‘Attempt To Threaten Judges With Contempt Pleas Unacceptable’: Madhya Pradesh High Court Warns Litigants Against ‘Adventurism’

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has deprecated the practise of bringing “every incorrect ruling” given by trial courts under contempt jurisdiction and has stated that attempts to scare judges with contempt petitions will not be allowed.

A division bench, in the case of MAJID BEG AND ORS. VERSUS SHRI TEJ PRATAP SINGH composed of Chief Justice Ravi Malimanth and Justice Vishal Mishra reprimanded four litigants for making “reckless charges” against a trial judge.


Regarding a criminal case that has been pending for more than nine years, the single judge in July vacated the trial court order in which, on the date set for judgement, the CJM had directed the recall of an un-examined prosecution witness for evidence via bailable warrant and set the case for the remainder of the prosecution’s evidence.

The single judge ordered the trial court judge to reconsider the case after affording the accused (petitioners) an opportunity to be heard, and to dispose of the case expeditiously.

Even though the single bench had vacated the trial court’s order, the judge was moving to recall the witnesses and record their testimony, according to the petitioners’ attorney.

Despite bringing it to the attention of the tnal court judge, the attorney was informed that there was no injunction prohibiting the judge from summoning the witnesses.

Rejecting the contempt motion, the division bench stated that the trial judge is proceeding in compliance with the single bench’s directives, as the CJM was directed to resolve the case again after affording the accused an opportunity to be heard. The opportunity has already been provided, as it was said, “After reviewing the arguments, we are of the opinion that no contempt is warranted in this case. In addition, there is no particular order instructing the trial court not to summon the witnesses or anything like.

The bench stated that even if it accepted the petitioners’ claim of any legal misapplication, that would not constitute contempt. The court stated that comprehension of the trial court is an entirely different problem from defiance.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of the best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement reviewed by Deepa Bajaj.

Click Here to view Judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *