HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 42 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 20 of 2014 Applicant :- Dr. Sudhir Kumar Goyal Opposite Party :- Dr. Satyendra Kumar Joshi,Osd-Princ.Satayawati Coll.& 13 Ors Counsel for Applicant :- Chandan Agarwal,Kaushlesh Pratap Singh,Satish Trivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Syed Imran Ibrahim Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri K.P. Singh.
This criminal Contempt has been filed levelling allegations against all the opposite parties that the applicant was virtually victimised and threats were extended on account of his having launched proceeding for criminal prosecution alleging theft of a pen-drive that contained information with regard to an inquiry in which the applicant was an Inquiry Officer.
Notices were issued and all the opposite parties have put in appearance and Affidavits have been filed on their behalf bringing on record relevant material with the contention that the allegations made do not make out any case for criminal contempt as understood under the provisions of Section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
A Division Bench of this Court had issued notice on 11.12.2014 whereupon the aforesaid response has been filed.
The matter was taken up by this Bench on 6.7.2015 after change of roster and the following order was passed:-
"Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, learned senior counsel for the applicant.
After having gone through the nature of the allegations made, we prima facie on a consideration of the provisions of Section 15 read with Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are of the opinion that there is no material on the basis whereof this Court can draw proceedings of criminal contempt on the allegations so made.
Sri Trivedi submits that he will assist the court on this issue before proceeding with the matter further.
List in the next cause list.
Order Date :- 6.7.2015"
Accordingly today, Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate, has advanced his submissions to substantiate the plea raised on behalf of the applicant that the criminal contempt, as drawn up, is maintainable and the opposite party should be tried and punished for having interfered with the course of justice as understood under the provisions of Section 2 (c) of the 1971 Act.
The facts that have been narrated in the Contempt Application are primarily to the extent that the college - authorities including the opposite parties, had allegedly pressurised the applicant to withdraw the said criminal proceeding that had been launched by him in relation to the alleged theft of a pen drive against opposite party No.14.
In this regard, it would be appropriate to extract the letter dated 23.3.2012 whereby the applicant had been called upon to receive back the pen-drive and it was also stated therein that it is on account of some communication gap that the allegations have been made by the applicant and that the pen-drive has not been stolen but it is safe in the custody of the college - authorities as indicated in the said letter. The content of the letter is extracted hereunder:-
"SC/ADMN/1206/2011-12 Date : 23/03/2012 The Presenting Officer to the Enquiry, Dr. S.K. Goyal, Satyawati College (Day), (University of Delhi), Ashok Vihar, Phase III, Delhi 110052 Dear Dr. Goyal, I writ this to you on the direction of the Chairman, Governing Body, Satyawati College. The matter relates to your complaint about the pen-drive to the Chairman and also to the police, Sector-20, Noida.
In this regard, the College had taken the necessary action at its end. The Chairman, Governing Body has examined the available material on record and has spoken to you and Sh. A. Khan. There appears to be a communication gap, which has led to this situation. Further, the Chairman has noted that the pen drive is in the College and is safe and Sh. A. Khan had no intention to misuse the pen drive. He is satisfied that the pen drive has not been misused. He also notes that Sh. A. Khan has been assisting you in the enquiry since its inception and here has been no complaint against him prior to this complaint. Therefore, in view of the above, the Chairman, Governing Body desires that you kindly withdraw you complaint to the police against Sh. A.Khan and the matter be treated as closed. You are also requested to kindly collect the pen drive from the College.
Thanking you, Yours faithfully, (Dr.Devendra Prakash) Acting Principal"
It appears that the matter got more complicated thereafter as the applicant was reluctant and resultantly on account of some more developments, the college - authorities proceeded to take disciplinary action against the applicant. To that end, the college - authorities served a Show-Cause-Notice on the applicant which is dated 13.2.2013 and has been filed as Annexure No.13 to the application. The allegations made therein also include the allegations of not having collected the pen drive and instead lodging an F.I.R. which, according to the college - authorities was also an alleged misconduct on the part of the applicant. Charge No.6 of the said show-cause-notice is extracted here under:-
"6. Why did you lodge an FIR on 12.3.2012 to report the theft of the pen drive under reference when it had been made known to you that the said pen drive had already been handed over by Mr.Ataullah Khan to the then Principal on 5.3.2012 itself ?"
It appears that the applicant thereafter assailed the aforesaid charges contained in the show-cause-notice issued by the College, the Board of Management whereof is situate in Delhi.
A writ petition was filed before the Delhi High Court by the applicant being Writ Petition (C) No.6121 of 2013 and was heard by a learned single Judge in detail. A copy of the said judgment has been brought on record by the opposite parties in their Affidavits. We find from the judgment that the same charges, which have been mentioned in the show-cause referred to herein above, were considered by the Delhi High Court and the writ petition was dismissed vide judgment dated 31.10.2013, while recording a finding with regard to the aforesaid charge No.6 specifically, which is as follows:-
"9. So far as the charge No. 6 is concerned it pertains to petitioner filing a criminal complaint case on account of one Mr. Ataullah Khan, an employee of the College appointed to assist the petitioner, taking away pen drive. Petitioner has filed a criminal complaint inter alia for the reason that the pen drive was personal to the petitioner which could not have been taken away by Mr. Ataullah Khan. In my opinion and as already observed above once the personal pen drive contains confidential data belonging to the College it prima facie cannot be said that the pen drive thereafter remains only personal to the petitioner. Therefore, at this stage of only issuing of the charge-sheet it cannot be said that the complaint made by the petitioner against Mr. Ataullah Khan was totally justified in law by all applicable aspects. An unjustified complaint made for unjustifiable reasons and its consequent effect on the discipline of the University and the other related aspects can surely be enquired into the departmental proceedings. There is no law that the examination of this charge/issue must necessarily await the result of the criminal case, and which may take a long period of time."
