Sh. Ajay Verma vs State & Ors.
2020 Latest Caselaw 849 Del

$~6
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+       W.P.(CRL) 312/2020

        SH. AJAY VERMA                                      ..... Petitioner
                           Through     Mr.S.K.Bhalla, Advocate with
                                       petitioner and father of the petitioner
                                       in person.
                           versus

        STATE & ORS.                                         ..... Respondents
                           Through     Mr.Rahul Mehra, standing counsel
                                       (Crl.) for the State with Mr.Chaitanya
                                       Gosain, Advocate.
                                       Inspector Vijay Kumar, SI Amit
                                       Kumar and ASI Suresh Kumar, PS
                                       New Usman Pur.

%                                    Date of Decision: 07th February, 2020

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
                               JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J:- (Oral)

1. On the last date of hearing as the petitioner had admitted that he had made false averments with regard to his marriage with Ms.Soni, the Court vide a detailed order dated 05th February, 2020 had invoked its jurisdiction under Section 2(c) read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

2. Before sentencing the petitioner, we had asked the police to investigate his background as well as the plausible reasons, if any, for

making false averments in the present writ petition.

3. Today, the learned standing counsel for the State has handed over a detailed status report dated 07th February, 2020, in which it is stated that Ms.Soni had made 134 calls on the mobile number of the petitioner between 15th August, 2019 to 02nd February, 2020. In the said status report, it is also stated that the petitioner is pursuing his LL.B from Chaudhary Charan Singh University.

4. As the petitioner has admittedly made false statements, in the writ petition accompanied by an affidavit, irrespective of whatever be the provocation, this Court is of the view that it strikes a blow at the rule of law and no Court can ignore such conduct which has the tendency to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions because the very structure of an ordered life is put at stake. In Louis Vuitton Malletier vs. Mr.Omi & Anr.; CCP (O) 10/2018 in CS(COMM) 291/2018, one of us (Manmohan, J) has held as under:-

"......It would be a great public disaster if the fountain of justice is allowed to be poisoned by anyone giving false statements and/or fabricating false evidence in a court of law. The stream of justice has to be kept clear and pure and anyone soiling its purity must be dealt with sternly so that the message percolates loud and clear that no one can be permitted to undermine the dignity of the Court and interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings or the administration of justice. [See: Dhananjay Sharma (supra)]."

5. However, keeping in view the background of the present matter as mentioned in the latest status report, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is held guilty of criminal contempt of Court and is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court.

Ordered accordingly.

6. With the aforesaid directions, the present criminal writ petition stands disposed of.

7. This Court places on record its appreciation for the manner in which investigation was conducted by Inspector Vijay Kumar, PS New Usman Pur in the present matter.

MANMOHAN, J

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J FEBRUARY 07, 2020 KA