Z

  1. Karnataka High Court: Criminal Contempt- Sent to Jail for Six months for vexatious Litigations against Judges … Principal Civil Judge And Chief … vs Manjula Kudalagi on 4 December, 1996    1998 CriLJ 20,   1997 (4) KarLJ 437 .
    1. The respondent is present in person. She has in the course of the earlier proceedings in this Court been behaving in an extremely indecorus fashion, walking into the Court room when she pleases and misbehaving in the open Court. In our order dt. 13-11-96 she was administered a final warning. Despite this, she is persistent in her misbehaviour in the course of the hearing even today.
    2. The respondent has once again presented a written application in which she has demanded that 14 Judges and one Advocate should be summoned as witnesses. We have already dealt with an identical application and passed speaking order on 13-11-96 at which time we have given reasons indicating why such an application cannot be granted. Those reasons still hold good and hence the present application stands rejected.
    3. The then Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Belgaum by his Reference dated 6-11-95 had pointed out to the High Court that the respondent to this proceeding had instituted about one dozen criminal cases against the Judicial officers in that district. The then Prl. Civil Judge & Chief Judicial Magistrate, Belgaum forwarded the copies of the complaints and the orders passed thereon to the Dist. Judge. A perusal of those complaints indicates that the respondent has been relentlessly instituting criminal proceedings against the different Judges, the sum and substance of each of those proceedings being that the concerned Judge is alleged to have acted maliciously against her by having either rejected of dismissed the proceedings against her.
    5. As far as the evidence is concerned, the record of the complaints in question has not been disputed. The copies have been produced and the respt. does not deny having instituted everyone of these proceedings. She was given an opportunity to defend herself and the respt. has given evidence in which she has maintained that according to her the orders passed initially in her appeal when it was rejected were unjustified and according to her, therefore, she had every right in law to prosecute the Judge concerned. That was the starting point of the proceedings and every time the complaint filed by the respt. came to be rejected, she reinstituted further criminal proceedings against that particular Judicial officer. This is how as many as 12 criminal cases against Judges were instituted by the respt. and through her evidence and in her statements made before us she has maintained that she has acted correctly and within the framework of law.10. Having regard to the special facts and circumstances of this case, this Court has no option exception to sentence the respt. to six months’ simple imprisonment under the Contempt of Courts Act. This proceeding is accordingly disposed of.

     

     

  2. A. 386: Judicial EmpHBCS. Attached Three Files of  Scanned documents

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s