The case titled "In Re Suo Motu Contempt Petition Criminal No. 5 of 2020" involved the bench's observation that the contemnor attempted to scandalize and lower the majesty of the court and the judicial officer concerned.

Referring to previous judgments, including Prashant Bhushan and Another, In Reference Suo Motu Contempt Petition (2021) 1 SCC 745 and Baradakanta Mishra vs. High Court of Orissa (1974) 1 SCC 374, the bench concluded that such an attempt constituted 'criminal contempt.'

The bench also noted that the contemnor was given a proper opportunity to present his explanation during the enquiry, and the required procedure was followed by the authorities. Consequently, the bench held that there was no procedural illegality.

The central question before the bench was whether the words used by the contemnor in the complaint fell under the definition of 'criminal contempt' as outlined in Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The court found that the words used in the complaint, which questioned the working of the judicial officer and levied allegations of corruption and misuse of position, clearly fell under the definition of 'criminal contempt' as per the Act.

In disposing of the criminal contempt proceedings, the bench stated that the contemnor's reply and the arguments presented by his counsel were not helpful as they failed to provide a valid explanation for making reckless allegations against the judicial officer. The court emphasized that the judicial officer had acted in the public interest and to prevent the misappropriation of funds by directing the Sub Divisional Officer to secure the donation box.

As a result, the court sentenced the contemnor to ten days of imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000, which was to be paid within seven days.