Disposed

A. K. Damate v. R. E. Chavan and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Sept 2024REF/3/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in Criminal Reference No. 3/2024, disposed of a petition challenging the contempt of an order by two jurists. It held that fixing banners declaring a fast does not amount to contempt as citizens have a right to protest without lowering the Court's dignity. Disposal was based on the fact that an FIR under relevant IPC sections was already registered.

What did the court decide?

Reference is disposed off. Petition dismissed as contemners have a right to protest via banners without lower the Court's dignity and FIR already registered.

A. K. Damate vs R. E. Chavan and Ors. — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

(12)REF-3-2024.doc

¶2

rajshree

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2024

¶5

A.K. Damate ] .. Applicant vs. R.E. Chavan & Ors. ] .. Respondents

¶6

Ms.M.M. Deshmukh, APP for the State.

¶7

CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE & MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ

¶8

DATE : 3^rd SEPTEMBER, 2024.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

1] A reference from Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khandala, under Section 15(2) of the Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971 refer to the alleged contemptuous act of the respondents, two of them being the Advocates practicing before the said Court.

¶11

It is alleged that the Contemnor Nos.1 to 5 fixed banners at different places in Khandala Village and in front of Court, depicting message of fasting between 10.09.2023 to 27.09.2023 and it is alleged that by circulating the pamphlets and by fixing the banners, they have committed criminal contempt of the Court.

¶12

1/2

¶13

(12)REF-3-2024.doc

¶14

2] It is pertinent to note that CR no.136/2023 is registered at the instance of JMFC in Khandala Police Station which has invoked Section 143, 500 and 506 of the IPC and Section 66(d) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 against the Contemners.

¶15

It is reported that the Contemners pressurized the Court and disturbed the working of the Court and by addressing confidential letters and circulating pamphlets, they have interfered in the administration of justice.

¶16

3] We have perused the reference order and we fail to understand as to how the alleged act amounted to interference in the administration of justice and how it has scandalized the Court.

¶17

The banners being placed outside the Court declaring that they are going on fast, in no way would amount to a contemptuous act, as the citizens have right to protest provided the protest do not lower the dignity of the Court.

¶18

In any case, now, at the instance of the Magistrate, an offence has already been registered and therefore, we are not inclined to entertain the reference.

¶19

In the wake of above, Reference is disposed off.

¶20

[MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J]

¶21

[BHARATI DANGRE, J]

¶22

2/2

A. K. Damate v. R. E. Chavan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A. K. Damate v. R. E. Chavan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Buvaji Sahdeo Hajare Vs State of Maharashtra

Tejashri Rajendra Gurav Vs Rakshal Lalit Ghag and Anr.

Bharat Nidhi Limited vs Securities and Exchange Board of India

The Bar Association of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Mumbai vs the State of Maharashtra through the Office of Govt. Pleader and Anr.

S. B. Patil vs Manubhai Hargovandas Patel

Rupal Dhiren Talati vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.