In Reference Vs. Shri C.P. Bhatt [Advocate]

In Reference vs Shri C.P. Bhatt [Advocate]

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jul 30, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1045096

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1045096
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Jul 30, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Reference

Respondent

Shri C.P. Bhatt [Advocate]

Excerpt

.....general not is any preliminary enquiry held before registration of the complaint. it is emphasized by him that the complaint was with regard to certain incident that took place in the office of executive magistrate. it was not in any proceeding held in the high court or the subordinate court and the complaint has been directly sent through executive magistrate without being root through the advocate general, no preliminary enquiry has been conducted and the complaint has been registered which is unsustainable. it has been submitted that the matter has been resolved through intervention of the bar association and the bar association has also expressed regret with regard to the same. 2 having considered the rival contentions, we are of the considered view that in the facts and circumstances of the case when the complaint was by the executive magistrate, the complaint could have been registered only if it has been root from the office of advocate general, after proper enquiry was available. as the complaint has been registered directly by the high court without there being any recommendation or opinion of the advocate general, we refuse to take cognizance of the same and dispose of the matter with liberty to the aggrieved person to take recours.to the procedure available under the law. with the aforesaid, not applicants are discharged from the proceeding and the proceeding closed. (rajendra menon) (mrs.vimla jain) judge judge mrs.mishra

Full Judgment

1 Con.Cr.

No.6/2012 30/7/2013: Smt.

Nirmala Nayak, learned Panel Lawyer for the applicant.

Shri Parag Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the not applicants.

On a complaint made and a reference issued by the Executive Magistrate, Tarana, District Ujjain this complaint has been registered under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

On going through the record it is seen that complaint was directly sent by the Executive Magistrate to the Registrar of the Court and on recommendation of the Deputy Registrar, the complaint has been registered.

Shri Parag Chaturvedi invites our attention to Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read along with High Court of M.P.Contempt of Court Proceedings, 1980 and says that in the present case neither the question is referred through the Advocate General not is any preliminary enquiry held before registration of the complaint.

It is emphasized by him that the complaint was with regard to certain incident that took place in the office of Executive Magistrate.

It was not in any proceeding held in the High Court or the subordinate Court and the complaint has been directly sent through Executive Magistrate without being root through the Advocate General, no preliminary enquiry has been conducted and the complaint has been registered which is unsustainable.

It has been submitted that the matter has been resolved through intervention of the Bar Association and the Bar Association has also expressed regret with regard to the same.

2 Having considered the rival contentions, we are of the considered view that in the facts and circumstances of the case when the complaint was by the Executive Magistrate, the complaint could have been registered only if it has been root from the office of Advocate General, after proper enquiry was available.

As the complaint has been registered directly by the High Court without there being any recommendation or opinion of the Advocate General, we refuse to take cognizance of the same and dispose of the matter with liberty to the aggrieved person to take recouRs.to the procedure available under the law.

With the aforesaid, not applicants are discharged from the proceeding and the proceeding closed.

(Rajendra Menon) (MRS.Vimla Jain) Judge Judge mrs.mishra

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2013 Same Parties In Reference vs Shri C.P. Bhatt [Advocate] Same Subject Education