# No. 80 of 2001, State v. Usha Pandey

- **Citation:** (2001) 2 ILRA 96
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2001-01-17
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/no-80-of-2001-state-v-usha-pandey-39760
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

2All] Smt. Usha Pandey V. A.C.J.M.-II and others

96
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21
%/( 0 .$7-8 -
7+( +21
%/( 0 .$7-8 -
7+( +21
%/( 21.$5(6+:$5 %+$77 -
7+( +21
%/( 21.$5(6+:$5 %+$77 -

+DEHDV &RUSXV :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

6PW 8VKD 3DQGH\ «3HWLWLRQHU,Q MDLO
9HUVXV
$&-0,, DQG RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQW

&RXQVHO IRU WKH $SSOLFDQW
,Q SHUVRQ
.P $EKD 3DQGH\
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6UL 9% 8SDGK\D\
$*$
$PLFXV FXULDH

&RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD $UWLFOH UHDG
ZLWK ,QGLDQ 3HQDO &RGH 6 3HWLWLRQHU
PDGH
'HURJDWRU\
5HPDUN
DJDLQVW
0DJLVWUDWH
2Q
LWV
WHUP
0DJLVWUDWH
RUGHUHG
IRU
ORGJLQJ
FRPSODLQW
EHIRUH
&-0+HOG&RXUW VKRXOG RYHU ORRN HYHQ
XQIDLU
PDOLFLRXV
XQMXVWLILHG
UHPDUN
3URFHHGLQJ XV TXDVKHG
+HOG 3DUD
:H ZRXOG OLNH WR JR IXUWKHU WKDQ /RUG
'HQQLQJ DQG VD\ WKDW RIWHQ WKH &RXUW
VKRXOG RYHUORRN HYHQ XQIDLU PDOLFLRXV
DQG
WRWDOO\
XQMXVWLILHG
UHPDUNV
7KH
SHUVRQ PDNLQJ VXFK UHPDUNV RIWHQ ZDQWV
SXEOLFLW\ IRU KLPVHOI DQG E\ LJQRULQJ
WKHP WKH &RXUW GHQLHV KLP WKH SXEOLFLW\
ZKLFK KH ZDQWV

By the Court

1. Heard the applicant, Km. Abha
Pandey, in person, Sri V.B. Upadhyaya,
learned
Senior
Advocate
whom
we
requested to assist us as amicus curiae and
also the learned Government Counsel.

2. This Habeas Corpus petition has
been filed by Km. Abha Pandey on behalf
of her mother Smt. Usha Pandey, who has
been taken into custody in pursuance of
the order of the learned A.C.J.M.-II, Basti
dated 17.1.2001, in Criminal Misc. Case
No. 80 of 2001, State vs. Usha Pandey,
under section 340 Cr.P.C.

3. We have perused the order dated
17.1.2001, it appears that Smt. Usha
Pandey had appeared before the learned
A.C.J.M. -II Basti on 17.1.2001 in a case
under section 125 Cr. P.C. against her
husband Prahlad Pandey. During the
hearing she is said to have made
derogatory remarks against the learned
Magistrate. The order dated 17.1.2001
states:-

"

J ©· L © „ ^ KE»‚ ¡Q[ % (

 % ( » ‘ · ‚

% (… ©}

 } 9 » [‚ ‚ o ‚ · 1⁄4 ^ ¥‘O L F »% (… 9 »…

9 »… ‘ » } F‘ % (…[ » o 0 © L O ‘ [‚ ‚ o ‚ · 1⁄4

% ( ‚ ž…L ^ ©a ‘ ©[ ¡Y % ( … ©

 Y »F‘L ) … © % (» L …^ (

 ¡0 L % (… % (F[ » o 0 © ¡% ( "

‘ _ % (…K · 1⁄4 · »…» [ · ‘ »

} © _ O ž[

^ M % ( · o Q… · Q % (… Q » L · } FL

F » ¡ ‚ … } [ L » F » ¡‹ ^ ) © ‘ » ¡· o » F$ F » 9 · À

 ¡‹ ^ ) © % (» ‘ O

‘

O L ·F1⁄4 [ F a 8 »E±›0 ©
 ‘ [‚ ‚ o ‚

% (» ^ ©a ‘ ©[ ¡Y % ( … © Y »F‘L ) … © X … · [ % (…[ »

