Delhi High Court
Court On Its Own Motion vs Pradeep Bansal on 13 May, 2016
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.C.REF. 1/2013
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Senior Advocate
(Amicus Curiae) with Ms. Aakashi
Lodha and Ms. Vedika Mittal,
Advocates.
Versus
PRADEEP BANSAL ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. Jitender Sethi and Mr. Akash
Sharma, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
ORDER
% 13.05.2016
1. A reference was made by the Additional Sessions Judge for
initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent
Pradeep Bansal. Notice to show cause was issued. Reply has
been filed.
2. We may notice that as per the order of reference, the matter was
listed before the Court of the Additonal Sessions Judge on
01.03.2013 in Session's Case No. 7/13 arising out of FIR No.
111/1994, Police Station - Greater Kailash, New Delhi.
Further, as per the order of reference when the matter was listed
on 01.03.2013, a request was made for an adjournment by the
respondent on the ground that he has filed an application before
the High Court seeking transfer of the case. The case was
adjourned to 04.04.2013, however, respondent Pradeep Bansal
came to the dias and started shouting that the matter could not
be fixed for arguments on charge, as documents required by
them had not been supplied. The Judge has also stated in the
reference that despite repeated requests, Pradeep Bansal kept on
shouting, accusing and abusing in very loud tone and did not
allow the proceedings of the court to go on for more than half
an hour. Ultimately, the Presiding Officer then requested the
advocates present there to persuade the respondent not to
disturb the proceedings.
3. A detailed reply has been filed wherein it has been stated among
other grounds raised that the case seems to be one of mistaken
identity as it was not Pradeep Bansal who had raised strong
objection with regard to the proceedings as despite repeated
requests copies of documents were not supplied to the
respondent but it was his brother Vijay Bansal. It is submitted
that Vijay Bansal insisted that the documents should be supplied
and at least non-supply of documents should be noted in the
order but the Judge for no reasons failed to take note of the
submission so made.
4. During the course of hearing today, in addition to Mr. Sethi,
Advocate who is representing the respondent in this Court Mr.
Jitender Kumar Jha, Advocate, who was representing the
respondent before the trial court stated that he has signed the
reply which has been filed. Mr.Jha, Advocate submits that he
was present in the court on 01.03.2013 and the proceedings as
recorded in the order which was passed subsequently in fact
does not give the correct and fair account of events on the
fateful day. It has also been submitted by the counsel for the
respondent that they have made an application seeking copy of
CCTV footage of the cameras which were installed outside the
said court and also the shorthand notebook and the hard drive of
the computer of the Court to show that the proceedings had not
taken place in the manner which has been portrayed. It is also
contended that after the passing of the order when the parties,
who were present, insisted that either the documents be supplied
or else it may be noted that the documents had not been
supplied, which the Judge refused. And in the heat of the
moment the Judge used highly unparliamentary language
against the brother of the respondent and the Naib Court was
asked to push the brother of the respondent out of the Court.
Counsel further submits that the CCTV footage would prove
this fact. It is further submitted by Mr.Jha that he had protested
to the use of the unparliamentary language by the Judge and
also stated that a complaint would be filed in this regard and in
view of this, latter part of the order was deleted subsequently
and not in the presence of the counsel or the parties and that is
the reason that a wrong person who was present, happened to be
the brother, was named in this defence.
5. At this stage, there is unanimity among the learned counsel that
the incident, in whatever form, should have been avoided and
moreover, it was not the intention of the respondent and his
brother to obstruct the court proceedings. Since, the copies had
not been supplied to them and the court did not record the
request for providing the copies of the documents in the order, it
led to use of certain harsh and unparliamentary language by the
court and also led to the rising of tampers.
6. Learned counsel further submits that the matter should be put to
a quietus and respondent would withdraw the prayers seeking
CCTV footage, shorthand book and hard drive of the computer
of the court.
7. During the course of hearing, this court asked Mr.Sethi,
Advocate to produce Mr.Vijay Bansal, brother of the
respondent, who was also present in the Court on the fateful day
and had insisted in the Court that in the order it should be noted
that the documents have not been supplied. It was submitted
that Mr.Vijay Bansal would appear before the Court as and
when called. The matter was then taken up post-lunch.
Mr.Pradeep Bansal, the respondent, and Mr.Vijay Bansal, his
brother both, submit that they regret the incident dated 1.3.2015.
They further submit that they have the greatest respect and
regard for the Courts and they had no intention to disturb the
court proceedings or cause any embarrassment to the Court in
any manner, however, since their complaint regarding non-
supply of documents was not being recorded in the order,
Mr.Vijay Bansal had insisted, which was not appreciated by the
Court.
8. In the interest of justice and having regard to the various
submissions made during the course of hearing, we accept the
unconditional apologies tendered by respondent Pardeep Bansal
and his brother Vijay Bansal.
9. Contempt petition is accordingly, disposed of. However, we
record our appreciation for Shri Dayan Krishanan, Senior
Advocate and also for the Mr. Jitender Sethi, Advocate and
Mr.Jitender Kumar Jha, Advocate for the respondent to enable
this court to dispose of the matter in the right perspective.
G.S.SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
MAY 13, 2016
gr / msr
