In a recent case of suo moto criminal contempt, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has handed down a 10-day jail sentence to a man who made baseless allegations of corruption against a district judge. The bench, consisting of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Vishal Mishra, observed that the accused had submitted a complaint to the High Court’s principal registrar, raising concerns about the conduct of a judicial officer and accusing him of corruption and abuse of power.
The High Court concluded that the language used by the defendant in the complaint fell within the definition of ‘criminal contempt’ as outlined in Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act. According to the court, the contents of the letter (Annexure R/1-5), which formed the basis for initiating criminal contempt proceedings, not only cast doubts on the integrity of the judicial officer but also made serious allegations of corruption and misuse of authority.
The case against the accused, Krishna Kumar Raghuvanshi, was initiated following a referral by Additional District Judge SPS Bandela under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act. The referral sought to charge Raghuvanshi with both civil and criminal contempt, citing his defiance of court orders in a temple dispute and his dissemination of a letter via WhatsApp that tarnished the court’s reputation and prestige.
Before initiating contempt proceedings, the District Judge (Vigilance) conducted an investigation and found the accused’s allegations against the judicial officer to be unfounded. While the complaint was closed, contempt proceedings were instituted against Raghuvanshi due to the serious nature of his accusations.
During the proceedings, the defendant’s counsel defended his client’s decision to file the complaint while simultaneously offering an unreserved apology. The defense argued that the temple in question was a private trust, rendering the involvement of revenue authorities and the locking of donation boxes unnecessary. However, the court dismissed these justifications as inadequate, emphasizing that no reasonable explanation was provided for the defendant’s reckless allegations against the judicial officer. Furthermore, the court highlighted that the appropriate authorities had thoroughly investigated the complaint and found it to be meritless.
Consequently, the court found the defendant guilty under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act and ruled that he should be punished under Section 12 of the Act. Despite the defendant’s attorney pleading for leniency and suggesting a monetary fine as punishment, the court deemed a fine alone insufficient. Therefore, the defendant was sentenced to ten days in jail and a fine of INR 2,000, payable within seven days. Failure to pay the fine within the stipulated timeframe would result in an additional ten days of imprisonment.
