Delhi High Court
Court On Its Own Motion vs Nitin Bansal on 29 October, 2025
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~7 (SDB)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 29th October, 2025
+ CONT.CAS.(CRL) 16/2024
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION .....Petitioner
versus
NITIN BANSAL .....Contemnor/Respondent
Through: Mr. M.C. Dhingra, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Nihal Ahmad & Mr. H. R. Khan, Mr.
Kashif Salman, Advs. along with
Contemnor - Mr. Nitin Bansal. (M:
7983528756, 8130230009)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
ORAL
1. This hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode.
2. The present criminal contempt case filed under Section 15 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter, 'the Act'), arises out of order
dated 28th October, 2024, passed by the ld. Single Judge in O.M.P. (I)
(COMM.) 186/2024 titled Bina & Ors. v. Ashok Bansal.
3. The brief background, giving rise to the present contempt proceedings
is that O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) 186/2024 was filed by the Petitioners therein
under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The said
petition was filed seeking interim relief against the Contemnor's father, Mr.
Ashok Bansal, in relation to disposal of 30,000 tons of industrial coal
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 16/2024 Page 1 of 18
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:29.10.2025
18:38:14
material.
4. In the said petition, on 31st May, 2024, the ld. Single Judge passed an
order, restraining the Contemnor's father, Mr. Ashok Bansal from dealing
with the 30,000 tons of industrial coal. The said order was passed in
following terms:
"13. In view of the averments contained in the
petition; considering the documents appended
therewith; and based on the submissions made at
the Bar, the respondent is restrained from dealing
with the 30,000 tons of industrial coal that was
subject matter of purchase by late Sh. Balkishan
Goyal in any manner; or from transferring,
alienating or creating any lien, encumbrance or
charge over any assets of the partnership firm in
the name and style of M/s G&G Concrete
Solutions, created vide Amended Partnership Deed
dated 18.01.2023, till the next date of hearing."
5. However, after passing of the abovementioned order, another
application being I.A. 33013/2024 was filed in O.M.P. (I) (COMM.)
186/2024 by the Petitioners therein seeking appointment of a Local
Commissioner. The appointment was sought on the ground that in stark
violation of the order dated 31st May, 2024, the Respondent therein i.e., the
father of Contemnor had been disposing of the 30,000 tons of industrial coal
and had also been alienating his assets. Thus, an assessment of the ground
position was sought by appointment of a Local Commissioner.
6. Accordingly, on 12th July, 2024 the Court in O.M.P. (I) (COMM.)
186/2024 had appointed one Ms. Nandini Bali, Advocate as the Local
Commissioner in the said case. The local commission was to be executed
within the jurisdiction of P.S. Bhupani, Faridabad. The said order dated 12th
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 16/2024 Page 2 of 18
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:29.10.2025
18:38:14
July, 2024, passed by the ld. Single Judge in O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) 186/2024
reads as under:
"6. This Court, therefore, appoints Ms. Nandini
Bali, Advocate (Mob: 9810155735) as a Local
Commissioner to visit the premises of the
respondent of M/s. G&G Concrete Solutions
situated at Mustkil No. 47, Kila No. 25 (3-0),
MustkilNo. 48, Kila No. 20/2(3-9), 21(8- 0), 22(8-
0), Mustkil No. 23 (8-0), Mustkil No.-62, Kila No.
5/1 /2(1- 17), with a total area of 31 Kanal & 10
Mario, Moja Bhupani, Faridabad - 121002, and
submit a report as to whether there has, or has not,
been breach of the order passed by this Court. The
petitioner would be entitled to depute one
representative to accompany the learned Local
Commissioner while executing the commission.
7. The learned Local Commissioner shall be entitled
to requisition police assistance, should it become
necessary, to execute the commission. In that event,
this order shall operate as a directive to the
authorities at Police Station Bhupani, Faridabad to
provide all necessary assistance to ensure that the
commission is properly executed.
8. The respondent, or its representatives who may be
present at the site, are directed to cooperate with
the peaceful execution of the commission. The
learned Local Commissioner shall also execute
commission peacefully without unnecessarily
disturbing the legitimate business activities of the
respondent.
9. If, in executing the commission, the Local
Commissioner is required to effect forced ingress
into any premises, she shall be at liberty to do so.
