Court on Its Own Motion v. Rakesh Kumar Advocate

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present contempt reference arises out of CC No. 486/2024 titled Florence Footwear India Ltd. v. Rajeev Makhija before Ld. District and Sessions Judge, North-West District, Rohini Court, New Delhi which is a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act wherein it appears that the Presiding Officer has taken severe umbrage to the behaviour of the Contemnor whose remarks were found to be provocative and insulting. The reference has been made due to the alleged behaviour of the Contemnor on multiple occasions.

3. Various incidents have been mentioned by the ld. Magistrate, which are stated to have occurred on 29th April, 2024, 18th May, 2024 and on 30th August,

2024. The Presiding Officer appears to have also turned on the recorder in one of the hearings and has quoted the remarks made by the Contemnor.

4. In this case, upon reference being made, notice was issued on 7th October, 2024 and a ld. Amicus Curiae was appointed. Today, the matter has been taken up. The Contemnor is present in person and he has tendered an unconditional apology for his conduct. It is his submission that he never intended to cause any CONT.CAS.(CRL) 11/2024 disrespect to the Presiding Officer.

5. He submits that in cases pertaining to Negotiable Instruments Act,, sometimes matters are taken up in the morning itself and dates are given and on one such occasion, the Contemnor had asked for the matter to be taken up after the date was given, which led to some unfortunate exchange of words between the Presiding Officer and him. He submits that long dates are given in these matters which causes frustration amongst litigants and advocates. He submits that he does not wish to contest the present notice and tenders an unconditional apology.

6. After having perused the detailed report which has been placed by the Presiding Officer and the kind of language which has been used as per the said report, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Contemnor ought to be careful in future while appearing before the Courts and not to use disrespectful or insulting/provocative remarks against the Presiding Officers.

7. Considering that the Contemnor is an advocate, no further action is directed and the unconditional apology is accepted. If however in future, any such conduct is repeated before any court and a complaint is received in this regard, revival of the present contempt petition would also be explored at that stage.

8. The present contempt reference is disposed of in the above terms.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE AMIT SHARMA JUDGE DECEMBER 05, 2024