1 CGHC010181262026 2026:CGHC:36205-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONTR No. 3 of 2026 Office Reference Nil ... Petitioner(s) versus Lokesh Garg (High Court Advocate) Bhathagaon Chowk, Ring Road No. 01, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Respondent/contemnor : Mr. Lokesh Garg, Petitioner in Person. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 14/08/2026 1. This is an office reference. 2. The present contempt reference is taken up for hearing along with CRMP No. 2166 of 2026 (Anurag Agrawal and others v. State of Chhattisgarh), CRR No. 971 of 2026 (XYZ v. State of Chhattisgarh and another) and CRMP No. 2150 of 2026 (Lokesh Garg v. State of Chhattisgarh and another). Since all the cases are arising out of the FIR registered at VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.08.25 21:57:59 +0530 2 Police Station Tikrapara, Raipur bearing Crime No. 10/2020 lodged by the complainant Anurag Agrawal and Crime No. 11/2020, lodged by the complainant Lokesh Garg, all the aforesaid petitions and contempt reference are being heard and decided together. 3. The present is a contempt reference made by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Mana Camp, Raipur, under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against the proposed contemnor, Lokesh Garg. 4. Heard Mr. Lokesh Garg, contemnor/respondent, appeared in person. 5. The present reference arises out of Criminal Case No. 497 of 2021 pending before the Court of learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Mana Camp, Raipur. During the course of proceedings in the said case, the contemnor/respondent, who was appearing as an Advocate, is alleged to have made certain comments and allegations against the Presiding Officer of the Juvenile Justice Board and to have behaved in a manner which, according to the learned Presiding Officer, obstructed the judicial proceedings and caused injury to the dignity and authority of the Court. 6. It has been stated in the reference that on 03.02.2026 and again on 05.02.2026, the contemnor/respondent made oral and written allegations against the Presiding Officer and, by raising his voice and using objectionable and allegedly baseless and insulting expressions, acted in a manner which was considered to be contemptuous and intended to lower the authority and dignity of the Court. In consequence thereof, M.J.C. No. 01/2026 was registered before the Juvenile Justice Board and, after affording an opportunity to the contemnor/respondent, the reference was made to this Court under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 3 7. On receipt of the reference, the matter was taken up by this Court. The contemnor/respondent appeared before this Court and filed his reply. By order dated 03.07.2026, this Court directed the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Mana Camp, Raipur, to proceed with Criminal Case No. 497 of 2021 strictly in accordance with law and to make every endeavour to conclude the proceedings expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months. The contemnor/respondent also undertook before this Court that he would cooperate in the proceedings before the learned Juvenile Justice Board and would not seek any unnecessary adjournment. 8. This Court, while taking note of the undertaking given by the contemnor/respondent, also directed that his conduct during the course of the trial be monitored and that weekly progress reports be submitted by the learned Principal Magistrate through the Registry until conclusion of the trial. 9. Thereafter, the matter was taken up on 03.08.2026, when the contemnor/respondent appeared in person. The matter was thereafter directed to be listed along with CRR No. 971 of 2026. On 04.08.2026, the said matter was considered along with CRR No. 971 of 2026 and the application for impleading the complainant as respondent No. 2 in the criminal revision was allowed. The matters were thereafter directed to be listed on 11.08.2026. 10. On 11.08.2026, the contemnor/respondent appeared in person along with Mr. Keshav Garg, learned counsel, and the State as well as respondent No. 2 in CRR No. 971 of 2026 were also heard. During the course of hearing, it was brought to the notice of this Court that a separate case had also been lodged against respondent No. 2 at the instance of the applicant in CRR No. 971 of 2026, in which charges had already been framed for offences 4 punishable under Sections 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, and that respondent No. 2 intended to challenge the same. Consequently, the matters were adjourned to 14.08.2026. 11. The Court has carefully considered the reference made by the learned Principal Magistrate as well as the reply filed by the contemnor/respondent. The contemnor/respondent has stated that he is a practicing Advocate having more than 26 years' standing at the Bar and that he holds the judiciary and the majesty of law in the highest regard. He has further stated that he never intended to make any statement against the judiciary or to undermine the authority or dignity of the Court. 12. It is well settled that the Bar and the Bench are complementary institutions of the justice delivery system. Members of the Bar are expected to maintain the dignity and decorum of the Court and to conduct themselves with restraint and responsibility. Any allegation against a Presiding Officer, particularly when made in an intemperate or disrespectful manner, has to be viewed with seriousness, as the authority and dignity of the judicial institution cannot be permitted to be undermined. 13. At the same time, while exercising jurisdiction in contempt, the Court is required to consider the entire conduct of the contemnor, the explanation furnished, the circumstances in which the alleged act was committed and the subsequent conduct of the contemnor. The object of contempt jurisdiction is not merely punitive, but also to preserve the dignity of the judicial institution and to secure the due administration of justice. 14. In the present case, this Court has also taken note of the fact that the contemnor/respondent has appeared before this Court, has filed his reply and has undertaken to cooperate with the proceedings before the learned 5 Juvenile Justice Board and not to seek unnecessary adjournments. The subsequent orders passed in the matter also demonstrate that the contemnor/respondent has continued to remain present before this Court and has participated in the proceedings. 15. Having regard to the explanation furnished by the contemnor/ respondent, his undertaking before this Court, his subsequent conduct and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met by taking a lenient view in the matter. The contemnor/respondent is, however, expected to remain cautious in future and to maintain the dignity, decorum and authority of the Court while discharging his professional duties as a member of the Bar, and the criminal contempt proceedings arising out of the present reference against the contemnor/respondent, Lokesh Garg, may be consigned to the record. The contemnor/respondent is cautioned to remain careful and maintain the dignity, decorum and authority of the Court in future. It is made clear that in the event of any repetition of such conduct, it shall be open to the Court concerned to initiate appropriate proceedings against him in accordance with law. 16. A copy of this order be forwarded to the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Mana Camp, Raipur, for information and necessary compliance. 17. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this contempt reference stands consigned to record. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved