HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Court No. - 42 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 29 of 2006 Applicant :- In Re: (Sri. S.S.Yadav) Opposite Party :- Sri Desh Depak Sachdeva Counsel for Applicant :- A.G.A. Counsel for Opposite Party :- Arun Srivastava,Someshwari Prasad,V.P.Srivastava Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Hon'ble Raghvendra Kumar,J.
This criminal contempt was instituted against the contemnor Desh Deepak Sachdeva upon a reference dated 21.10.2006 tendered by Sri Suresh Singh Yadav, Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut, for drawing proceedings of criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 on account of the alleged misbehaviour of the contemnor with the Presiding Officer and his scandalous utterances casting aspersions on the functioning of the court and of the Judge concerned. Notices were issued, upon which the contemnor appeared before this Court and taking notice of the aforesaid facts a division bench passed the following order on 17.1.2007:-
"HON. S.S. KULSHRESTHA,J.
HON. V.K. VERMA,J.
Sri Suresh Singh Yadav, Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut has sent a reference vide letter dated 21st October, 2006 for drawing contempt of courts' proceedings under Section 2(C) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 against Sri Desh Deepak Sachdeva party to Misc. Case no. 573 of 1999 (Smt. Neetu Sachdeva vs. Desh Deepak Sachdeva) under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "the Code") and Original Suit No. 288 of 2004 (Smt. Neetu Sachdeva vs. Desh Deepak Sachdeva) under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and also Misc. Case No. 01 & 02 of 2004 (Desh Deepak Sachdeva vs. Smt. Neetu Sachdeva) under Section 340 of the Code. It was contended that the alleged Contemner was all time misbehaving with the Presiding Officer as and when the court's proceedings were taken. On 6th March 2006 he made endorsement on the order-sheets of Case No. 573 of 1999 and 288 of 2004 which undermined the authority of the court. It is also said that show cause notice was given to the alleged Contemnor to explain his alleged misconduct. Instead of explaining his misconduct he reiterated those scandalous allegations and also attributes aspersions on the working of the court proceedings.
However the alleged Contemner has submitted his unconditional apology before this Court and also represented on whatever endorsement was made. It is unfortunate that he submitted unconditional apologies but preferred to mention the reasons compelling him to show such agony which he suffered.
For long seven years period he is suffering the agony because of the pendency of his case. The counsel from the other side was playing delaying tactics. Not only this at one occasion on 6th March 2006 he became furious and attempted to assault the alleged Contemner and his counsel there in the court. Even no proceedings were drawn against him by the court. It has also been contended that despite so many orders by this Court to conclude the case within stipulated time, no heed was paid to it by the learned trial court.
The alleged Contemner is directed to first tender his apology before Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut within a period of two weeks. List it on 31st January 2007.
17.01.2007"
Thereafter several bailable warrants were issued as the contemnor did not appear before this Court and finally non-bailable warrants were issued on 9.2.2015 that could not be executed, upon which a division bench of this Court on 18th April, 2015 issued orders for its execution within 21 days.
The contemnor in his affidavit filed today has stated that he was arrested as a consequence of the non-bailable warrants on 3rd May, 2015, and was taken into custody, whereafter he was produced before this Court on 12th May, 2015.
The contemnor does not appear to have filed any reply to the earlier show cause notice and, therefore, vide order dated 12th May, 2015, charges were framed against the contemnor calling upon him to answer the same. He was also granted bail on the same date but could be released on 15th May, 2015. Thus for a period about 13 days he suffered custody as a consequence of the execution of the non-bailable warrants issued against him.
Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel for the contemnor, in the presence of the contemnor, has advanced his submissions only to the effect of tendering unqualified apology coupled with the explanation given in the affidavit by the contemnor as to why he chose to conduct himself in a manner giving rise to these contempt proceedings.
The background in which the contemnor is stated to have misconducted himself before the learned Judge, Family Court at Meerut, is that a matrimonial dispute was going on between the contemnor and his wife. His wife was represented by two advocates, Vipin Sodhi and C.L. Ramdas, whereas the contemnor was represented by Sri N.K. Chhabra. The dispute had been going on for several years, approximately 7 years, and according to the contemnor, the lawyers engaged by his spouse to appear before the court manipulated things in a manner allegedly with the court official so as to cause obstruction in an early resolution of the dispute. According to him about 70 dates were fixed in the matter yet the same could not be resolved, even though it has now been brought on record that the dispute has been settled by way of a compromise. A copy of the judgment dated 29th January 2007 of the lower court and the judgment dated 26th March, 2007 of the High Court quashing criminal proceedings and also the dismissal of an appeal filed before a division bench of this court on 18.1.2007 have been filed alongwith the affidavit of the contemnor.
Yet before the compromise could be arrived at in the proceedings before the court the behaviour of the contemnor was noticed as was reported by the officer who has made the reference.
The gravamen of the alleged contempt is that when the proceedings were taken up on 6th March, 2006, while signing on the ordersheet about his presence, the contemnor in the ordersheet of Original Suit No. 288 of 2004 and Misc. Case No. 1 of 2004 made separate endorsements in his own handwriting levelling allegations against the Judge and the Court containing scurrilous and scandalous remarks that clearly tended to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings. The said ordersheets are on record of the reference.
On having noticed the said remarks made, the trial court issued notices vide order dated 22nd March, 2006 to the contemnor to show cause, as to why his act aforesaid be not treated to be contemptuous for taking appropriate action. To this notice of the court, the contemnor responded by giving a detailed reply dated 18th April, 2006 which is also on record of the reference. In this reply the applicant expressed his anguish and disgust at the behaviour of the lawyers of the opposite party and also levelled allegations of manipulation in the ordersheet. He also categorically stated that on account of the complete inaction on the part of the Presiding Judge and court official and his complaints being not looked into, he had lost faith in the proceedings and it is for this reason that he had made the endorsements on the ordersheet earlier. He however indicated that he did not intend to show any disrespect and that he still continues to hold the court in high esteem.
It is after having received the said detailed reply, that the learned Presiding Judge made a reference indicating that the contemnor had not shown any sense of remorse and that his remarks were clearly designed to undermine the authority of the court and lower its esteem by maintaining his stand through the justifications given in his reply dated 18.4.2006.
From a perusal of the said reply dated 18.4.2006, what we find is that there is no indication of an intention to withdraw the remarks endorsed by the contemnor on 6th March, 2006 in the two ordersheets referred to hereinabove.
It is in this backdrop that after receiving the aforesaid reference that this Court had issued notices on 17th January, 2007 extracted hereinabove.
It appears from the record that in compliance of the order dated 17th January, 2007, the contemnor tendered an apology before the lower court dated 17th March, 2007 and a perusal thereof indicates that it is unconditional. However, when the said apology was tendered it was taken on record by the lower court through a Misc. Application and an ordersheet was transcribed, a perusal whereof demonstrates that even though the contemnor had tendered an unqualified apology, yet he while giving his explanation before the trial court grew furious and challenged the court that he is prepared to face any proceedings with a threat that if he is made to suffer then the court will also suffer. The court however did not pass any orders on the application for apology and deferred the matter for 24th March, 2007. According to the ordersheet the contemnor did not appear on 24th March, 2007 for which a date was again fixed on 30th March, 2007 and inspite of waiting till the end of the day, the learned Judge, Family Court, endorsed that since the contemnor does not appear to be serious in pursuing the said tendering of apology therefore the matter shall not be treated to be pending and a report be sent to the High Court in this criminal contempt.
Consequently, a report dated 3rd April, 2007 indicating the behaviour of the contemnor upon the tendering of the apology in the court and also with the court official Mr. Sukhdev Kabotra was tendered stating that the contemnor had no genuine sense of remorse and had threatened the court with consequences in case he was made to suffer.
The criminal contempt thereafter appears to have been taken up on several occasions but on account of the non presence of the contemnor, bailable warrants had to be issued on four occasions and ultimately non-bailable warrants were issued on 9th February, 2015, the proceedings whereof have been noted hereinabove.
The matter was taken up on 21st July, 2015 by this bench on which date an adjournment was sought by Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel to file a reply whereafter the present affidavit dated 6th August, 2015 has been filed on behalf of the contemnor who is also present in Court.
The contemnor has not denied the contents of the charge that was framed against him. The charges framed against the contemnor vide order dated 12th May, 2015 are as follows:-
"That you Desh Deepak Sachdeva, son of Sri T.P. Sachdeva, on 06.03.2006 in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut, deliberately interfered in administration of justice and tempered Court's records by putting endorsement on the order sheet of the cases mentioned below:
A. In Case No. 573 of 1999 "Injustice is done, Judges are fraud" (Annexure-1 to reference letter dated 21.09.2006) B. In Case No. 288 of 2004 "Time was wasted and compromise is always played, Judges are involved in Mal Practices and pressure is been created and threatening in the court room in front of the Judges and no action has been taken from the last 7 years. Mr. Rajesh Chandra, Ex-Judge in this Court has threatened me and has challenged me that nothing can be done against Advocate Vipin Sodhi who is playing with justice of administration." (Annexure E to reference letter) C. In Case No. 1 of 2004 "Judges are fraud, playing with Judge is Game" (Annexure J to reference letter) D. In Case No. 02 of 2004 "Judge is fraud and has called me in chamber many times and has asked for forged compromise" (Annexure M to reference letter) E. That when the Court questioned you, you submitted reply by using more insulting and deliberately language by direct attack on entire judicial system. (Annexure D,H and N to the reference letter). That by act aforesaid you have not only scandalize the court, lower down the authority of court as also interfered in administration of justice. Thus by word written you have committed criminal contempt define under Section 2(c) punishable under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971."
A perusal of the aforesaid charges clearly indicates that the contemnor has not denied the endorsement of the contemptuous remarks scandalising the court and undermining its authority made on the order sheet dated 6th March, 2006. The words as endorsed thereon and extracted hereinabove in the charges, therefore, leave no room for doubt that the remarks endorsed in writing by the contemnor himself are admitted and clearly lowers the authority of the court which interferes with the judicial proceedings, may be on account of his alleged frustrated mind.
