Delhi High Court: The present case was filed on the motion of the Court in the nature of contempt proceedings after it became evident through police status reports and transcripts that respondent, who had originally filed a writ petition alleging unauthorized construction against certain individuals, was actually negotiating to purchase the property involved in the petition and his actions suggested that the petition was a strategic move to reduce the property price and further demanding money to withdraw the petition. A division bench of Pratibha M. Singh*, Amit Sharma, JJ., held the contemnor guilty of contempt of Court under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 (‘the Act’), for his actions that obstructed the administration of justice and abused the judicial process for personal gain but took a lenient view considering the medical condition and age of the contemnor. Thus, the Court sentenced the contemnor to remain in the Court till the rising of the Court on 05-07-2024 and deposit a sum of Rs. 1 Lakh to the Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee within a period of one week.
In the instant case, the contemnor filed a writ petition to initiate action against unauthorized construction on certain lands situated in Burari, Delhi. The respondents in the said writ petition were various governmental authorities and two private individuals.
In response to the said writ petition, the respondent (Private Individual) filed an application wherein the respondent said that the contemnor himself was guilty of unauthorized construction. Additionally, a second application was filed by the respondent, wherein he sought dismissal of the writ petition, while relying on certain transcripts of conversation that occurred on 13-04-2022 and 27-05-2022 in which the contemnor was stated to had demanded a sum of Rs.50 lakhs for withdrawing the said writ petition. The Single Judge, who was hearing the said writ petition, took note of these allegations and vide order dated 02-08-2022 directed Deputy Commissioner of Police (‘DCP’) crime to investigate regarding the alleged conversation.
Accordingly, to the investigation of DCP, the speech samples and the audio recordings match the voice of the contemnor. . Then, the Single Judge passed a detailed order and was of the opinion that the contemnor conduct constitutes interferences with and obstruction of judicial proceedings and the administration of justice, constituting criminal contempt in terms of Section 2(c)(ii) and (iii) of the Act. The matter was later referred to the Division Bench, and a show cause was issued as to why contempt action should not be taken was issued against the contemnor, on 09-02-2023. A reply to the said show cause notice dated 31-07-2023 had been filed by the contemnor, where he tenders his unconditional apology before this Court.
The Court after perusal of facts, transcripts and contentions noted that, the status reports filed by the police reveal quite an alarming situation wherein the contemnor was in talks for purchase of the property and was in fact trying to drive the price of the land down. He clearly used the filing of the writ petition as another weapon in his armour to try and get the price reduced for the land. Such conduct of any person to abuse the judicial process cannot be ignored or left unpunished. There was no iota of doubt, after perusing the transcripts, that the Contemnor demanded money to withdraw the writ petition. Though clearly, no money appears to had been passed to the contemnor, butthe fact that the contemnor was willing to negotiate and extract money from the respondents for the withdrawal of the writ petition was, in the opinion of this Court, completely contemptuous.
The contemnor’s acts of filing of the writ petition for personal gain was clearly an attempt to leverage the judicial system for his personal gain. Such acts not only challenge the authority of the Court but also undermine public confidence in the fairness and impartiality of the judicial process.
The Court then held the contemnor guilty of contempt of Court under Section 12 of the Act. The Court then sentenced him to remain in the Court till the rising of the Court on 05-07-2024. In addition, the contemnor should deposit a sum of Rs.1 lakh to the Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee within a period of one week.
[Court on its own motion v. Pradeep Aggarwal, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4681, decided on 05-07-2024]
*Judgement Authored by: Justice Pratibha M. Singh
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner: Rajesh Mahajan, Amicus.
For Respondent: Rahul KR. Singh, Rahul Kumar Kanoujia, Sanjay Prasad Verma, Sukriti Verma and Shashi Bhushan Singh, Advocates.
