[2025:RJ-JP:39177-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Contempt Petition No. 5/2025 In Re, R/o ----Petitioner Versus 1. Advocate Shri Tarachand Sharma, District And Session Court Bharatpur 2. Advocate Shri Mohan Swaroop Sharma, District And Session Court Bharatpur ----Respondents Connected With D.B. Criminal Contempt Petition No. 7/2025 In Re-, In Re- ----Petitioner Versus 1. Advocate Shri Rupendra Sharma, District And Session Court Bharatpur 2. Advocate Shri Ritesh Tiwari, District And Session Court Bharatpur 3. Advocate Shri Harkesh Singh, District And Session Court Bharatpur 4. Advocate Shri Manoj, District And Session Court Bharatpur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G.S. Gill, AAG assisted by Ms. Shikha Sharma Ms. Dhriti Laddha For Respondent(s) : Mr. Brij Mohan Sharma Dr. Mahesh Sharma with Ms. Harshita Sharma Mr. Himmat Singh Bikarwar Mr. Rajendra Sharma Mr. Harendra Singh Sinsinwar Mr. Dhruv Atrey Mr. Manish Kumar Sharma Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sogarwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 23/09/2025 [2025:RJ-JP:39177-DB] (2 of 3) [CRLCP-5/2025] 1. The present contempt petitions have been initiated on the basis of reference by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, with regard to the incidents which have occurred on account of agitation initiated by the lawyers relating to some incidents which has occurred in the Court. 2. While we disapprove such an approach of lawyers, we find that the lawyers had accepted the advise given to them on administrative side and had withdrawn their agitation. The concerned lawyers who had initiated the agitation appear to be antagonistic towards the learned District Judge, by their statements, which have resulted in the reference for contempt. 3. A reply has been filed by the concerned Advocate and the other respondents and an unconditional apology has been submitted. They have stated with regard to their respect for the majesty of this Court and showed full faith in the judiciary & the rule of law. 4. We are of the view that the lawyers do not have cases which are personal to them. It is a humble profession which they pursue and while they may take up cause of the public at large. In cases relating to the Judicial Officers, they would also require to understand that even the Judicial Officers do not have any personal view in relation to the cases which come up before them. It is a legal pursuit which follows from both the sides and therefore, there is no occasion of initiating agitation against the Judges, who are sitting on the Bench wholly for the purpose of administration and dispensation of the justice. No Officer has any personal grudge against any lawyers nor any lawyer can be said to have any grudge against the Judge. Sometimes on account of [2025:RJ-JP:39177-DB] (3 of 3) [CRLCP-5/2025] some arguments, a lawyer may erupt but he has to understand that the judiciary is based on the esteem of the Court. The high esteem of the Court is required to be maintained and that is why a lawyer wore such a black coat where there is no other reflection except the pious duty to perform his service in a humble manner. 5. We expect the lawyers to understand this basic principle i.e. " धर्मो रक्षति रतिक्षः ", which has been followed since ages. P er Hon’ble Justice Sanjeet Purohit: 6. It is always considered that the Bar and Bench are the wheels of a Chariot and the same Chariot can only run smoothly if the same runs in tandem and while extending support and respect to each other. The Bar must maintain the sanctity of this judicial system and then only this judicial system can serve the purpose for the larger good of the public. 7. The lawyers are present in person before us and have expressed their desire not to further prolong any such claims which they may have stated in their reply and they do not press the contents of the reply except the apology and shows the same to the Court. 8. Therefore, with the aforesaid observations while accepting the unconditional apology, we close the contempt proceedings pending in the matters. 9. Notice(s), if any, stands discharged. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J SAHIL SONI /41-42