Vague Allegations Of Infidelity And Harassment Without Cogent Evidence Do Not Amount To Cruelty For Divorce: Telangana High Court Supreme Court Introduces 'Periodic Review' Mechanism For Monitoring Contumacious Advocates Supreme Court Suspends Criminal Contempt Conviction Of Yatin Oza; Invokes Article 142 To Grant 'Final Act Of Forgiveness' With Periodic Conduct Review Court Must Adopt Parental Temperament While Disciplining Bar Members; SC Suspends Yatin Oza’s Contempt Conviction As ‘Final Act Of Forgiveness’ Conviction Can Be Based On Testimony Of Solitary Witness Of Sterling Quality; Indian Law Values Quality Over Quantity Of Evidence: Supreme Court Authorities Can't Turn A Blind Eye To Illegal Constructions; Must Follow Due Process For Demolition: Telangana High Court Section 506 IPC Charges Liable To Be Quashed If Threat Lacks 'Intent To Cause Alarm' To Complainant: Supreme Court SC/ST Act Offences Not Made Out If Alleged Abuse Occurs Inside Private Residence Without Public Presence: Supreme Court Election Tribunal Becomes Functus Officio After Passing Final Order; Cannot Later Declare New Result Based On Recount: Supreme Court Remarriage Contracted Immediately After Divorce Decree Before Expiry Of Limitation Period Has No Validity In Law: Telangana High Court Lack Of Notice For Spot Inspection Under Stamp Act Is An Irregularity, Not Illegality If No Prejudice Caused: Allahabad High Court Mutation Entry In Revenue Records Does Not Create Or Extinguish Title; Succession To Agricultural Land Governed Strictly By Statute: Delhi High Court Children Shouldn't Be Deprived Of Parental Affection Due To Matrimonial Disputes; Courts Must Ensure Child Isn't Tutored: Andhra Pradesh High Court 138 NI Act | Wife Of Sole Proprietor Not Vicariously Liable For Dishonoured Cheque She Didn't Sign: Calcutta High Court Quashes Proceedings State Cannot Profit From Its Own Delay In Deciding Land Tenure Conversion Applications: Gujarat High Court Owner Of Establishment Cannot Evade Liability Under Employees’ Compensation Act By Shifting Responsibility To Manager: Bombay High Court Developer Assigning Only Leasehold Rights Via Sub-Lease Not A 'Promoter', Project Doesn't Require RERA Registration: Allahabad High Court Court Cannot Be Oblivious To Juveniles Used By Organized Syndicates To Commit Heinous Crimes: Delhi High Court Denies Bail To CCL Conviction For Assaulting Public Servant Sustainable Based On Victim's Testimony & Medical Evidence Even If Eye-Witnesses Turn Hostile: Bombay High Court

Scandalising the Court Without Evidence is Contempt: Calcutta High Court Issues Warning in Criminal Case

14 October 2024 4:08 PM

By: sayum


Calcutta High Court, presided over by Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta, dismissed a criminal revision petition in the case of Asim Kumar Ghorai vs. The State of West Bengal & Others (C.R.R. 1375 of 2017). The case revolved around the petitioner’s challenge to the acquittal of the accused by the Trial Court, which was upheld by the Sessions Judge. The Court not only rejected the petitioner’s revision plea but also issued a notice to him to show cause for contempt of court for making baseless allegations against the Trial Magistrate.

The petitioner, Asim Kumar Ghorai, alleged that the accused persons trespassed into his home in September 2013, assaulted him, and stole valuable items. Following the investigation, charges were framed under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including trespass, theft, and assault. The Trial Court, however, acquitted the accused on January 25, 2016, citing insufficient evidence as the complainant and his brother, key witnesses, expressed a willingness to settle and made no allegations during their testimonies.

The petitioner appealed against this acquittal, but the Sessions Court dismissed the appeal in February 2017, ruling it non-maintainable on the grounds that the petitioner was not a "victim" under Section 2(wa) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

The main legal contention was whether the petitioner, as a de-facto complainant, could appeal under the definition of "victim" as per Section 2(wa) of the CrPC. The petitioner also alleged that the Trial Magistrate failed to follow proper procedures, including recording testimonies, cross-examinations, and examining the accused under Section 313 CrPC.

The Court observed that both key witnesses, including the complainant, had not supported the allegations during the trial. They even testified that the case arose from a "misunderstanding." Given the lack of incriminating evidence, the Trial Court had no grounds to convict the accused. Therefore, the non-examination of the accused under Section 313 was justified.

Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta examined the petitioner's serious allegations against the Trial Magistrate, which included claims that witnesses' signatures were obtained on blank papers and that proper examination did not take place. Upon reviewing the trial records, the High Court found no evidence supporting these claims. The Court held that such reckless allegations without evidence aimed to undermine the judiciary’s authority.

Citing past judgments on contempt, the Court reiterated that such baseless allegations could not be tolerated. As a result, the petitioner was issued a notice to show cause under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for making scandalous remarks against the Trial Magistrate.

The High Court upheld the findings of both the Trial Court and the Sessions Court, ruling that the acquittal was justified given the lack of evidence. It also clarified that under Section 372 of the CrPC, a victim may appeal against an acquittal, but in this case, the petitioner did not qualify as a "victim."

The Calcutta High Court dismissed the petitioner’s criminal revision petition and warned him for making unfounded allegations against a judicial officer. The case serves as a reminder of the legal consequences of scandalising the court without substantive proof.

Date of Decision: September 13, 2024

Asim Kumar Ghorai vs. The State of West Bengal & Others

Latest Legal News