The petition arises from an order dated July 19, 2024, from the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Karkardooma Courts, which directed the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against the petitioner. In response, the petitioner filed for quashing this order, alleging that the directive was unjustified.

The crux of the current application is the legal notice sent by M/s Brains Logistics, which contains allegations against the petitioner, including claims of "forum shopping" and manipulation of court processes. The notice was allegedly signed by the company's director, Roopdarshan Pandey, but lacked formal legal representation, raising concerns about its legitimacy.

Counsel Nayyar highlighted the notice's content, arguing that it maligns the High Court's authority and misrepresents the proceedings, thus threatening the administration of justice. He cited specific paragraphs from the notice that suggest malicious intent, asserting that such allegations not only lower the dignity of the court but also scandalize the judicial system.

Representing M/s Brains Logistics, counsel Dhaiya countered the petitioner's claims, arguing that the notice does not contain malicious intent and that any public dissemination of its contents occurred inadvertently during court proceedings. Dhaiya insisted that the notice was merely a communication between parties, not intended for public scrutiny.

Upon reviewing the notice and related documents, the court found prima facie evidence suggesting that the allegations against the High Court were indeed contemptuous. The court noted that the notice insinuated that the judicial directions were based on "presumptions," which it deemed a serious affront to the court's integrity.

In light of these observations, the court indicated a potential for initiating criminal contempt proceedings against both the respondent and the media outlets that published the notice. It emphasized that publishing private legal communications on social media constitutes a serious breach that undermines judicial authority.

The court has ordered that the publishers of the notice be notified and required to explain their actions. The respondent has also been directed to provide a detailed reply justifying the contents of the notice within two weeks. The case is set for further hearing on October 28, 2024, as the court seeks to unravel the complexities surrounding this contentious legal exchange.

This unfolding legal drama not only highlights the intricate dynamics of court communications but also raises important questions about the boundaries of public discourse in judicial matters. As the case progresses, its implications for legal ethics and the integrity of the judicial system will be closely observed.