The Chhattisgarh High Court has resolved criminal contempt proceedings against three lawyers and a litigant after accepting their unconditional apologies for leveling allegations against a trial court judge.
The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, issued the ruling on July 2. The court emphasized that legal pleadings must be prepared with the highest degree of caution, restraint, and responsibility, noting that accusations concerning a presiding officer’s impartiality or conduct carry grave consequences.
Although the bench closed the contempt proceedings in the interest of justice, it issued a stern warning. The court clarified that the dismissal should not be seen as an approval of such behavior, adding that any future instances would permit the trial courts to pursue fresh legal actions.
Origin Of The Contempt Dispute
The dispute arose from a civil suit initiated in 2023 at the senior civil judge’s court in Bagbahara, Mahasamund district. During the trial, the primary defendant, Anil Singh, filed a petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure to transfer the lawsuit. This transfer application contained adverse remarks against the presiding judge.
Deeming the statements contemptuous, the trial judge sent a reference to the Chhattisgarh High Court to initiate criminal contempt action. The high court took note of the matter on April 9 and summoned Singh alongside his defense counsel, Firoj Khan, Shamshad Khan, and Yasmin Khan, to explain their actions.
Apologies and Court Resolution
During a court appearance on May 6, all four individuals submitted formal replies expressing unconditional regret. Rather than imposing immediate penalties, the high court ordered them to apologize directly to the affected trial judge and monitored their subsequent behavior.
At the final hearing, the attorneys representing the advocates stated that their clients held complete respect for the judicial system. They characterized the controversial statements in the transfer petition as inadvertent and unintentional. Singh also submitted an independent reply, maintaining that he never intended to demean the court or cast doubt on the judge’s integrity.
The high court officially closed the case after confirming that all four respondents had fulfilled the orders to tender their apologies to both the trial and high courts. Copies of the final judgment have been sent to the trial court and the principal district and sessions judge of Mahasamund.
