Delhi High Court: A petition was filed by an advocate seeking to set aside the orders of the MM and the ASJ wherein the investigation and registration of FIR was declined concerning the alleged rape of his wife by her cousin when she was 16 years old since the wife of the petitioner did not come forward with any complaint/allegation of commission of offence, as alleged. In the last hearing, the Delhi High Court vide order dated 06-05-2024 granted the petitioner an opportunity to respond to derogatory comments placed by him in the Chat Box and explain why a contempt show cause notice must not be issued against him. Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J., directed the Registrar General to place the records of the judicial proceedings before the Acting Chief Justice for referral to the Division Bench handling criminal contempt and register the case as Court on its own Motion v. Sanjeev Kumar, because the petitioner’s reply to the show-cause notice was also found to be grossly contemptuous and full of intemperate language against various judicial officers.
Background
The petitioner brought forth a petition before the Court under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC), seeking the initiation of criminal proceedings concerning the alleged rape of his wife by her cousin when she was a minor. Initially, the Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) refrained from directing an investigation into the matter but afforded petitioner the opportunity to provide his testimony under Section 200 of CrPC. Unsatisfied with this outcome, petitioner pursued a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), which ultimately culminated in dismissal. Subsequently, he approached the Court challenging the decisions rendered by both the MM and ASJ, seeking redress and legal remedy.
During the course of the judicial proceedings, an incident occurred on 06-05-2024, where the petitioner made contemptuous remarks through the Chat Box during a video conferencing session. These remarks were deemed to be not only derogatory but also contemptuous. Consequently, the High Court, perceiving these actions as a severe breach of decorum and an attempt to impede the judicial process, summoned the petitioner to provide a justification for his conduct. Despite being afforded an opportunity to elucidate his comments, Petitioner’s response was found to be lacking in substance and failed to provide adequate explanations for his actions.
Decision
Upon thorough examination of the facts and circumstances surrounding the case, the Court initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against the petitioner stating that his “comments placed by the petitioner in the Chat Box during the course of proceedings” were “patently contemptuous” and had the potential to “scandalize the Court and undermine authority of the Court.” The Court noted that the petitioner’s actions constituted “gross misconduct” and demonstrated a pattern of making “complaints and defaming the Judges.”
The Court remarked that “The reply filed on behalf of the petitioner is again grossly contemptuous in nature with hardly any relevant explanation for placing the aforesaid comments in the Chat Box on 06-05-2024. The gross misconduct of the petitioner can be noticed with reference paragraphs 42 to 44 & 69 placed on record, which conspicuously reflects that petitioner is habitual of making complaints and defaming the Judges of the District Courts, who have dealt with and passed any adverse order, in any proceedings preferred by the petitioner.”
Furthermore, the Court emphasized the importance of upholding the dignity and respect of the judiciary, highlighting the need to safeguard its institutional integrity from unwarranted attacks and malicious insinuations.
Consequently, the Court directed the Registrar General to place the records of the judicial proceedings before the Acting Chief Justice for referring the matter to the concerned Division Bench handling criminal contempt. Additionally, the petitioner was instructed to appear before the Court on 17-05-2024.
Also Read:
[Sanjeev Kumar v. State (NCT)of Delhi, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3586, Order dated 15-05-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Advocate for Petitioner: Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate, party in person
Advocate for the State: Meenakshi Dahiya, APP
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
