Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a criminal contempt petition listed after suo motu notice was taken by the Single Bench regarding the averments of the respondent in a petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’), the Division Bench of Anupinder Singh Grewal* and Kirti Singh, JJ., opined that the pleadings in the petition filed under Section 482 of the CrPC by the respondent, did not suggest that they were mala fide or in good faith. The pleadings could have been better worded, but it was difficult to conclude that they were mala fide. The respondent was only seeking expeditious disposal of his case. Further, the Court noted that the respondent had furnished his unqualified and unconditional apology. The respondent undertook that he would not use any contemptuous words/language in future and would abide by all the conditions imposed by the Court. Thus, the Court stated that the action of the respondent did not constitute criminal contempt of court and accordingly, dropped the criminal contempt proceedings.
Background
The respondent in a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC, stated that the Judicial Magistrate was not inclined to pass an order, but was only inclined to give adjournments and the respondent was being harassed by the action of the Judicial Magistrate. The Single Bench referred to the zimni orders passed by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, which indicated that the matter had been adjourned at the request of the respondent’s counsel. Therefore, the Single Bench took suo motu notice for initiation of criminal contempt proceedings.
Further, when on 14-11-2023, the explanation of the respondent was not found proper, the Single Bench directed the initiation of proceedings of criminal contempt. Thus, the present contempt court proceedings were listed before the Court.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court referred to Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and stated that it was apparent that the publication would be necessary to constitute an act of criminal contempt. The publication could be by words, spoken or written signs or any other representation or otherwise. The publication should scandalize or tend to scandalize or lowers the authority of the Court or it interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings or in the administration of justice.
The Court noted that the respondent had stated that the Magistrate was not inclined to decide the case and was inclined to adjourn the case. Thus, the respondent stated that he was harassed by the actions of the Magistrate. The Court stated that the perusal of the zimni orders manifested that the adjournments were being sought mostly by the counsel of the respondent.
The Court stated that the respondent ought not to have casually stated something which was not borne out from the record or was factually incorrect. However, the Court could not have lost the sight of the fact that the respondent was one among many citizens, who approached the Court seeking grievances. The dockets of the Courts were clogged and often cases were not decided speedily. The respondent appeared to be a hapless citizen, awaiting justice at the portals of the District Court and in these circumstances, he appeared to have transgressed by not setting out the correct factual backdrop. The Court stated that it did not find that the respondent’s action would amount to contempt of Court.
The Court stated that the pleadings in the petition filed under Section 482 of the CrPC did not suggest that they were mala fide or in good faith. The pleadings could have been better worded, but it was difficult to conclude that they were mala fide. The respondent was only seeking expeditious disposal of his case. The Court stated that the contempt jurisdiction should not be exercised lightly at the drop of a hat. It ought to be invoked only in rare or exceptional cases where there was interference with administration of justice or such action amounts to scandalizing or lowering the authority of the Court.
The Court stated that “healthy and constructive criticism should always be welcome. The judgments of the Court are in public domain and open to discussions and critical analysis. Judges are not super humans, and they did commit mistakes. Dialogue and debate are the hallmark of a democracy governed by rule of law. Suggestions towards improvement in the administration of justice should always be taken with gratitude.”
Further, the Court noted that the respondent had furnished his unqualified and unconditional apology. The respondent undertook that he would not use any contemptuous words/language in future and would abide by all the conditions imposed by the Court. Thus, the Court stated that the action of the respondent did not constitute criminal contempt of court and accordingly, dropped the criminal contempt proceedings.
[Court on its own motion v. Surjeet Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 6168, decided on 01-07-2024]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Tanu Bedi, Advocate as Amicus Curiae appointed by Litigation Cell, Punjab and Haryana High Court assisted by Pushp Jain, Advocate and Akhil Dadwal, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Tushar Tanwar, Advocate and Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate.
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
