Delhi High Court
Somnath Bharti vs Bhim Sain Bassi & Ors on 17 December, 2015
Author: Manmohan
#20
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CONT.CAS(C) 1003/2015 & CM APPL. 31127-31128/2015
SOMNATH BHARTI ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Somnath Bharti, petitioner in
person with Ms. Priyanka Kakkar,
Advocate.
versus
BHIM SAIN BASSI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through None
% Date of Decision : 17th December, 2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
1. Present petition has been filed under Article 215 of the Constitution of
India and Sections 10, 11 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 on the
ground that respondents have violated the order dated 27th October, 2014
passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate inasmuch as no reply to the
petitioner's application under Section 173(8) Cr. P.C. has been filed till date
even though the time for filing the reply expired on 27th November, 2014.
2. A perusal of the file reveals that after respondent failed to file a reply,
the petitioner filed an application under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 seeking reference of the matter to the High Court.
3. Since petitioner was of the view that learned Metropolitan Magistrate
should have passed an immediate order, he challenged the same by way of a
revision petition before the Sessions Judge. However, the same has been
dismissed by the Sessions Court after observing as under:-
"In this respect, it is found that Ld. Trial Court has made
mere observations that the application under Contempt of Courts
Act can be entertained by Hon'ble High Court only. But Ld.
Trial Court has not decided the said application and in the
absence of any proper order, no right accrue to the revisionist to
file any revision petition."
4. Petitioner who appears in the person submits that non-filing of a reply
within the time prescribed amounts to contempt of court. In support of his
submission, he relies upon a Division Bench judgment of the Patna High
Court in Awadh Kishore Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others, 1994
(1) PLJR 335 wherein it has been held as under:-
"4.....But, instead of doing that, we find here that everybody is
making attempt so that extraordinary remedy may become
infructuous by causing delay in disposal of cases. In view of
these facts, we give following directions to the Chief Secretary,
Government of Bihar, all Departmental Secretaries of
Government of Bihar and Director General of Police, Bihar, to
issue following orders to the officers/staff of their respective
departments:-
(i) to contact respective State counsel appearing in
the High Court along with relevant files together
with statement of facts within the time enumerated
in the letter received from learned counsel for
State upon receipt of letter from them so that filing
of counter affidavit may not be delayed;
(ii) if any officer or staff of the respective department
does not comply with the aforesaid directions, then
on the matter being reported, the concerned
Departmental Secretary should initiate a
disciplinary proceeding against him and pass an
order of suspension of the concerned person when
departmental proceeding is under contemplation;
(iii) the concerned Departmental Secretary should
report the matter to this Court about delinquent
officer/staff so that this court may initiate a
proceeding for contempt against him for violation
of this order."
5. In the opinion of this Court, just because a reply has not been filed
within time, does not constitute civil contempt. In the present case, breach,
if any, is of a mere procedural order and every trial court has jurisdiction and
inherent power to pass any consequential order on account of non-filing of
reply/pleadings in the proceeding pending before it.
6. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner pertains to a situation
where the State Government as a matter of regular practice failed to file
replies/counter affidavits in nearly all the matters where it was a party.
Since, non-filing of replies in a large number of proceedings resulted in the
Court not being able to discharge its obligations, the act of non-filing of
replies was construed prima facie, as contempt. In the opinion of this Court,
non-filing of a reply in an individual case like in the case at hand, cannot be
construed as civil contempt.
7. Consequently, this Court is of the view that non-filing of a reply in the
present case does not constitute a civil contempt. Accordingly, present
contempt petition and applications are dismissed.
MANMOHAN, J
DECEMBER 17, 2015
rn
