K.B. Srivastava, J.
1. This is a petition invoking the contempt jurisdiction of this Court for the punishment of the opposite parties for Contempt of Court.
2. The petitioner Anand Kumar Agnihotri is the son of Krishna Chandra Agnihotri, opposite party No. 1, Opposite-parties Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Raj Kumar and Ravindra Nath are the other two sons of Krishna Chandra Agnihotri. The petitioner Anand Kumar Agnihotri instituted Criminal Case No. 603 under Sections 193, 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code against the father Krishna Chandra Agnihotri sometime in July, 1971. This case was transferred to the Court of Sri P.S. Chha-bra, Additional Munsif-Magistrate, 1st Class, Lucknow for trial. The case was still sub-judice, when on October 16, 1971 a Marpit took place between the petitioner and the opposite parties inside their joint house at about 7.30 A. M. The petitioner lodged a first information report at P.S. Kotwali on the same date, but the record does not show the time at which it was lodged. That first information report is Annexure No. 1 to the rejoinder affidavit. It alleges that at 7.30 A. M. on October 16, the opposite parties Raj Kumar and Ravindranath threatened the petitioner Anand Kumar with murder and asked him to withdraw the criminal case or else they would actually commit his murder. The petitioner protested and thereupon all the three opposite parties surrounded him inside the inner court-yard and beat him with kicks and fists on his neck, stomach and back. He then went to P.S. Kotwali to lodge a first information report but it was not recorded. Thereafter he went to the S.P. and upon his telephonic direction, it was actually recorded. Upon these facts, the petitioner moved an application before the Additional Munsif-Magis; trate on November 10, 1971 praying that the facts be reported to this Court for punishment for contempt, because a threat to kill and actually beating in order that criminal litigation be withdrawn, prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of judicial proceeding or inter feres or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of justice.
3. There can be no dispute that the stream of justice has to be kept clear and pure, and unsullied in any manner. A threat to do violence, or the actual doing of violence, to induce or compel a party to withdraw a prosecution, will certainly amount to contempt of court, because it obstructs the even flow of the stream of justice and what has to be decided by a competent Court of law, is sought to be obstructed and stifled and eliminated altogether by show or use of force.
4. The question, however, is as to whether a Marpit took place, in connection with which the opposite parties surrounded and gave a beating to the petitioner in order to compel him to withdraw the case. We have seen above that the petitioner lodged a first information report Annexure 1 sometime on 16-10-1971 in which he made these allegations. He reiterated these facts in his affidavit, supporting the application, for the initiation of contempt proceedings. On the other hand, admittedly, Krishna Chandra Agnihotri also made a first information report the same day, at 8.05 A. M. alleging the commission of an offence under Sections 323/506/504 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner Anand Kumar. It is not disputed that the petitioner's first information report came into existence some hours after Krishna Chandra's first information report. Krishna Chandra alleged in his first information report that the petitioner was characterless and had been harassing him from time to time for cash and at about 7.30 A. M. on that date, he demanded a sum of Rs. 2000/- from him upon pain of violence and when a protest was made, the petitioner gave a beating to Ravindra and also extended out threats and intimidations. We have thus before us two counter versions of the same incident, namely, the petitioner's version of beating with a view to compel withdrawal of the criminal case and the version of the opposite parties of beating by the petitioner with a view to extract a handsome amount. The petitioner was examined medically and was found to have sustained four or five abrasions. This examination was held by Dr. G. C. Gupta at 4.15 P. M. Ravendra Nath was also medically examined by Dr. R. S. Das at 7 P. M. and was found to have sustained two contusions and an abrasion. It is a case, therefore, in which the petitioner as well as one of the opposite parties received injuries in a common incident. It should be obvious, therefore, that what has been alleged by the petitioner in his application and affidavit, has been controverted by the opposite parties in their counter-affidavit. The question of fact, therefore, is a seriously disputed one and on the basis of mere affidavits, we cannot come to a conclusion as to which version is correct. The onus lies on the petitioner to prove his version and no punishment can be awarded unless the facts ire established, which is net he case Viere. The petitioner had declined to lead oral evidence in proof of his case and, therefore, the matter being controversial, we cannot, reach the conclusion that any contempt of Court was established.
5. The learned Additional Munsif-Magistrate had no doubt the jurisdiction to report the facts to this Court but in doing so, he should have felt satisfied that there was a prima facie case. He has, undoubtedly, mentioned that there is such a case, but in our view, there was no evidence before him to come to that conclusion. Both the versions were before him and unless he held a preliminary inquiry to find out as to which version was correct, he should not have troubled this Court by a report for contempt proceedings. If the petitioner was so minded, he could have come straightway to this Court to seek his remedy. A Court of law should not intervene unless it is satisfied that there is a good case which this Court can look into and this conclusion can be arrived at only by an inquiry into the matter.
6. The petition for contempt is, therefore, dismissed. The petitioner shall pay Rs. 250/- as costs to the opposite parties and Rs. 250/- as costs to the Government Advocate.