^ … J ©· L © „ ^ KE»‚ [ » 9 »…

9 »…  }Q 1⁄4 · 1⁄4 ^ ©a ‘ ©[

 ¡Y % ( … © Y »F‘L ) … © % ( © L …^ (  ¡0 L % (… % (F[ »

o 0 ©

 ¡% ( L ·F1⁄4 9 »o · 1⁄4 } [Q % (…‹ Q±›0 © ‘ … © · ¡9 ‘@œ»@ ©

| ±o 9 ‚ »0 ©
 ^ … »% 'L % (FL » F$ J ©· L © „ ^ KE»‚

[ »  »… · 6 % (… [‚ ‚ o ‚ % () · 1⁄4 [ ^  [ ^ } % ([ »

o 0 © $‹  [‚ ¡‚ % ( % ( ‚ ž · 1⁄4 ‘ …‹ [ } Y E

o
"

 oo »- [ ©‚ F¿ ¡% ( J ©· L © „ ^ KE»‚ % ( ^ … »% 'L

 ¡| % (O [ ‘ ·} ¥[Y L Q ¥KE% ( ‹ Q ‘ 

J ©· L © „ ^ KE»‚ } [ · ™ _ Fo Q O [ · KE»…‹

 [L 0 žL Y … Q_ ‘  % ( © ^ M ‹ o © % (» Q»

^ M

· 1⁄4 · »…» X … ‘‹ ‚  % ( © F‘L ¡o ¡^ · 1⁄4  ¡% (L ¡% (‚

0 ‚ F¿ ¡9 ‘ % ( © _ ¡L ¡o ¡^ % ( ‘ O · 1⁄4 ‘ o 0[ ¡% (‚
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001

97

0 ‚ F¿
 ^ M ‹ o © ^ … ^ o }Y ‘ · 2 © % (» ‹ o »% ([ ‘ »

‘^ „@ F¿ ¡% ( J ©· L © „ ^ KE»‚ % (» ^ … »%

 'L % ¶(L‚ ‘ »

[‚ ‚ o ‚ % (» [‚ ¡‚ % ( % ( ‚ ž‹ F © · 1⁄4 } ¿a» F$ ^ ©a ‘ ©[

 ¡Y % ( … © $‹  [‚ ‚ o ‚ % ( ‘  ‚ ^ · [ F $‹ 

[‚ ¡‚ % ( % ( ‚ ž‹ F © · 1⁄4 ‘ …% ( … © } Y ^ F›6
 9 »

| Q ¡‹ % ( © Y … % (» [L 0

žL QKE[ ©‚ ^ … Y

F¿
 L J ©· L © „ ^ KE»‚ % (» ¡‹ ‡ËU ^ … »% 'L

 ^ … Y % (» ¡o $ Q ¥KEL % (…[ » % (» ¡o $ ^ ¡…‹ Q · -‚

[‚ ¡‚ % ( · ¡9 ‘@œ»@ } ‘L © % (» [‚ ‚ o ‚ · 1⁄4 Q ¡- o % (…[ »

% ( Q» ¡% (‚ 9 L F¿
 "

4. In view of the above remarks the
learned Magistrate directed that since the
conduct of Smt. Usha Pandey amounts to
an offence under section 228 I.P.C. hence
action should be taken against her.

5. It appears that on the basis of the
said report of the A.C.J.M.-II the learned
C.J.M. Basti took cognizance on the same
day and directed that Smt. Usha Pandey
be taken into custody.

6. We have perused the record of the
case. On the record there is an order of
this Court dated 26.4.1990 in Criminal
Misc. Application No. 6223 of 1988,
under section 482 Cr. P.C. in which it is
stated that inspite of the compromise
between Smt. Usha Pandey and her
husband in the case under section 125
Cr.P.C. no payment has been made to
Smt. Usha Pandey.

