Madhya Pradesh High Court sentences man to 10 days in jail for making reckless allegations against judge

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently sentenced a man to 10 days in jail in a suo motu criminal contempt case initiated against him for making baseless allegations of corruption against a district judge [In reference (suo motu) vs Krishna Kumar Raghuvanshi]..A bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Vishal Mishra observed that the accused had lodged a complaint before the principal registrar of the High Court questioning the work of a judicial officer and levelling allegations of corruption and misuse of his position.The words used by the accused in the complaint clearly fell under the definition of 'criminal contempt' under section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, the High Court ruled."The words which are mentioned in the letter Annexure R/1-5 dated 21.05.2019 on the basis of which the proceedings of the criminal contempt have been initiated, are questioning the working of the Judicial Officer and levying allegation regarding corruption and misuse of his position. The same clearly falls under the definition of ‘criminal contempt’ under Section 2(c) of the Act of 1971," the Court said..The proceedings were initiated against the accused, one Krishna Kumar Raghuvanshi, in response to a reference made by Additional District Judge SPS Bandela under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act. The purpose of the reference was to register both civil and criminal contempt charges against Raghuvanshi. These charges were based on his defiance of the court's orders in a temple related dispute and his circulation of a letter through WhatsApp maligning the image, reputation and prestige of the court..Prior to the initiation of contempt proceedings, an enquiry was conducted by the District Judge (Vigilance) and the complaint made by the contemnor against the judicial officer was found to be incorrect. The complaint was closed but a decision was taken to initiate contempt proceedings against the contemnor keeping in view the complaint made by him..The counsel for the contemnor justified his action of making the complaint and simultaneously tendered an unconditional apology. He said that the temple in dispute in the case before the judicial officer was a private trust and therefore, a direction for involvement of the revenue authorities and putting a lock in the donation box was not called for..The Court held that the arguments justifying the action of the contemnor were of no help as there was no explanation tendered for making reckless allegations against the judicial officer.Further, the complaint was duly investigated and found to be baseless by relevant authorities, the Court said..Hence, the Court held the contemnor guilty under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act and determined that he was liable to be punished under Section 12 of the Act..During the sentencing phase, counsel for the contemnor pleaded for a lenient punishment, suggesting that only a fine should be imposed. However, the Court concluded that a fine alone would not suffice. Consequently, it sentenced the contemnor to ten days of imprisonment, in addition to a fine of ₹2,000 to be paid within seven days. Failure to pay the fine within the specified period would result in another ten days of imprisonment, the Court directed..[Read Order]