Joginder Singh vs Prithvi Raj And Ors.
2002 Latest Caselaw 199 Del

JUDGMENT

V.S. Aggarwal, J.

1. Lt. Col. Joginder Singh (Retd.) petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this court with respect to Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Section15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. He seeks proceedings for criminal contempt of court to be initiated against the respondents.

2. Respondent No. 3, Gurchanran Singh Copra, is the brother of the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 (now deceased) is the main person against who the assertions to be referred to herein have been made while respondent No. 2 is the wife of respondent no.1.

3. The sum and substance of the assertions made by the petitioner as cajoled from the petition are that respondent No. 3 has sold the property illegally to respondent No. 1 and the decree so passed even is not valid. As against respondents 1 and 2 it had been pleaded that respondent No. 1 has given his wrong name at one place he mentions his name as Prithvi Raj and other documents he described as Prithvi Raj Choudhry He also contends that mutation that has been effected in favor of respondent No. 1 with respect to the property (portion 2/11 East Patel Nagar, New Delhi) is illegal because respondent No. 1 has used his official position. Plea has also been raised that respondent no.1 as an officer of the Income Tax Department has committed certain illegal acts, the vigilance commission has not absolved him from the provisions of the prevention of Corruption Act and has committed criminal misconduct. A supplementary lease deed is supposed to have been executed in pursuance of the mutation which is alleged to be illegal. Allegations have been made that he defrauded this court wen order of 1st March, 1985 was passed and has manipulated the will. On all these counts it is claimed that respondent No. 1 should be dealt with strictly for committing contempt of court.

4. In Crl. M. 1111/2000 it is alleged that respondent No. 1 has forged the copy of the compromise and decree has been obtained by fraud. In Crl. M 1107/2000 as against respondent No. 2 it is asserted that she has described herself sometimes as wife of prithvi Raj and earlier as wife of Prithvi Raj Choudhry and therefore she has committed contempt of court. It has also been pleaded (Crl. M 1/2002) that the single Judge of this court had been misled and a compromise that have been arrived at is not a legal document.

5. Needless to state that the petition has been contested.

6. At the outset we deem it necessary to mention that in the petition referred to above large number of facts have been mentioned which are not even relevant to be taken care of. Petitioner appeared in person. On 15th January, 2002 the petitioner had prayed for an adjournment to seek legal opinion whether allegations made in this petition constituted any criminal contempt and whether it would service after the death of respondent No. 1. petitioner again appeared on 25th January, 2002 but he did not show any inclination of withdrawing the petition nor rendered any help to the court vis-a-vis the assertions made by him. He made his submissions regarding the facts pleaded.

7. The petitioner who appeared in person highlighted the fact as already referred to above about the conduct of respondents 1 and 2 with respect to giving the name sometimes as Prithvi Raj or at Prithvi Raj Chopra and his activities when he was in service in the Income Tax Deptt and using his influence in getting the mutation effected.

8. We know from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hargovind Dayal Srivastava and Anr. v. G. N. Verma and Ors. 1977 Crl. L. J. 1003 that there is a difference between a criminal contempt and contumacious conduct. Contumacious conduct pertains to the conduct of a party which is not a criminal contempt but otherwise is a deplorable. Criminal contempt necessarily has to be seen as defined under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Section 2(c) defines Criminal Contempt in following words:-

"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 lower 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;"

9. It is patent from the definition of criminal contempt that it is concerned not with the private disputes between the parties by something which should but be scandalising the court, interfere in judicial proceedings or obstructs the administration of justice.

10. It is often said that justice is not a cloistered virtue. She must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and comments of ordinary men. But this criticism is not to be made with malice or attempting to impair the administration of justice. Private disputes certainly would not fall within the realm of the expression of criminal contempt as referred to above.

11. The Supreme Court in the case of Gobind Ram v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1972 989 approved the earlier decision of the Orissa High Court in the case of State v. Editors and publishers of Estern Times and Prajatantra AIR 1952 Orissa 328 and held that proceedings for criminal contempt had to be initiated in very grave and scurrilous attack on courts. The precise passage reads:-

"A review of the cases in which a contempt committed by way of scandalising the court has been taken notice of for punishment shows clearly that the exercise of the punitive jurisdiction is confined to cases of very grave and scurrilous attack on the court or on the judges in their judicial capacity, the ignoring of which would only result in encouraging a repetition of the same with a sense of impunity and which would thereby result in lowering the prestige and authority of the court."

