Supreme Court of India was dealing with the Suo-moto ContemptPetition registered against Perrywith respect to notice issued to him as to why proceedings in contemptjurisdiction be not initiated against him for having violated thesolemn undertaking given to SC, returnable on 16thNovember, 2021.
Brief Facts:
A Kenyan citizen of Indian descent received custody of a child last year, but the court later revoked that decision after concluding that the man had cheated the system and entered the proceedings with "unclean hands" by omitting crucial information. Additionally, it has started a contempt case against one of the parties for breaching the agreements.
SC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides SC observed thatnon-disclosure ofmaterial facts by Perry at the relevant junctures were also prima facie found to becontumacious. Therefore, the instant proceedings in the contempt jurisdiction wereinitiated suo moto by this Court.
SC relied upon the case of ABCD v. Union of Indiawhere it was observed that “Making a false statement on oath is an offence punishable underSection 181 of the IPC while furnishing false information with intent tocause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of anotherperson is punishable under Section 182 IPC. These offences by virtue ofSection 195(1)(a)(i) of the Code can be taken cognizance of by any courtonly upon a proper complaint in writing as stated in said section.”
SC stated that it is thus well settled that a person who makes a false statement before theCourt and makes an attempt to deceive the Court, interferes with the administrationof justice and is guilty of contempt of Court. The extracted portion above clearlyshows that in such circumstances, the Court not only has the inherent power but itwould be failing in its duty if the alleged contemnor is not dealt with in contemptjurisdiction for abusing the process of the Court.
SC opined that“Perry is guilty of having committed criminal contempt of Courtapart from the contempt for violating express undertakings given to the Courts,including this, Court. We accordingly hold Perry guilty under the Contempt ofCourts Act, 1971.”
SC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the SC held that “Though the instant proceedings can be taken to logical conclusion and orderof sentence can be awarded even in the absence of Perry, we give final opportunityto Perry to present himself before this Court on 22.07.2022 at 3.00 pm along withAditya. He shall then have an opportunity to advance appropriate submissions onthe issue of punishment to be awarded to him. It shall also be open to Perry topurge himself of contempt in which case a sympathetic view may be taken in thematter.”
Case Title: Perry Kansagra Case
Bench: J.Uday Umesh Lalit and J.Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Citation: SUO-MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.3 OF 2021
Decided on: 11th July, 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :