishable under section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act.
-
It is the case of the Petitioner that Respondent Nos.1,2 and 3 have published various articles and have written letters making scandalous allegations against the learned Magistrate and even the Hon'ble Judges of this Court. Petitioner's case is that this has been done intentionally with a view to intimidate the Presiding Officers of various Courts who were hearing the case of the said Respondents and the Petitioner.
-
Petitioner, therefore, made an application dated 4th December, 2013 alongwith copies of various complaints, letters and applications made by Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to the learned Advocate General of Maharashtra to seek leave to prosecute Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. The learned Advocate General granted permission to prosecute Respondent No. 1 by exercising power vested in him under section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act. Petitioner has also annexed various letters written by Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 maligning not only the Judicial Officers of this Court and subordinate court but also every Advocate and every Counsel who appeared in the matter. By order dated 16/01/2014, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has issued notices to Respondent No. 1 and his wife asking them to show cause why reference should not be made to the High Court for initiating contempt proceedings.
-
Mr. Murthy, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has invited our attention to the permission granted by the learned Advocate General dated 06/1/2014. He has invited our attention to the various letters, communications made by Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 against the Metropolitan Magistrates, Officers of this Court, Advocates and Counsels appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. He has submitted that Respondent No. 1, therefore, has committed contempt of this Court. He has submitted that no apology has been given by Respondent No. 1 in the affidavit in reply.
-
Respondent No. 1 has appeared in person and he has neither tendered unconditional apology to this Court nor he has shown any remorse for writing scandalous letters and making allegations against the Magistrates as also the Counsels who were appearing on behalf of the Petitioner.
-
Petitioner had filed an...
To continue reading
Request your trial