Amarjeet Singh vs State And Ors.
2003 Latest Caselaw 385 Del

JUDGMENT

O.P. Dwivedi, J.

1. This revision is directed against the order dated 11.10.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge thereby rejecting the petitioner's application for taking action against the respondent under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short the 'Act').

2. Briefly stated, facts leading to this petition are that FIR No. 1265/1998, under Section 406, IPC was lodged by respondent No. 7 herein at Police Station defense Colony, New Delhi. The petitioner who was cited as accused in the case, applied for anticipatory bail. Arguments on the said application were heard on 7.3.2000. A perusal of order dated 7.3.2000 reveals that on behalf of the petitioner it was argued that the complainant and her husband who is younger brother of the petitioner had stayed with the petitioner till 1997 and thereafter separated and no Stridhan articles remained with the petitioner and he has been falsely implicated under Section 406, IPC. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned P.P. that the complainant's husband remained with the petitioner up to October, 1998. It was also submitted from prosecution side that another case under Section 406, IPC has been registered at P.S. Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi vide FIR No. 1039/98. After considering rival contentions advanced on both sides, learned Additional Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner vide order dated 7.3.2000. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application dated 15.3.2000 seeking initiation of Contempt of Court proceedings against the complainant, her husband and some other persons. Ground taken in the application was that during the hearing of arguments on the application for anticipatory bail on 7.3.2000 various mis-statements of facts were made with intention to obstruct the course of justice. This application was disposed of by learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide impugned order dated 11.10.2000. In the impugned order learned Additional Sessions Judge noted that, it appears that the I.O. and the complainant had made a false statement in the Court at the time of hearing of the application for anticipatory bail on 7.3.2000, for which they can be suitably dealt with under the provisions of Indian Penal Code so there is no need to invoke the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this revision.

3. The petitioner who argued the petition himself cited several decisions of the High Court as well as of Supreme Court dealing with the subject of Contempt of Court. Special reference was made to the case of Murray and Co. v. Ashok Kr. Newatia and Anr., 2000(1) SCALE 251, wherein it was held that filing false affidavit in the Courts amounts to criminal contempt. In the present case it is not the petitioner's case that any false affidavit or statement on oath was made before the Court at the time of hearing of the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner. The petitioner pointed out following two mis-statements of facts made by the prosecution side, (1) that the complainant and her husband lived with the petitioner till October, 1998, (2) that another case vide FIR No. 1039/98, under Section 406, IPC, P.S. Lajpat Nagar is pending against the petitioner. According to the petitioner he had already severed all connections with his brother in the year 1997 itself and the other case FIR No. 1039/98, P.S. Lajpat Nagar, Delhi, had already been cancelled. Thus, according to the petitioners these mis-statements of facts were deliberately made on behalf of the prosecution side with a view to cause prejudice in the mind of the Court thereby inducing the Court to give verdict against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, these mis-statements of facts were intended to interfere/obstruct the course of justice which amounts to criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2(C) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which reads as under:

(2) Definitions--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--

"(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)   prejudice, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceedings; or
 


(iii)  interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner."   
 

4. The alleged mis-statements of facts as pointed out by the petitioner were not deposed /made on oath or in the form of affidavit. They were the submissions made during the hearing of application on anticipatory bail. It appears from the order dated 7.3.2000, that at the time of hearing the alleged mis-statement regarding the registration of another case vide FIR No. 1039/98, under Section 406 P.S. Lajpat Nagar, Delhi was not controverter. It seems that when the arguments on the application for initiation of contempt action were heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioner placed on record a copy of order showing that the I.O. of case FIR No. 1039/98 had moved the Court for the cancellation of case and the case has already been cancelled. But this fact was not brought to the notice of the Court on 7.3.2000 when the arguments were heard. During arguments, parties representatives/Counsel make various factual and legal submissions before the Court orally and unless it is shown that some mis-statements were deliberately made with a view to obstruct the course of the justice, such oral submissions cannot be made the basis of action under the Contempt of Court Act. It may be that at the time of hearing of argument on the application for anticipatory bail on 7.3.2000 husband of the complainant was not aware of the fact that the case FIR No. 1039/ 98 has already been cancelled or that the petitioner had already separated from his brother in the year 1997. In any case, the mind of the Court was not swayed by the alleged mis-representation made at the time of arguments which is clear from the fact that despite opposition, the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 7.3.2000. Section 10 of the Act which empowers the High Court to punish contempt of subordinate Courts reads as under:

10. Power of High Court to punish contempts of subordinate Courts--

Every High Court shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction, powers and authority, in accordance with the same procedure and practice, in respect of contempts of Courts subordinate to it as it has been exercised in respect of contempts of itself:

Provided that no High Court shall take cognizance of a contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a Court subordinate to it where such contempts is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).

5. If any false statement on oath is made deliberately by the deponent, proper action can be taken under the provisions of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, even if the alleged two statements are ultimately proved to be false, the respondents could be proceeded against under the relevant provisions of Indian Penal Code in appropriate proceedings. High Court could not take cognizance of such contempt in view of the proviso to Section 10 of the Act.

6. For these reasons, impugned order cannot be said to suffer from any legal infirmity. Therefore, this revision fails and is hereby dismissed.