Delhi High Court
Court On Its Own Motion vs Swaran Singh Banda on 17 February, 2009
Author: Sanjay Kishan Kaul
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision : 17.02.2009
+ CONT.PETITION (CRL.) 3 of 2009 IN RFA(OS) 3 of 2009
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION
Versus
SWARAN SINGH BANDA ...RESPONDENT
Through: Mr.K.K.Bhuchar, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers
may be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be No
reported in the Digest?
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. (Oral)
1. The respondent-contemnor is an appellant before us in RFA(OS) 3
of 2009. The appeal has been dismissed today.
2. One of the pleas raised by the counsel for the respondent is the
contradictory pleas taken by the contemnor herein in the written
statement, deposition before the Court and in the letters
addressed to the L&DO. The contemnor sought to plead in the
written statement that the property bearing No. B-42, Defence
Colony, New Delhi was a HUF property but in the deposition
before the Court stated to the contrary. Not only that, while
communicating with the L&DO, the contemnor took a categorical
stand that the interest in the property devolved on the plaintiff
no.2 being the son of his deceased brother. It is these
contradictions which have caused an inordinate delay in the trial
of the suit. It has resulted in an unfortunate situation where the
plaintiff no.1 passed away without enjoying her appropriate share
in the property and her son (respondent no.1 in appeal) is living
in a Gurudwara.
3. The appellant is an advocate though an aged one. He is fully
familiar with the legal pleas and principles and the consequences
of his conduct.
4. Learned counsel for respondent in appeal has referred to the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar
Verma; (1995) 1 SCC 421 to explain that the word 'interfere' in
the context of the criminal contempt under the Contempt of
Court Act, 1971 means any action which checks or hampers the
functioning or hinders or tends to prevent the performance of
duty. Thus, if recourse to falsehood is taken with oblique motive,
the same would definitely hinder, hamper or impede even flow of
justice and would prevent the courts from performing the legal
duties as they are supposed to do. The polluters of judicial
firmament are required to be well taken care of to maintain the
sublimity of court's environment. A similar view has been
expressed in Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana and Ors; AIR
1995 SC 1795 where false affidavits had been filed. In Ram Autar
Shukla v. Arvind Shukla; (1995) Supp (2) SCC 130, it was
observed that the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 deals with any
acts or conduct of the parties to the litigation or witnesses 'in any
manner'. The tendency on the part of the contemner in his
action or conduct to prevent the course of justice is the relevant
fact. Any interference in the course of justice, any obstruction
caused in the path of those seeking justice are an affront to the
majesty of law and, therefore, the conduct is punishable as
contempt of court. Learned Single Judge of this Court in Court
on its own motion v. Kanwaljit S.Sareen & Ors; 138 (2007) DLT
682 has observed that a party taking recourse to fraud deflects
course of judicial proceedings and same constitutes interference
in administration of justice.
5. In view of the aforesaid plea and the factual matrix discussed in
the appeal, we are satisfied that it is a fit case for issuance of a
notice for criminal contempt to the respondent herein who has
tried to pollute the course of justice and interfere with the same
knowing the falsehood of his statements. The fact that he is an
advocate makes the conduct of respondent all the more
deplorable and the mere advanced age of the respondent should
not, in our considered view, deter us from proceeding further in
the matter.
6. We thus deem it appropriate to issue a notice to the respondent
to show cause as to why he should not be proceeded against and
punished for the criminal contempt of the Court.
7. Learned counsel for the contemnor accepts notice.
8. A copy of this Order be made available to the respondent and
reply, if any, be filed within fifteen days from today.
9. List on 18.3.2009.
10. The contemnor to remain personally present in the Court on the
next date of hearing.
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
FEBRUARY 17, 2009 SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.
dm