12. Purpose as to why such a right has to be conferred (SIC) the court for criminal contempt is that the Judges cannot take up the public platform to defend the action if any. The Supreme Court in one of the earliest decision The Editor, printer and publisher of the Times of India v. Arabinda Bose and Anr. 1953 Supreme Court Reports 215 also highlighted the same fact that such a power has to be exercised in very grave and serious cases and the court is not to be over sensitive merely to criticism. This court in the case of Uma Dutt v. R.K. Sardana echoed the same view when it was held:-

"Contempt of Court, it must never be forgotten, is a summary and a drastic process which this court is very slow to report to, except in cases of gross affront to the dignity of the court or in cases where the the judicial process has been sought intentionally to be seriously interfered, with illegally. It is resorted to only in the interest of the Sanctity of the judicial process and the dignity and majesty of the court of justice and not merely because a private party to a litigation, feeling aggrieved, seems to be inspired by a desire to settle his own scores with his opponent through contempt proceedings....."

13. This is so because the power of the court has to be exercised only to maintain and upheld the majesty of law and dignity of courts. Reference with advantage can be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of UP and Ors. v. Ashok Kumar Saxena and Anr. wherein the Supreme Court while referring to the earlier decision in the case of B.R. Gupta held:-

"This Court has on several occasions pointed out that the power of punishment of r contempt shall not be exercised lightly but should be exercised only to uphold the majesty of law and dignity of Courts. In Babu Ram Gupta v. Sudhir Bhasin, this Court said (at P. 1531 of AIR):

"It is well settled that while it is the duty of the Court to punish a person who tries to obstruct the course of justice or brings into disrepute the institution of judiciary this power has to be exercised not causally or lightly but with great care and circumspection and only in such cases where it is necessary to punish the contemner in order to uphold the majesty of law and the dignity of the Courts."

14. Reverting back to the facts of the present case as already pointed above the grievance of the petitioner basically is pertaining to a private dispute with respect to the property situated in East Patel Nagar. Respondent No. 3 is the brother of the petitioner and he has sold his share (if any regarding which no opinion need be expressed) to respondent No. 1 (since deceased). Even if he had sold the property for sake of argument under some coercion still it can hardly be taken to be a criminal contempt of court. It by no stretch of imagination affects the majesty of law or the dignity of the court. It is basically a private dispute between the petitioner and respondent no. 3 and therefore the very assertion even if taken to be correct will not throw the case of the petitioner under the definition of criminal contempt.

15. So far as respondent No. 1 is concerned since he has dies the whole proceedings qua him must be taken to have abated. However, respondent No. 2 who is the wife of respondent No. 1 has also been arrayed as a party. At this stage, therefore, we deem it necessary to deal with the assertions against respondent No. 2. She has not used her position in any way in getting any mutation effected nor she can be taken to have committed any act whereby it cane be stated that she has committed the criminal misconduct for purposes of prevention of Corruption Act. If she has given the name of her husband as Prithvi Raj or some time as Prathvi Raj Choudhry indeed it will not put forward a case for a criminal contempt. This is for the reason that admittedly a decree has been passed by this court. We are not expressing any opinion nor we deem it necessary to do so regarding validity of the same but so long as mutation has been effect and decree of the court is not set aside ti must be taken to be enforceable. In this process even if she has given name as wife of Prithvi Raj and on some occasions as wife or Prithvi Raj Choudhry it will not amount to criminal contempt in the facts of the present case.

16. Our attention has been drawn towards the decision of this court in CCP 209/95 and CM 3370/99 dated 20th January, 2000. Therein also petitioner was seeking issued of contempt notice against the respondent. Perusal of the order passed by this court reveals that contempt is also to have been with respect to the compromise arrived at and this court noted that till such time the compromise is not set aside it cannot be held that it is a forged or a fabricated document. With respect to the forged will also a similar finding had been arrived and this court rejected almost similar pleas as in the present petition holding that it cannot be termed that there is any criminal contempt of court. So long as the compromise, the decree of the court, the mutation and the wills are not set aside to say that there is anything to attract rigours or strict provision of law or to prompt the court to take nay action will not arise. Therefore, as against respondent No. 2 also in these circumstances no action for criminal contempt is drawn even if the allegations of the petitioner are taken into consideration.

17. For these reasons the petition being without merit must fail and is dismissed.