The contemnor has tendered unqualified apology before the trial court on 17.3.2007 and again through the affidavit before this Court filed today, but what is relevant is that the apology does not appear to be remorseful keeping in view the endorsement made in the ordersheet dated 17th March, 2007 indicating hereinabove. The same is also fortified by the report of the officer dated 3rd April, 2007 sent to this Court indicating that even though an apology had been tendered before the court yet his defiant attitude to challenge the court and to threaten it with the consequences in case he was made to suffer continued even after the tendering of the apology.
The affidavit filed today does not give any explanation on that count even though apology has been pressed into service by Sri Srivastava in the presence of the contemnor again and again. We therefore, do not find the apology to be as genuine and remorseful as has been explained in the full bench decision of this Court in Smt. Sadhna Upadhyaya (Advocate) Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009(2) U.P.L.B.E.C 987 (Paras 61 to 90).
It is true that keeping in view the explanation to Section 12(1), an apology should not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional but the same explanation also indicates that the apology should be accepted if the accused makes it bonafide.
In the circumstances above, even though the contemnor tendered his unqualified apology before the trial court but in view of his consequential conduct as recorded in the ordersheet dated 17.3.2007 and the explanation given by the officer on 3rd April, 2007, the apology does not appear to be bonafide as he had cursed the court with consequences if he is made to suffer any further.
We do not find any reason or plausible cause for the contemnor to have behaved in this fashion when his matters according to him had been compromised before the trial court as well as before the High Court and noted hereinabove. The behaviour of the contemnor appears to be that of a person who like a crusader appears to be championing the cause of disgruntled litigants and he did behave in a manner which dilutes the impact of his apology in terms of the explanation to Section 12(1) of the 1971 as indicated above.
Coming to the issue of charges levelled against the contemnor, the endorsements made on the order sheet to the effect that injustice is done, Judges are fraud and that Judges are involved in malpractices and pressure is being created, playing with Judge is game and other such utterances as are recorded in the charges are all designed to castigate the Judge and the Court for which there is no valid basis. Merely because 70 dates were fixed and the case of a matrimonial dispute went on for seven years, the same does not give any cause, nor is it a justification to make endorsements on the ordersheet which are scurrilous and demeaning. The contemnor has very conveniently castigated only the court, the Judge and the officials about such delay in the matter and its proceedings. He has also castigated the lawyers of the other side in his explanation but while endorsing on the ordersheet, nothing has been expressed by him as to how many times the lawyers took adjournment. There is absolutely no justification, in our opinion, which the contemnor can claim as a privilege to make such remarks in writing, that too even, on records of the case. The contemnor not only made the remarks but also soiled the proceedings by his act aforesaid.
His behaviour even after the tendering of the apology was to create terror in the court and the threats extended do not indicate that the contemnor really wanted to apologize. His apology was therefore only to get away from the punishment in the circumstances above.
Consequently, in view of the aforesaid reasons, we do not find this to be a case to abstain from awarding punishment as envisaged under Section 13 of the 1971 Act. To the contrary, the behaviour of the contemnor does call for punishment.
Having heard our opinion, Sri Srivastava made a request that if this Court is proposing to punish the contemnor then an imposition of fine would suffice. We are of the opinion, that mere imposition of fine would not suffice for the misconduct and behaviour as noted above and a deterrent action action by way of confinement is also necessary.
Sri Srivastava submitted that the contemnor has already undergone confinement when the non-bailable warrants were executed.
We make it clear that the said confinement was on account of violation of the orders of this Court resulting from non appearance of the contemnor and not on account of any order of conviction on charges being proved. The said period of confinement, therefore, will not enure to the benefit of the contemnor as an adjustment to the sentence awarded herein.
As concluded hereinabove, the apology was not bonafide and it was either as a result of the orders of this Court dated 17.1.2007 or the contemnor intended to escape from punishment. It is correct that he tendered an apology before the court below and before this Court as well but that only mitigates the quantum of sentence and not absolving him altogether from punishment. His demeanour to contest the authority of the court and going to the extent of making endorsements of scurrilous remarks on the ordersheet cannot be condoned or pardoned.
In the aforesaid background, we find it appropriate to impose a sentence of 10 days confinement coupled with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- on the contemnor. The contemnor shall stand released on having undergone the aforesaid period of confinement and shall deposit the amount of fine with the Registrar General of this Court within two weeks. In the event of default of deposit of fine, the contemnor shall be liable to undergo 4 days additional confinement in lieu of non deposit of fine.
Sri Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant on the pronouncement of the judgment prayed that the applicant may be granted liberty to file an appeal and to that end in purpose he may be granted a month's time to approach the higher forum during which period the imposition of sentence and fine may be suspended.
We accept his prayer to the extent that the sentence of confinement shall remain suspended for a period of one month in order to enable the contemnor to avail of the remedy before the higher forum but the fine shall be deposited within two weeks.
The contempt application stands accordingly disposed of.
Order Date :- 6.8.2015 Sahu