Delhi High Court: In a criminal contempt case wherein, the contemnor was found guilty of intimidating Local Commissioner during a Court-Ordered Inspection, a Division Bench of Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, JJ., directed that the police authorities take him into custody for one month.
In the case at hand, a criminal contempt petition under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, was initiated by the Court on its own motion against the son of the respondent in connection with an order dated 28-10-2024 passed by a Single Judge, wherein the original proceedings concerned a plea seeking interim protection against the contemnor’s father, relating to a business dispute over 30,000 tons of industrial coal forming the subject matter of the partnership firm, G&G Concrete Solutions.
On 31-05-2024, the Single Judge passed a restraining order prohibiting the father of contemnor from dealing with, alienating, or creating any encumbrance over the coal or assets of the firm till further orders. Despite the restraint, the petitioners alleged ongoing disposal and alienation of coal. Consequently, they moved an application seeking the appointment of a Local Commissioner to verify the alleged breach.
By an order dated 12-07-2024, Ms. Nandini Bali, Advocate was appointed as the Local Commissioner to visit the respondent’s premises at Bhupani, Faridabad, with police assistance if necessary, and to submit a report on compliance with the Court’s restraint order. The commission was executed the next day, 13-07-2024, around noon, in the presence of police officers.
During the inspection, the contemnor, son of the restrained respondent, entered the premises at about 12:23 PM. According to the Local Commissioner’s report dated 17-09-2024, he began recording the commission proceedings, refused to cooperate, and behaved in an aggressive and rude manner despite being warned by police officials. Upon being asked to delete the recordings, he reluctantly complied.
The report further stated that while the Local Commissioner was examining business records, the contemnor, along with his father and one other, became extremely aggressive and obstructive. Significantly, the contemnor allegedly took out a pistol and placed it on the table, threatening and attempting to intimidate the Local Commissioner. The police officers present at the site seized the pistol, which was stated to be unlicensed. These serious allegations of intimidation formed the basis of the present proceedings.
Taking cognizance of the report, the Single Judge found that the act prima facie amounted to interference with the administration of justice under Section 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and referred the matter to the Division Bench for initiation of criminal contempt proceedings.
The notice of contempt was issued on 09-12-2024, calling upon the contemnor to show cause. In his reply, the contemnor denied all allegations and claimed that he was cooperative during the inspection. He asserted that the pistol in question was not a firearm, but a toy gun used to scare monkeys and stray animals, and that it had been lying on the office table prior to the inspection. He pleaded that he was a law-abiding citizen with no criminal record and sought dropping of the proceedings.
Given the gravity of the allegations, the Court on 21-02-2025 directed the SHO, P.S. Bhupani, Faridabad, to file a status report and ordered the production of the seized weapon by the Sub-Inspector who had taken custody. On 28-05-2025, ASI appeared before the Court with the sealed weapon. Upon opening the seal, the Court observed that the weapon was not a toy gun but a real air gun, a fact confirmed by the police officer. The weapon was then resealed and preserved for record.
The matter was finally heard on 08-09-2025, when arguments were concluded. While the contemnor continued to maintain innocence, his counsel tendered an unconditional apology on his behalf. The Court, however, reserved judgment.
The Division Bench examined the statutory framework of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, defining “criminal contempt” as acts that scandalise the court, interfere with judicial proceedings, or obstruct the administration of justice. The Court drew support from the Supreme Court decisions in Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj, (2014) 16 SCC 204, and Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly, (2002) 5 SCC 352, reaffirming that the purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the dignity of courts and the rule of law, and that contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court emphasized that “willful disobedience” or obstruction must be known, deliberate, and with evil motive, not casual or accidental. It further cited the coordinate Bench judgment in Court on its Own Motion v. Obsession Naaz, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 6747 where intimidation of Local Commissioners was held to constitute direct interference in the administration of justice. Similarly, reliance was placed on Court on its Own Motion v. Sanjay Rathod (Advocate), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5901 where contempt was established against a lawyer for scandalous conduct that obstructed judicial functioning.
Applying these principles, the Court found that the conduct of the contemnor, his aggressive behaviour, refusal to cooperate, and placing of a firearm on the table during the execution of a court-ordered commission was a deliberate act of intimidation and obstruction. The defence that the weapon was a toy gun was rejected as false and misleading, intended to mislead the Court. The inspection and production of the weapon conclusively established that it was a real air gun, thereby exposing the contemnor’s deceit.
The Court observed that a Local Commissioner functions as an officer and extension of the Court, and intimidating Local Commissioneramount to direct interference with judicial process. The Court noted that the contemnor’s conduct was wilful, calculated, and devoid of remorse, and his apology was neither genuine nor bona fide, but “a lip service to escape consequences”.
The Court held that the contemnor’s actions constituted criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as they obstructed the administration of justice and undermined the dignity of the judicial process. It concluded that his behaviour demonstrated a deliberate attempt with an evil motive to prevent the execution of lawful court directions.
Accordingly, exercising powers under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, the Court sentenced the contemnor to simple imprisonment for one month and imposed a fine of ₹2,000, with a further 15 days’ imprisonment in default of payment. The Court directed the police authorities to take him into custody for intimidating Local Commissioner.
[Court on its own motion v. Nitin Bansal, CONT. CAS. (CRL) 16/2024, decided on 29-10-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. M.C. Dhingra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Nihal Ahmad & Mr. H. R. Khan, Mr. Kashif Salman, Advs. along with Contemnor – Mr. Nitin Bansal.