He began visiting the lady officer’s court and staring at her nonstop after she blocked the defendant on social media, even though he had no work to do there.
Details of case:
Case title: In Re vs. Abhay Pratap
Case No.: CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. – 8 of 2023
Bench: Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Vinod Diwakar
Order Date:04.04.2023
Abhay Pratap, a lawyer working in the Maharajganj court, has received a show-cause order from the Allahabad High Court, requesting that he explain why criminal contempt charges should not be brought against him for allegedly stalking, sending obnoxious and disturbing messages, and making lewd comments about a female judge on her Facebook page.
The female judge filed a police report (FIR) against the lawyer Abhay Pratap for making offensive comments and sending her annoying Facebook messages. The victim appealed to the Allahabad High Court to request the cancellation of the bail after the attorney was arrested and granted bail. The High Court then ordered the court’s registry to formally recognize the criminal contempt that had been committed.
The Allahabad High Court has revoked the bail of a practicing attorney who is accused of sending a female judicial magistrate “obnoxious messages” while she was performing her duties.
When deciding on the plea for revocation of bail submitted by the female judge herself, the single-judge bench of Justice Siddharth noted that the ‘Policy of Zero Tolerance’ in such cases has become essential.
Before this incident spreads further, the advocate-accused should be dealt with harshly by starting criminal contempt proceedings, the court stated. In a previous case, it dealt with a lawyer from the District Court who had committed similar offenses against a female presiding officer.
Sections 186, 228, 352, 353, 354, 354-D, 506, 509, and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act were utilized to book the defendant.
The applicant currently holds the position of Metropolitan Magistrate in Kanpur Nagar. She was assigned as a Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate in District Court Maharajganj at the time of the occurrence in issue. The applicant’s Facebook account began receiving offensive messages from the opposite party no. 2, Abhay Pratap, who is also a practicing attorney in the same court, as she was going about her official judicial duties. The applicant stopped the opposite party no. 2 from sending messages after becoming aware of their messages.
After that, the applicant’s official mobile number was obtained by the opposing party no. 2, who then started receiving messages on it. He used to visit her court without doing any work and keep his eyes fixed on her. When the opposite party no. 2 exceeded the acceptable threshold, the applicant filed a police report against him at the Kotwali Maharajganj police station on November 11, 2022. On the same date, the applicant also wrote a letter to this Court via the District Judge of Maharajganj. The applicant was never friends with opposite party no. 2 on Facebook or any other social media platform, nor did the applicant ever accept his friend request. Since the applicant stopped responding to his communications on September 29, 2021, the opposing party no. 2 has continued to send her messages.
She physically came in court and asserted that while the opposing party no. 2 engaged in the undesired and disagreeable behavior toward her, she was serving as Civil Judge (Junior Division) in District Court, Maharajganj, and that she is a Judicial Officer. She found it difficult to focus on her work and was concerned for her safety.
She was prevented from doing her judicial duties without interference and lived in constant fear of the opposing party No. 2 tarnishing her name. Her marriage was already established, and these communications could have ruined or somehow impacted her future marital life. The second opposing party is starting a risky pattern, thus it is important to deal with him harshly and revoke his bail.
The charge-sheet was not filed against the opposite party no. 2 when he was granted bail on 17.12.2022, and the benefits of the precedent have been incorrectly extended to the applicant since he was arrested prior to the submission of the charge-sheet by the Investigating Officer, according to the applicant. She further argued that the learned Sessions Judge’s reliance on the Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.
name: Sarah Garima Tigga semester: VI , college: Symbiosis Law School Pune
0 Comments