The High Court declined to entertain a contempt reference filed by a Civil Judge regarding a Facebook post, holding it inappropriate to entertain the reference as criminal proceedings for defamation under Sections 499 and 500 IPC had already been initiated by the learned Judge against the opponents.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(22)REF-1-2024.doc
rajshree
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REFERENT NO.1 OF 2024
Tejashri Rajendra Gurav ] .. Applicant vs. Rakshal Lalit Ghag & Anr. ] .. Respondents
Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP for the State.
CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE & MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ
DATE : 2nd SEPTEMBER, 2024.
P.C.
1] The Reference from the 6th Joint Civil Judge Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ratnagiri, under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the Opponents Rakshal Lalit Ghag and Lalit Vishwas Ghag, is in the backdrop of a Facebook post dated 24.07.2023, to which the attention of the learned Judge was brought by her Peon.
Digitally signed by RAJSHREE RAJSHREE KISHOR MORE KISHOR Date: MORE 2024.09.04 09:41:32 +0530
The Application for Reference proceed to state that on 20.07.2023 a message was transmitted to her by the Peon that the Defendants wanted to meet her in the Chamber, which she denied, as the arguments advanced by the counsel for the Defendants were
1/2
(22)REF-1-2024.doc
already over. However, since she could hear the ruckus outside her chamber, she took the dias at 6.10 p.m and attempted to pacify the Defendants, but she was unsuccessful, as they continued to be discourteous to the Court and even the Advocate did not make them aware of the decorum of proceedings in the Court
2] In the Facebook post, which was pointed to the learned Judge by her Peon, there is a specific reference to her and certain personal comments about her working are found. The end line of the Facebook post reads that, “Justice is in peril”.
3] It is very difficult to verify the authenticity of this post after a gap of more than a year, as it is not clear in the Reference, whether the post still continue on the Facebook account of the Defendant.
The show cause notice was issued to Opponent Nos.1 and 2, but no response is received and this constrained the learned Judge to issue process against the Opponents for the offence punishable under Section 499 and 500 read with 34 of the IPC.
4] In the wake of above, since already the proceedings are initiated by the learned Judge, we do not deem it appropriate to entertain the Reference and decline the same.
[MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J]
[BHARATI DANGRE, J]
2/2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should entertain a contempt reference regarding a Facebook post made by defendants against the presiding judge when criminal proceedings for defamation were already initiated by
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Tejashri Rajendra Gurav
Rakshal Lalit Ghag
Lalit Vishwas Ghag
BHARATI DANGRE
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
