Contempt requires interference with justice, not a pre-filing warning or a later complaint that does not coerce withdrawal.

Contempt requires conduct calculated to interfere with the fair administration of justice or to coerce a party in pending proceedings. A warning given before proceedings are instituted is treated as a caution against taking an unguarded step, unlike a threat made after proceedings begin that may pressure withdrawal. On the stated facts, the opposite party only said he would take proper action if insolvency proceedings were filed, and the later criminal complaint did not show any attempt to compel withdrawal or hinder the insolvency petition. The conduct was held not to amount to contempt of Court, and no stay of the criminal complaint was justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the opposite party's warning and subsequent complaint under Section 500 of the Penal Code amounted to contempt of Court by seeking to prejudice the pending insolvency proceedings or by exerting extraneous pressure on the applicant.

Analysis: Contempt depends on conduct that is calculated to interfere with the fair administration of justice or to coerce a party in relation to pending proceedings. A distinction was drawn between a threat made after proceedings have begun, which may amount to pressure to withdraw the case, and a warning given before proceedings are instituted, which is only a caution against taking an unguarded step. On the facts, the opposite party merely indicated that he would take proper action if insolvency proceedings were filed, and the later criminal complaint did not show any attempt to compel withdrawal of the insolvency petition or to handicap its conduct.

Conclusion: The conduct did not amount to contempt of Court, and no stay of the criminal complaint was warranted.

---