Court On Its Own Motion vs Deepak Khosla
2015 Latest Caselaw 4434 Del

Citation : 2015 Latest Caselaw 4434 Del
Judgement Date : 29 May, 2015

Delhi High Court

Court On Its Own Motion vs Deepak Khosla on 29 May, 2015

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                       Judgment delivered on : May 29, 2015
+      CONT. CASE (CRL.) No.9/2014
       COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION                              ...   Petitioner
                     Through:

                              Versus

       DEEPAK KHOSLA                              .....Respondent/Contemnor
                   Through:               In person.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I. S. MEHTA
%                             JUDGMENT

KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.

1. Vide order dated 08.09.2014 passed by the Division Bench of this

Court comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Hon'ble

Mr. Justice J. R. Midha, the respondent herein was charged with

committing the Contempt of Court under Section 15 (1) of the Contempt

of Courts Act, 1971 for making certain averments in the LPA No.

583/2014 preferred by him. The Division Bench after taking cognizance

of the averments made in the said LPA, which tends to scandalize or

lower the authority or prestige of the court as they directly attribute

malice to the learned Single Judge opined that the same prima facie

constitute the criminal contempt as defined under Section 2(c)(i) of the

Act. By the same order, the respondent was required to show cause as to

why he should not be punished for committing such criminal contempt by

making such averments. The said contempt proceedings were directed to

be placed before the Roster Bench by the said Division Bench. Since one

of the members of the Roster Bench could not hear the matter of the

respondent, therefore, the same were placed before this Division Bench

and accordingly the same were taken up by this Division Bench on

16.09.2014. No reply to the show cause notice dated 08.09.2014 was

filed by the respondent and at the request of the respondent further eight

weeks time was granted to him to file the reply and the matter was

adjourned for 11.12.2014. On 11.12.2014, the respondent failed to cause

his appearance in the matter and due to his absence, bailable warrants

were directed against him returnable on 17.12.2014. On 17.12.2014,

again the respondent did not appear and to secure the presence of the

respondent in the contempt proceedings, non-bailable warrants were

directed against him for 13.01.2015. In the meanwhile, applications vide

CM APPL. Nos. 19755/2014 and 19756/2014 seeking cancellation of

non-bailable warrants; for seeking extension of time to file reply to the

contempt notice and change of the next scheduled date of the contempt

proceedings from 13.01.2015 to some date in April, 2015 respectively

were moved by the respondent. Vide order dated 18.12.2014, non-

bailable warrants directed against the respondent were cancelled while

the other prayers made by the respondent in the said applications were

rejected. The matter was directed to be listed on the date already fixed in

the matter. On 13.01.2015, request for an adjournment was made on

behalf of the respondent on the ground that the respondent had gone to

Calcutta. The matter was accordingly adjourned for final hearing on

23.02.2015. On 23.02.2015, the matter was again adjourned at the request

of the respondent expressing his inability to address arguments due to

toothache. The matter was yet again adjourned for final hearing for

23.03.2015. On 23.03.2015, the respondent appeared in the matter and

made a submission that in the other contempt proceedings, i.e. Cont. Case

(Crl.) 12/2014, he has raised some preliminary objections and he is

relying on the same preliminary objections in so far as the present

contempt proceedings is concerned.

2. The preliminary objections which were raised by the respondent in

other contempt proceedings and on which reliance has been placed by

him in the present contempt proceedings are reproduced as under:-

"A. Under Section 14(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Court which had initiated the contempt proceedings cannot try him for the suo moto contempt proceedings rather it should be heard and decided by any other roster bench.

B. This contempt proceedings can continue only after the disposal of CM No. 17483/2013 which was filed by him in LPA No. 16/2012 wherein he gave necessary clarifications with regard to the said expression of 'Dedh Bench' and the same has yet not been decided by this Court. C. He cannot be proceeded solely by the Contempt of Courts Act in the absence of rules framed by this Court and any decision by the Court in the contempt case in the absence of the rules would be in violation of the fundamental rights of the respondent as have been granted under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

D. The respondent being a practising Advocate, has to be tried for contempt proceedings by a Full Bench of this Court in terms of Volume V, Chapter 3, Part B Rule 2(1) of the High Court Rules."

3. In so far as the first preliminary objection is concerned, the same

may not be available to him, as already the contempt proceedings were

directed by the Division Bench comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.

Ravindra Bhat and Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. R. Midha, who took cognizance

against the respondent under Section 17 of the Contempt of Court , 1971

taking a prima facie view that the expressions and behaviour of Mr.

Deepak Khosla, tends to scandalize or lower the authority or prestige of

the Court as they directly attribute malice to the learned Single Judge.

The ground for placing the present contempt proceedings before the other

Bench in terms of Section 14(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 thus

will not be available to the respondent herein, however we feel that since

by a separate order passed by this Court in other contempt proceedings