7. Litigation of various kinds has
been going on between Smt. Usha Pandey
and her husband since 1986, and hence
obviously feelings between them are
badly embittered, and Smt. Usha Pandey
seems to be very much mentally upset. It
is probably in those circumstances that
she made such derogatory remarks to the
learned Magistrate.

8. Though we certainly cannot find
any justification for such baseless remarks
against the learned Magistrate, we are of
the opinion that it would have been better
if the learned Magistrate had ignored
them, consideration the mental state of
Smt. Usha Pandey.

9. There are many things that a
Judge should overlook nowadays and it is
not necessary that in every such case a
Judge must punish for contempt or send a
person who makes such accusations
against the Court to jail. Just because
someone has lost his/her balance, this
does not mean that a judge should also
lose his balance. The Judge must preserve
a cool mind and overlook many faults.
Today's society is in a turbulent state and
many things must be overlooked today by
a Judge, even if they could not have been
overlooked earlier.

10. In this connection Lord
Denning in one of his books "The Due
process of Law" writes :-

"On every Monday morning we hear
litigants in person. Miss Stone was often
there. She made an application before us.
We refused it. She was sitting in the
front row with a bookcase within her
reach.
She
picked
up
one
of
Butterworth's
"Workmen's
Compensation Cases" and threw it at us.
It passed between Lord Justice Diplock
and me. She picked up another. That
went wide too. She said 'I am running
out of ammunition'. We took little
notice. She had hoped we would commit
her for contempt of court-just to draw
more attention to herself. As we took no
notice, She went towards the door. She
left saying : 'I congratulate your
Lordships on your coolness under fire'."
2All] C/M, and others V. Director of Education(Education) and others

98
11. Now a days, so many things
happen in Court but the Judge should
preserve
his
equanimity
and
even
overlook remarks and conduct which may
be unjustified. If he does so it will
enhance his dignity and respect in society.

12. In Rex v. Commissioner of
Police of the Metropolis, (1968)2 QB
150 at 154, Lord Denning observed -

"Let me say at once that we will
never use this jurisdiction as a means to
uphold our own dignity. That must rest on
surer foundations. Nor will we use it to
suppress those who speak against us. We
do not fear criticism, nor do we resent it.
For there is something far more important
at stake. It is no less than freedom of
speech itself.

'It is the right of every man, in
Parliament or out of it, in the press or over
the broadcast, to make fair comment, even
outspoken comment, on matters of public
interest. Those who comment can deal
faithfully with all that is done in a court of
justice. They can say that we are
mistaken, and our decisions erroneous,
whether they are subject to appeal or not.
All we would ask is that those who
criticise us will remember that from the
nature of our office, we cannot reply to
their criticisms. We cannot enter into
public controversy. Still less into political
controversy. We must rely on our conduct
itself to be its own vindication."

13. We would like to go further than
Lord Denning and say that often the court
should overlook even unfair, malicious
and totally unjustified remarks. The
person making such remarks often wants
publicity for himself, and by ignoring
them the Court denies him the publicity
which he wants.

14. On the facts and circumstances
of the case we set aside the impugned
orders dated 17.1.2001, passed by the
A.C.J.M.-II, Basti as well as of the
C.J.M., Basti, and quash the proceedings
under section 228 I.P.C. The petition is
allowed Smt. Usha Pandey shall be
released forthwith.

15.

However,
none
of
the
observations made in this judgment shall
be treated as any adverse remark against
the learned A.C.J.M.-II, Basti or the
learned C.J.M., Basti and they shall not be
placed on their confidential record. We
also direct that the case under section 125
Cr.P.C.
must
be
decided
very
expeditiously but by some Judge other
than the A.C.J.M.-II, Basti.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21
%/( 90 6$+$, -
7+( +21
%/( 90 6$+$, -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

&RPPLWWHH RI 0DQDJHPHQW %DKHUL DQG
RWKHUV
«3HWLWLRQHUV
9HUVXV
'LUHFWRU RI (GXFDWLRQ 6HFRQGDU\ 83
/XFNQRZ DQG RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHUV
6KUL $VKRN .KDUH
6KUL 5DP .ULWL 6LQJK
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&
6KUL 6. 6LQJK
6KUL 9. 6LQJK
6KUL 61 6ULYDVWDYD