Sri Trivedi advanced his submissions clearly contending that had it been a mere proposal or an offer to the applicant to withdraw the criminal proceedings, things would have been different but in the instant case, a threat was extended to the applicant to withdraw the criminal case or else disciplinary action would be taken against him. He, therefore, submits that this nature of show-cause notice clearly amounts to interference with the criminal case in which a charge-sheet has already been filed and cognizance has already been taken by the court below. He, therefore, submits that as per sub section (ii) and (iii) of Section 2 (c) of the 1971 Act, the aforesaid action of the opposite party and the issuance of the show-cause-notice to the applicant is nothing short of criminal contempt.
Section 2 (c) is extracted here under for ready reference:-
"2 (c) "criminal contempt" means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which---
(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to low the authority of, any court; or
(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or
(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner:"
In response, Sri Pranav Kumar Jha and Syed Imran Ibrahim, learned Counsel for the opposite party, submit that the very foundation of the allegation in this criminal contempt has evaporated on account of a judicial pronouncement by a court of competent jurisdiction namely the Delhi High Court, referred to herein above, and once a court in a writ filed by the petitioner himself has held that such a charge cannot be held to be a frivolous charge, then the disciplinary proceeding initiated would stand protected by a judicial pronouncement. He contends that as a matter of fact, it would be a premature exercise to presume anything and usurp the authority of the college to proceed to take such action which is lawfully permissible in terms of rules and regulations that govern the college and any other statutory law in this regard. He, therefore, submits that any finding in this criminal contempt would amount to trying the very charge which has been permitted to be tried by the Delhi High Court as referred to herein above.
His contention, therefore, is that this criminal contempt has been filed only with a view to arm twist the college - authorities so that the applicant may be absolved of the charge as referred to herein above. He, therefore, submits that the show-cause does not amount to any interference with the course of justice inasmuch as the opposite party has not extended any threat or even has tried to influence the proceedings of the criminal court which is stated to be pending after taking cognizance. He submits that there is no material on record to indicate that the opposite parties ever tried to interfere with the proceedings of the criminal prosecution in any manner whatsoever except setting up their rightful defence which is available to them under the law and which they have a right to protect keeping in view the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and the learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State, we find that his letter which was dispatched to the applicant and has been extracted herein above dated 23.3.2012 was clearly intended to settle the said alleged dispute of the theft of the pen-drive which the college - authorities have offered back to the applicant. Not only this, the show-cause-notice itself clearly states that in spite of this offer to return the pen-drive, the applicant showed reluctance and rather made it an issue to the effect that it is now a subject matter of a criminal prosecution.
We also find that the matter was taken up in a writ petition before this Court where the accused had prayed for quashing of the F.I.R. The said writ petition No.1514 of 2013 was disposed of on 7.2.2013 by the following judgment:-
"Hon'ble Ravindra Singh,J.
Hon'ble Anil Kumar Agarwal,J.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A.
This petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. in case crime no. 193 of 2012, under sections 380, 411, 414, 212, 201, 120B I.P.C. P.S. Sector 20, Noida, district Gautam Budh Nagar.
From the perusal of the F.I.R. it appears that on the basis of the allegations made therein a prima facie cognizable offence is made out. There is no ground for interference in the F.I.R. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the impugned F.I.R. is refused.
However, considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioners are ready to return the pen drive, it is directed that in case the petitioners deposit the pen drive before the I.O. within 15 days from today, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jogender Kumar Versus State of U.P. 1994 Cr.L.J.,1981, the petitioners shall not be arrested in above mentioned case, till the credible evidence is not collected by the I.O. during investigation.
With the above direction this petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 7.2.2013"
A perusal thereof indicates that the court had considered the request of the accused Ataullah Khan and opposite party No.1 in that case that they are ready to return the pen-drive and the same can be lodged with the Investigation Officer. In the aforesaid circumstances, we also find that there was cooperation on the part of the accused in the investigation indicating that there was no intention of theft of the pen drive.
In the aforesaid background, the show-cause-notice, which has been issued and Charge No.6 whereof was not quashed by the Delhi High Court, the only inference that can be drawn is that a criminal contempt alleging interference with the course of justice in the criminal case does not arrive at all. There is no material or any evidence to that effect. There is nothing to construe that the evidence was being tampered or the court where the criminal case is pending was attempted to be influenced.
In our opinion and having perused the record, we find that this is an absolutely frivolous exercise by the applicant calling upon the court to draw proceedings of contempt. We were proposing to impose costs on the applicant but Sri Trivedi submits that this may not be necessary as the applicant has been bonafidely on legal advice led to believe that criminal contempt had been made out. We, accordingly, refrain from imposing any costs.
This criminal contempt application is, accordingly, rejected.
Order Date :- 13.7.2015 Irshad