Dismissed

High Court of Karnataka v. Sri.H.v.Basappa

Karnataka HC3 Mar 2023CRL.CCC/14/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This suo motu criminal contempt petition against an advocate for using derogatory words was disposed of on the acceptance of an unconditional apology via affidavit. Subsequently, an interim application to recall a cost imposition order was allowed.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceedings closed on acceptance of affidavit for unconditional apology; order imposing cost of Rs.10,000 recalled.

High Court of Karnataka Vs Sri.H.v.Basappa — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.CCC No. 14 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 14 OF 2017

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

Digitally signed by D K BHASKAR Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR GENERAL BENGALURU-560001.

¶12

…COMPLAINANT (BY SRI. KIRAN S. JAVALI, SPP I FOR SRI. THEJESH P FOR HCGP)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI. H.V. BASAPPA ADVOCATE AND NOTARY, ROLL NO.KAR/734/94, NO.2185/1, GEJJEGOWDANA BUILDING, 1^ST CROSS, 1^ST FLOOR, BASAVESHWARA ROAD, K.R.MOHALLA, MYSURU-4.

¶15

…ACCUSED

¶16

(BY SRI. D.P.PRASANNA, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED U/S 15 OF

¶18

THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 R/W ARTICLE 215 OF

¶19

¶20

CRL.CCC No. 14 of 2017

¶21

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO INITIATE (SUO-MOTO) CRIMINAL CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED HEREIN SRI.H.V.BASAPPA, ADVOCATE AND NOTARY, ROLL NO.KAR/734/94, 1ST CROSS, 1ST FLOOR, GEJJEGOWDANA BUILDING, BASAVESHWARA ROAD, K.R.MOHALLA, MYSURU UNDER THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 AND TO PUNISH HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, K.SOMASHEKAR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Learned State Public Prosecutor Sri Kiran S.Javali, for

¶25

the complainant-petitioner is present before the Court physically.

¶26

This suo motu criminal contempt petition is initiated against the respondent-accused viz., Sri H.V.Basappa, whereby the respondent is being arraigned as accused in this contempt proceeding. The respondentaccused is an Advocate-cum-Notary by avocation. The

¶27

3 - CRL.CCC No. 14 of 2017

¶28

respondent-accused who is present before the Court physically submits that with a heat of passion and otherwise to say momentarily, he has used derogatory words by which proceedings are initiated suo motu based upon the correspondence made by the Presiding Officer, I Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court, Mysuru, for the act in Crl.Misc.No.231/2017 filed under Section 125(3) of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance.

¶29

However, the case in Crl.Misc.No.254/2017 was

¶30

initiated by the petitioners against the respondent of that case. The copy of the order sheet is got marked as Ex.D1 in Crl.Misc.No.254/2017. Similarly, it is indicated that in Crl.Misc.No.453/2015, the order sheet is also produced for the purpose of reference. In addition to that, copy of the order sheet in Crl.Misc.No.250/2016 is also produced. These are all the proceedings which have been initiated by the petitioners against the respondent respectively of the said cases, wherein the respondent-accused in this

¶31

¶32

CRL.CCC No. 14 of 2017

¶33

contempt case appearing as an advocate on behalf of the petitioners in those matters.

¶34

However, the learned Counsel Sri D.P.Prasanna, for respondent-accused who is present before the Court physically and also the learned State Public Prosecutor for the complainant-petitioner, wherein the respondentaccused has pleaded by tendering apology to close the contempt proceedings.

¶35

However, the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the respondent/accused and so also, the respondent who is arraigned as accused are taken on record. Therefore, it is deemed appropriate by keeping in view the derogatory statement made against the Court of law which is maintained in the order sheet and also, in a given peculiar facts and circumstances of the case for initiation of contempt proceedings, the respondentaccused be permitted to close this contempt proceedings by filing an affidavit for consideration.

¶36

¶37

CRL.CCC No. 14 of 2017

¶38

Therefore, keeping in view the submissions made

¶39

by the learned Counsel for the respondent-accused and so also, the respondent who is arraigned as accused who has filed an affidavit for closure of this contempt proceeding which is initiated against him and in a given set of facts and circumstances of the matter and also keeping in view Sections 10, 11 and 12 of The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, inclusive of the concept of Article 215 of the Constitution of India, it is deemed appropriate that the affidavit filed by respondent-accused is placed on record. Consequently, contempt proceedings are hereby closed.

¶40

In the meanwhile, it is deemed appropriate for the respondent-accused present before this Court physically to subscribe his signature on the order sheet in this contempt proceeding.

¶41

Consequent upon the disposal of this contempt petition in terms of the affidavit filed by the respondentaccused seeking unconditional apology of this Court and which has been accepted by this Court but however,

¶42

6 - CRL.CCC No. 14 of 2017

¶43

I.A.No.1/2018 is filed by the respondent/accused under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. r/w Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking recalling the order dated 08.02.2018 in respect of imposing cost of Rs.10,000/-. Perused the affidavit filed in support of the said application. The reasons assigned in the said affidavit are found to just and reasonable. Consequently, I.A.1/2018 is hereby allowed. Consequent upon consideration of I.A.1/2018, the order imposing cost of Rs.10,000/- is hereby recalled. Accordingly, the said I.A.No.1/2018 stands disposed of.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

JT/-

High Court of Karnataka v. Sri.H.v.Basappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

High Court of Karnataka v. Sri.H.v.Basappa

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

Sri. Sukananda Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka

Jayara K S Vs State of Karnataka

Sri M B Appanna Vs the State of Karnataka

M S Doreswamy Vs the Tahasildhar

Sri. P Ramachandra Reddy Vs Mrs. P Sosamma Nair

Sri B Narayanswamy Vs M Somashekar