Indra Dhall vs Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta And Anr.
2005 Latest Caselaw 755 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Petitioner filed this petition under Section 2(c) read with Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act,1971 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') for initiating proceedings for contempt against the respondents Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta @ Arunesh Gupta and Mr. Satish Kumar Sharma.

2. On 23.3.2004, notice to show cause as to why action for committing contempt be not taken, was issued to respondents. Reply affidavit and objections have been filed.

3. The petitioner's case simply stated is that respondents have deliberately, intentionally and despite having the knowledge of the actual order passed by the Civil Judge, communicated to the members of the Association, only part of the order which suited them and deleted the operative part of the order, by which reliefs were refused to them. By this process, respondents have interfered with due course of judicial proceedings and obstructed the administration of justice which is actionable as criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Act.

4. Respondent No. 1 claiming to be the president of "The Flat Occupants Welfare Association" instituted a suit for injunction in the name of the Association. The grievance of the respondents herein and plaintiffs in the Suit was that petitioner and other defendants in the suit were not holding elections of the Association and were continuing to functioin as office bearers. An injunction was sought seeking to restrain them from functioning or transacting any business in the name of the Association. Injunction was also sought from holding any illegal election as were proposed to be held by them. This suit was filed on 25.2.2004, on which date the Civil Judge passed the following order:-

"Shri Nalin Tripathi, Advocate, Counsel for plaintiff with plaintiff in person.

Sanjay Jain, Advocate, counsel for defendants No. 1 to 6 with D-1,2 and 3 in person.

Vakalatnama filed on behalf of Defendants No. 1 to 6 be taken on record.

It has been stated by Ld. Counsel for the Defendant that since the copies of the documents, on which the reliance has been placed by the Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff, has not been supplied to him, hence he could not file written statement and reply to injunction application. The copies have been supplied in Court today. However, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff seeks time to take proper steps to rectify the typographical error. Heard. In these circumstances the case is adjourned for filing of written statement by the Defendants to 10.03.04, till then the Defendants shall not conduct any elections.

At this stage Ld. Counsel for the Defendants No. 1 to 6 submit that the elections process is already over. In view of the fact that the office bearers have already been elected unopposed and he has also filed the copies of the result along with nomination form received by the defendant be taken on record. Once it has been stated by the Defendants that election process is already over on 25th February, then the prayer of the Plaintiff seeking the injunction against conducting of election to be conducted by the Defendants on 29th February,2004 becomes inructuous. Hence the relief cannot be granted to them."

5. Respondents who had failed to get the interim injunction as sought by them circulated a letter dated 28.2.2004, Annexure P-4, under the signatures of respondent No. 2 claiming to be the General Secretary of the Association and respondent No. 1 as the president, wherein respondents deleted the following material portion of the above order:-

"then the prayer of the Plaintiff seeking the injunction against conducting of election to be conducted by the Defendants on 29th February,2004 becomes infructuous. Hence this relief cannot be granted to them."

6. From a perusal of the letter as circulated it is evident that the respondents represented to the members that "the Court has been pleased to direct that petitioner shall not conduct any elections". The respondents quoting the order have deleted the material portion of the order which specifically declined the relief to them. It is evident that the attempt was to misrepresent the proceedings in Court and the order passed. While projecting their own stand, respondents sought to prevent the plaintiffs from collecting further funds by misrepresentation of the order passed.

7. An interpolation of the Court order by deletion of relevant portion is an act which should invite stringent action. Reference may usefully be invited to Bineet Kumar Singh reported at (2001) 5 SCC 501 wherein the Supreme Court held that:-

"Nothing is more incumbent upon the Courts of justice than to preserve their proceedings from being misrepresented, nor is there anything more pernicious when the order of the Court is forged and produced to gain undue advantage. Criminal contempt has been defined in Section 2(c) to mean interference with the administration of justice in any manner. A false or misleading or a wrong statement deliberately and willfully made by a party to the proceedings to obtain a favorable order would undoubtedly tantamount to interference with the due course of judicial proceedings. When a person is found to have utilized an order of a court which he or she knows to be in correct for conferring benefit on persons who are not entitled to the same, the very utilisation of the fabricated order by the person concerned would be sufficient to hold him/her guilty of contempt, irrespective of the fact whether he or she himself or herself is the author of fabrication."

8. In the present case, the respondents have deliberately omitted the material and operative part of the order. During the hearing counsel for respondent/contemnor at one stage attempted to urge that the letter mentions reproducing "relevant part of the order" and therefore, only part of the order was being quoted. This can hardly absolve respondents of their contemptuous action. Rather it shows a deliberate intent to misrepresent by seeking refuge on the ground that it was only part of the order. This is clearly an action contemplated and calculated to interfere with the administration of justice.

9. Respondents had initially filed a counter affidavit seeking to justify their action by pleading that petitioners were holding unauthorisedly to their posts and not conducting elections and the alleged action was an eye wash. It was claimed that the letter, Annexure P-4, was written to advise the members of the Association, who were curious to know about the proceedings in the suit instituted by the respondents. It was denied that any contempt had been committed. During the course of proceedings and pursuant to the hearing on 20.4.2005, a supplementary affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 and 2 claiming that in haste they failed to include the part regarding unconditional apology. However, if by bonafide mistake, any act/ omission of the deponent appears to be of a contemptuous nature, unconditional apology was tendered.

10. During the hearing of the petition on 5.5.2005, the statement of respondents/ contemnors was recorded on oath. Respondents/ contemnors have stated that they have deliberated and reflected on the affidavits filed by them and they tender their unconditional apology and wish to withdraw averments which tend to justify their communication. Both the respondents as a token of remorse, offered to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000/- each with the Delhi Legal Services Authority. Learned counsel representing the respondents/ contemnors submit that the respondents are genuinely penitent and the unconditional apology tendered by them be accepted. Respondents leave themselves to the clemency of the Court.

11. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondents were still indulging in proxy litigation, since other writ petitions bearing W.P.(C) No. 6909/2005 and W.P.(C) No. 6910/2005 titled as D.P. Jain and Anr. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi had been filed at their behest, where a consent order has been obtained without impleading petitioner as a party. In case petitioner is aggrieved by any order passed in the said writ petition it is for the petitioner to take such corrective action as is required at law. We need not say anything more on that count except noticing that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not in any manner affect the present proceedings.

12. Coming to the present case, the action of the respondents in deleting the relevant and operative part of the Court order in their communication undoubtedly was an act of criminal contempt. Considering that the respondents are penitent and have tendered unconditional apology and also withdrawn averments in the earlier affidavits which may be seen as tending to justify their communication, we are of the view that the unconditional apology tendered by them be accepted with certain directions being given to the respondents. Respondents have also assured the Court that they would not repeat such an act and as a token of their remorse offered to voluntarily deposit Rs. 5,000/- each as costs.

13. Let the deposit of costs be made within 10 days from today with the Delhi Legal Services Authority. Both the respondents shall within 10 days from today address a communication to all the members to whom communication dated 28.2.2004, had been addressed stating that in their communication dated 28.2.2004, they had wrongly quoted and reported the Court proceedings on 28.2.2004 by deleting operative and relevant part of the order. The order shall be correctly reproduced for the benefit of the members. Further that the communication was being sent as per the directions of the Court in the Contempt Petition, wherein their apology has been accepted.

With these directions the contempt petition stands disposed.