Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
(1) At the very outset, Sri H.G.S. Parihar, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Sharad Pathak, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to delete respondent no.5 from the array of the respondents made in Misc. Bench No. 1867 of 2021.
(2) On due consideration, we permit the petitioner to delete the respondent no.5 from the array of the respondents made in Misc. Bench No. 1867 of 2021 during the course of the day.
(3) Heard Sri H.G.S. Parihar, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Sharad Pathak and Sri Divyanshu Pratap, learned Counsel for the petitioner/contemnor and Sri S.P. Singh, learned AGA for the State.
(4) Misc. Bench No. 1867 of 2021 has been filed by the petitioner, Vijay Narayan Pandey @ Vijay Kumar Pandey, seeking to quash the First Information Report dated 06.11.2020 registered as F.I.R. No. 1030 of 2020, under Sections 332, 353, 504, 228 I.P.C., Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, Section 2/3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Kotwali City, District Pratapgarh.
(5) Contempt No. 1973 of 2020 has been registered against Vijay Kumar Pandey, Advocate, under the directions/orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justic on a reference/complaint dated 06.11.2020 made by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Sadar, Pratapgarh.
(6) The issue involved in both the above-captioned cases is inter-related and identical in nature, therefore, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, we take up both the matters togetherwith and decide it by a common order.
(7) In compliance of the order dated 20.01.2021, petitioner/contemnor (Vijay Kumar Pandey, Advocate) is present and has filed an affidavit in Contempt No. 1973 of 2020, which is taken on record. Along with the aforesaid affidavit, the contemnor has enclosed written unconditional apology on affidavit made before the Presiding Officer of the Court at Pratapgarh, who had made reference/complaint for initiating contempt proceedings against the petitioner.
(8) From perusal of the aforesaid affidavit of the contemnor, it transpires that the contemnor has tendered unconditional apology before this Court as well as before the Presiding Officer of the Court at Pratapgarh, who had made reference/complaint for initiating contempt proceedings against the petitioner.
(9) Today, the father of the contemnor, namely, Sri Surendra Narayan Pandey, who is the Senior Counsel of the District Pratapgarh and aged about 83 years, is present though it is stated that he is not feeling well. He has stated that he could not defend the act of his son (contemnor), who has misbehaved with the Presiding Officer of the Court at Pratpagarh but as his son has tendered unconditional apology and is aged about 38 years, notice issued against his son be discharged on sympathetic ground.
(10) On due consideration, we are of the view that the act of the contemnor is a very serious one and such act cannot be pardoned of but looking to the family background of the contemnor and plight of the ailing old age father, who is a Senior Counsel of District Court, Pratapgarh and also contemnor's unconditional apology tendered by him before this Court as well as before the Presiding Officer of the Court at Pratapgarh, who has made reference/complaint on the basis of which Contempt No. 1973 of 2020 has been registered, we dispose of Contempt No. 1973 of 2020 with the direction to the District Judge, Pratapgarh to monitor the conduct/act of the contemnor Vijay Kumar Pandey, Advocate (Registration No. UP-7864/2007), son of Sri Surendra Narayan Pandey upto one year and submit quarterly report before the learned Senior Registrar of this Court, who, on receipt of the same, place it on record. If the act and conduct of the contemnor/petitioner is again found to be contemptuous which amounts to lower the dignity of any Courts of law, then, the District Judge, Pratapgarh shall report the matter to learned Senior Registrar of this Court, who, in turn, place the same before us for appropriate action and order.
(11) Subject to the monitoring of the conduct of the contemnor/petitoiner, notice issued to him stands discharged.
(12) At this stage, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has pointed out that F.I.R. No. 1030 of 2020, under Sections 332, 353, 504, 228 I.P.C., Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, Section 2/3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Kotwali City, District Pratapgarh, has been lodged against the petitioner by the Reader of the Court (respondent no.4). He submits that as the impugned F.I.R. lodged by the respondent no.4, who was the Reader of the Court, was with respect to the reference of the Presiding Officer for which aforesaid contempt proceedings have been drawn, therefore, interest of justice would suffice, if the impugned F.I.R. be quashed in the light of the observations made in the aforesaid criminal contempt.
(13) Considering the aforesaid submission, we hope and trust that the Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh shall ensure that Investigating Officer of the case, while investigating the case, may also consider the observations/directions made in the aforesaid contempt petition. Till conclusion of the investigation, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in pursuance of the the impugned F.I.R..
(14) At this stage, Sri S.P. Singh, learned AGA for the State submits that necessary would be done during the course of investigation.
(15) With the aforesaid observation, Misc. Bench No. 1867 of 2021 stands disposed of.