Court On Its Own Motion vs H.C. Aggarwal And Anr.
1995 Latest Caselaw 952 Del

JUDGMENT

Mahinder Narain, J.

(1) The contemners were proceeded against for having committed contempt of Court on the basis of reference received from Shri D. S. Bawa, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. The reference is detailed running into 8 pages.

(2) We do not think any useful purpose would be served by reproducing the whole of it.

(3) Telegraphic communications were addressed to the learned Additional Rent Controller. In the telegrams, allegations of impropriety were made, and on one occasion,, a suggestion of "financial settlement."

(4) These communications led to filing of a reference under Contempt of Courts Act.

(5) The contemners before us are two. They are father and son. H.C. Aggarwal is the father, and, is stated in Court to be of 77 years of age, and his son Rajesh Mittal. Both were involved in a proceeding before Shri D. S. Bawa, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. The son was acting as attorney for his father. The matter before Shri D. S. Bawa, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, was for recovery of the first floor of the premises bearing No. W-31, Green Park, New Delhi.

(6) Upon reference being received, notices were issued to the contemners before us on 25 April, 1994 by this Court (Y. K. Sabharwal and A. D. Singh, J.J. ) to show cause as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against them.

(7) The contemners before us filed their replies and ultimately also agreed to file affidavits of apology before Shri D. S. Bawa, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. The affidavits which were originally filed were not considered to be satisfactory, so another set of affidavits was filed.

(8) Even the second affidavits were not considered to be satisfactory, and so third and final affidavits were filed.

(9) In third and final affidavits, the contemners have accepted that it was not right on their part to do what they have done. It was stated by H. C. Aggarwal that "I now realise that what I had done was totally wrong and I admit my mistake and I may be pardoned for the same".

(10) We think that the last affidavit of apology is a proper tender of apology to the Court and we accept the same. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, as it was the third affidavit which was the proper tender of apology, we feel that the observations of the Supreme Court in L. D. Jaikwal v. State of U.P. 1984 S.C. (1) are applicable to the case in as much as the earlier affidavits field by the contemners were apologies from. the pen, and not from the heart.

(11) We have been noticing the steady increase in tendency to make reckless and baseless allegations against the officers performing judicial duties'. The contemners have also not denied sending of the telegraphs to the Additional Rent Controller.

(12) A perusal of the telegrams sent itself shows that there is strong suggestion of "financial settlement" with the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. The telegrams are admitted to have been sent by the father. The son has been acting as attorney for the father. We are of the view that sending communication, whether in the form of letters or in the form of telegram;, in a matter pending before Court to the Presiding Officer of the Court, is interference in the due course of judicial proceedings. It has a tendency to polute, which has to be discouraged. What has been done by the contemners amounts to contempt of court.

(13) Counsel for the contemners relies upon the observations of this Supreme Court in 1991 (2) Scc 381(2) wherein the Supreme Court, in its wisdom, chose not to initiate contempt proceedings against the petitioner in that case, keeping into account his age.

(14) We have perused the said judgment. The age of the petitioner in is not mentioned in that. In any case, in our view, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, merely because of the contemner is an old person does not give him a right or liberty to make invitation for "financial settlement" to the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. Such an invitation suggests that the court is open to such "financial settlement".

(15) As stated earlier, there seems to be a growing tendency to make irresponsible allegations against the judicial officers which, in our opinion, ought to be curbed.

(16) In the instant case, we find that the contemners have committed contempt of the Court by sending the telegrams that they have sent by making innuendoes of financial impropriety against Shri D. S. Bawa, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi.

(17) In view of the age of the contemner H. C. Aggarwal, we are not inclined to send him to jail. He has committed contempt of court and it would not be right on our part to let the matter go without imposition of some fine. We impose a find of Rs. 1,000 on H. C. Aggarwal for having committing contempt of the Court.

(18) In as much as Rajesh Mittal is the attorney of the-contemnor H. C. Aggarwal, he has also equally participated in the act. He has also filed affidavits which were not acceptable in the first instance. He is also equally guilty of the same offence. We also find that he has committed contempt of Court like H. C. Aggarwal. We hold also him liable to pay fine in the sum of Rs. 1,000.

(19) The fine is ordered to be deposited with the Registrar of this Court within one week from today.

(20) The reference stands disposed in terms of the aforesaid observations.