Delhi High Court - Orders
Praveen Kumar @ Prashant vs Amir Pasrich & Anr on 22 September, 2023
Author: Suresh Kumar Kait
Bench: Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CONT.CAS.(CRL) 11/2019, CRL.M.A. 36594/2019,
CRL.M.A. 36595/2019
PRAVEEN KUMAR @ PRASHANT ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kapil Modi and Mr. Shiv Verma,
Advocates.
versus
AMIR PASRICH & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
ORDER
% 22.09.2023
1. The petitioner has filed the present Contempt Case under Section 15(2), 14, 10 read with Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 with the following Prayer:
"It is most humbly submitted that if the contemnors are not punished then a dangerous precedent will be set wherein influential accused across the country will make it impossible for poor victims to get justice by illegally accessing their judicial files in order to get information about their witnesses and use that information to intimidate the witnesses into turning hostile thus resulting in complete erosion of faith of the common man in the Judiciary.
In the above premises, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased:
a. Initiate Suo Moto criminal contempt proceedings against the contemnors for obstructing and interfering with due course of judicial proceedings, intimidating and CONT.CAS.(CRL) 11/2019 Page 1 of 4 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/09/2023 at 22:30:03 influencing the witnesses of the petitioner (including the petitioner) , breach of duty by officers connected with the Court since the contemnors are advocates who have illegally accessed the petitioners judicial file in the pendency of his application for registration of FIR against contemnor no. 1 Amir Pasrich under the SC/ST Act. AND/OR b. direct the registration of FIR (or grant the petitioner the liberty to do so) against the contemnors for "theft"
IPC 378 due to illegal access of the petitioners judicial file from the custodial legis of the court along with directions for time bound expeditious investigation to the Commissioner of Police because in Pyare Lai Bhargava vs State Of Rajasthan 1963 AIR 1094 the Apex court held that a temporary removal of an office file from the office of a Chief Engineer and making it available to a private person for a day or two amounts to the offence of theft. c. Pass such others and further orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit 8& proper under the circumstances of this case to uphold dignity of this Hon'ble Court."
2. When this Court put a query to the learned Counsel for the petitioner that how the Contempt Petition is maintainable before this Court despite his application filed before the Trial Court has been dismissed vide Order dated 06.07.2019 in C.C 47/1, the learned counsel submits that in the case of Muthu Karuppan vs. Parithi Ilamvazhuthi & Anr. AIR 2011 SC 1645, it was held as under :
"14) It is clear from the recent decision of this Court in Prashant Bhushan's case (supra) that if the issue involved in the proceedings had greater impact on the administration of justice and on the justice delivery system, the court is competent to go into the contempt proceedings even without the consent of the Advocate General as the case may be."CONT.CAS.(CRL) 11/2019 Page 2 of 4
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/09/2023 at 22:30:03
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also submits that in the case of State of Orissa vs. R.N. Patra, 1976 Cr.L.J. 440 (Ori), it was held that it is always open to the High Court to take action suo moto in respect of a subordinate court; The court in para 7 held as ::
"7. We shall now deal with the question of contempt of the court of the District and Sessions Judge of Ganjam. Mr. Rao for contemner relying upon Section 15(2) of the Act contends that as there has been no reference made by the District and Sessions Judge of Ganjam and admittedly this is not a proceeding initiated on a motion made by the Advocate General, cognisance of criminal contempt of that court cannot be taken by this Court. Learned Additional Government Advocate, who appeared, in support of the charge of contempt, accepted the submissions of Mr. Rao during hearing of the matter. We are, however, not satisfied that the contention raised by Mr. Rao has any substance. Sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act in clear terms states that the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by the Advocate General or any other person with the consent in writing of the Advocate General. There is nothing in sub- section (2) of Section 15 which would prevent the High Court to take cognisance suo motu in respect of contempt of a subordinate court....."
4. Learned counsel further submits that Kerala High Court in Dr. Joseph Kuzhijalit vs. Joseph Pulikunnel Alias P.S. 1999 (2) ALT Cri 442 held as under :
"1. The question raised in this proceeding filed invoking Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Sections 10, 12 and 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is whether this proceeding is maintainable at the instance of the petitioner on the ground that what is alleged is a criminal contempt of the subordinate Court and the sanction CONT.CAS.(CRL) 11/2019 Page 3 of 4 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/09/2023 at 22:30:03 sought for by the petitioner before the Advocate General under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Section 10 thereof was refused by the Advocate General...."
5. Case before this Court is not that the petitioner had approached the Attorney General of India for consent to file the Contempt Petition against the Contemnor herein, therefore, the Contempt before this Court is not maintainable. Rather, issue was about the maintainability of this fresh Contempt of Courts Petition when the petitioner's earlier Contempt Petition on the same facts, has already been dismissed by learned MM.
6. At this stage the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition with liberty to take steps as per law before the appropriate Forum.
7. Permission is granted to learned counsel for the petitioner with liberty as prayed for.
8. The petition is accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn.
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J SEPTEMBER 22, 2023/va CONT.CAS.(CRL) 11/2019 Page 4 of 4 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/09/2023 at 22:30:04