Court On Its Own Motion vs Farah Khatoon
2013 Latest Caselaw 5921 Del

$~2
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     CONT.CAS.(CRL) 9/2013
      COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION
                                                      ..... Petitioner
                    Through: Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, Additional
                             Standing Counsel (Cri.) for State with
                             Inspector Subhash Chand, Sub-
                             Inspector Pankaj Saroha, Police
                             Station Nangloi, Delhi.

                         versus

      FARAH KHATOON
                                                         ..... Respondent
                         Through:     Mr.A.K. Sharma, Advocate for Farah
                                      Khatoon.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
                        ORDER

% 20.12.2013

Reply to the contempt petition has been filed by the Respondent. In

the entire reply we have noticed that not even a single word expressing

remorse of her contumacious conduct as reflected in the order dated 27th

November 2013. Learned counsel for the contemnor - Farah Khatoon

requested for a pass over so that respondent can file a fresh affidavit to

express her unqualified apology for her conduct during the course of hearing

of the main petition on proceedings of 27th November 2013. The contemnor

- Farah Khatoon is also present in court.

In the additional reply, Respondent has stated that she came in contact

with the petitioner while working as teachers in MCD School, Delhi and

during that period the petitioner had given a marriage proposal which was

initially refused by the respondent as she belonged to muslim religion but

later after strong persuasion of the petitioner - Rakesh, she became ready to

marry him but subject to the condition they will not consummate their

marriage until and unless petitioner - Rakesh persuade her parents to this

marriage. In the reply, she has admitted that her marriage with the petitioner

was solemnised on 9th April 2012 and the same was also registered with the

Registrar of Marriages on 30th April 2012. It is further stated that after the

said marriage, the petitioner did not make any sincere efforts to persuade her

parents or to care for the said marriage. It is also stated that the petitioner in

his own manner and without intimation to the contemnor, flashed the

information of their marriage to her parents and other family members and

as a result of which the Respondent came under lot of social pressure and it

is because of such social pressure and she being not well conversant with the

law and legal procedures and without the aid and advise of any legal

expertise made a false statement before the court denying the factum of marriage and its registration as well, although the documents to this effect

were duly placed on record by the petitioner. It is further stated that the

Respondent has not made the false statement before this court intentionally

or deliberately or with ulterior motives as she was under a great traumatic

state under pressure from her parents and the relatives to deny the said

marriage with the petitioner, who does not belong to her religion.

Respondent has also expressed her unqualified apology for her such

contumacious conduct in the court. The respondent is also present in court

and she has pleaded for showing leniency in the light of the facts explained

by her in her additional reply/affidavit.

We have heard learned counsel representing the petitioner, Mr. Rajesh

Mahajan, Additional Standing Counsel (Cri.) for State and counsel

representing the contemnor.

As was observed by us in order dated 27th November 2013 the

Respondent was repeatedly asked not to tell lie before the court and

truthfully state the correct facts. Father of the Respondent was also present

alongwith her. The marriage certificate as issued by the Registrar of

Marriages, the photographs showing the solemnisation of the marriage with

the petitioner and a conversion certificate from Muslim to Hindu were shown to her but after having seen the documents she had stated that all

these documents have been fabricated by the petitioner. On the other hand,

petitioner stated that all the documents are genuine and the Respondent has

married the petitioner according to Hindu Rights after converting herself

into Hindu religion.

Taking into consideration the said conflicting stands taken by both the

parties, statements of both the parties were recorded by the court and in their

court depositions both the parties remained stuck to their respective stands.

Because of such conflicting stands taken by both the parties and with a view

to ascertain the correct facts, the court directed the Crime Branch of Delhi

Police to hold a preliminary inquiry and to submit a report within a period of

two months. It is thereafter, the Respondent had moved an application vide

Crl. M.A. No. 18508/2013 seeking unconditional apology for her taking

false stand before the court of law. In the light of the said admissions made

by the Respondent in the said application, contempt proceedings were

ordered to be initiated against her and it is pursuant thereto the Respondent

has filed her both replies.

We are not prepared to accept the plea raised by the counsel

representing the Respondent in the contempt proceedings that the Respondent is not well versed with the law and relevant procedure of the

court because of her appearing in court for the first time and it was due to

social pressure, she took false stands of denying the marriage with the

petitioner. The Respondent is an educated girl and employed as a teacher in

MCD School i.e. Marginal Bandh, Old II, Selampur, Delhi, therefore we

cannot believe that the lady who is employed as a teacher at least is not

aware of the fact that she has to be truthful before the Court of Law even

though unrepresented by a lawyer or under social pressure. The entire

conduct of the Respondent is contumacious as in the face of the court she

kept telling lies after lies and also she had the audacity to take a false stand

when her statement was recorded in court on oath. The conduct of the

Respondent is unpardonable. The Respondent is thus held guilty of

committing the contempt of court in terms of Section 12 of the Contempt of

Courts Act.

With regard to the quantum of punishment, taking into consideration

the unqualified apology tendered by her and the other reasons given by her

in the said replies, we impose a fine of Rs.2,000/- on the Respondent which

amount shall be deposited by the Respondent with "Mahatma Gandhi Trust"

within a period of one week. Respondent is further directed to repent her sin by offering prayers at Rajghat i.e. Samadhi of father of the nation who is

worshiped because of his cherished principles of truth and non-violence

from 21st December 2013 and shall sit there for at least four hours a day for

a period of one week. The area Police Station shall monitor that she sits

there and offers her prayers in silence to feel remorseful about her such

conduct.

With aforesaid directions, the present contempt petition stands

disposed of.

A copy of this order be given Dasti under signatures of court master.

KAILASH GAMBHIR, J

INDERMEET KAUR, J DECEMBER 20, 2013 pkb