Punjab and Haryana HC directs Trial Court Judge and Public Prosecutor to furnish explanation for disregarding its directions

Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a petition filed by the petitioner highlighting the non-compliance of the directions of the present Court by the Trial Court concerned, the Division Bench of Sureshwar Thakur and Sudeepti Sharma, JJ., stated that it appeared that the Trial Court had prima facie wantonly disregarded the said directions, and had proceeded to invite responses from the Public Prosecutor concerned. Subsequently, the Trial Court also ordered for consideration, being made, on the application filed by the petitioner, asking for implementation of the said directions. Therefore, the Court stated that the Trial Judge and Public Prosecutor concerned were required to furnish explanations, as to why further proceedings for contempt of Court be not initiated against them.

In AGR Steel Strips (P) Ltd. v. RBI, CWP-34297-2019, decided on 27-05-2024, this Court had stated that the declarations of fraud of the AGR Steel Strips accounts were required to be quashed, and set aside on the ground that the said declarations of ‘fraud’ were violative of the principles of natural justice. Moreover, pursuant to the FIR, if any, which became lodged against the present petitioner, and, if they were rested upon the said made illegal declarations also became quashed and set aside. These declarations were with a condition that liberty was preserved to the lending institutions concerned, to after adhering to the principles of natural justice.

The Court stated that despite the clear and candid directions being made in respect of the present petitioner, the said directions remained uncompiled with at the instance of the Trial Court concerned, which led to the petitioner file the present petition. The Court stated that though this Court through an order dated 05-07-2024, with utmost clarity stated that the FIR registered under Sections 120-B¹ read with 420², 467³, 468⁴ and 471⁵ of the Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner was quashed and set aside. Further, the proceedings which were sub-judice before the Trial Judge concerned, were also quashed and set aside.

However, the Court stated that it appeared that the Trial Court had prima facie wantonly disregarded the said directions, and had proceeded to invite responses from the Public Prosecutor concerned. Subsequently, the Trial Court also ordered for consideration, being made, on the application filed by the petitioner, asking for implementation of the said directions. The Court stated that the wanton disregard to the explicit directions made by the present Court, by the Trial Judge concerned was prima facie complicit in committing the contempt of court. Therefore, the Court stated that the Trial Judge and Public Prosecutor concerned were required to furnish explanations, as to why further proceedings for contempt of Court be not initiated against them. Both the Trial Judge and Public Prosecutor were directed to furnish explanation on the subsequent date of hearing i.e. 31-7-2024.

[Suyog Jain v. RBI, 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 8021, decided on 25-07-2024]

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner: Puneet Bali, Sr. Advocate with Surjeet Bhadu, Advocate and Sanya Thakur, Advocate.