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 16/2024 Page 3 of 18
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:29.10.2025
18:38:14
10. The learned Local Commissioner may also, if
she deems it appropriate, take photographs, or
videograph the premises, the expenses for which
would be borne by the petitioner.
11. The learned Local Commissioner shall be
entitled to consolidated fees of Rs. 1 lakh, apart
from incidental expenses at actuals for executing
the commission. The fees of the learned Local
Commissioner shall be payable in advance of
execution of the commission."
7. Further to the order dated 12th July, 2024, the Local Commissioner,
along with the police officials, visited the premises on 13 th July, 2024 at
about 12:08 PM. During the course of inspection, the
Contemnor/Respondent who is stated to be the son of the Respondent in
O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) 186/2024, entered the premises at about 12:23 PM,
and his conduct and behaviour, as reported in the Local Commissioner's
Report dated 17th September, 2024, is extracted as under:
"12. It is recorded that, at this stage, one, Mr. Nitin
Bansal appeared at the subject site at 12:23 PM and
started to record the Local Commission being
executed. I then proceeded to enquire about his
relation with the respondent and his presence at the
subject site. However, he refused to answer or even
stand at one place and talk. He was extremely rude
and uncooperative. Therefore, the police officers
intervened and asked him to behave in a proper
manner. Further, the police officers asked Mr. Nitin
Bansal to delete the recording taken by him and
ensured the same was done.
13. Subsequently, I was informed that Mr. Nitin
Bansal is the son of the respondent, who was
speaking with his Advocate telephonically. At this
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 16/2024 Page 4 of 18
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:29.10.2025
18:38:14
stage, the respondent requested me to speak with his
counsel, i.e., Mr. Aditya Mishra (Advocate).
Thereafter, I had a telephonic conversation with the
counsel for the respondent and apprised him of the
Court order. In response thereto, the counsel for the
respondent assured that he has explained the
directions of this Hon'ble Court to his clients and
requested me to proceed with the execution of the
Local Commission.
14. Pursuant thereto, I proceeded with the
inspection and requested the respondent to produce
the statement of account/books of account of M/s
G&G Concrete Solutions. However, I was informed
that all the statements of account/books of account
are in the custody of his Chartered Accountant
("CA"), i.e., Mr. Gyan Chand Gupta.
15. It is also pertinent to mention that at this stage,
Mr. Ashok Bansal, Mr. Nitin Bansal and one, Mr.
Sonu Gupta became extremely aggressive on
enquiring about the work, bills, statement of
accounts, etc., pertaining to the business. Further,
Mr. Nitin Bansal went to the extent of taking out a
weapon (pistol) and keeping it on the table in the
office unit at the subject premises to threaten me
and create coercion. Furthermore, Mr. Ashok
Bansal started to raise his voice and throw certain
documents in an extremely rude manner. Thus, the
police officials intervened and also took cognizance
of the weapon (pistol) for further investigation, as
upon enquiry it was stated by the respondent that the
said weapon (pistol) is without any license.
Therefore, the weapon (pistol) has been seized by
the ASI and is presently in his custody for
investigation."
8. The Report filed by the local commissioner contained various
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 16/2024 Page 5 of 18
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:29.10.2025
18:38:14
allegations against the Contemnor/ Respondent to the effect that when the
local commission was being executed, there was a complete non-cooperative
attitude on behalf of the Contemnor and attempts were made to intimidate
the Local Commissioner. Further, to threaten the Local Commissioner and
the other members, the Contemnor placed a pistol on the table in the midst
of execution of the commission. The said pistol was confiscated by the
police as it was suspected that the same was un-licensed.
9. Accordingly, upon perusal of the Local Commission Report furnished
by the Local Commissioner, the ld. Single Judge, vide order dated 28th
October, 2024 referred the matter to this Court for initiating contempt
proceedings against the Contemnor/Respondent after observing that there is
a prima facie case of interference with the administration of justice
amounting to criminal contempt under Section 2(c)(iii) of The Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971. The said order dated 28th October, 2024, passed by the ld.
Single Judge in O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) 186/2024 reads as under:
"9. A reading of paragraphs No.12, 13 & 15 of the
report of the Local Commissioner shows that Mr.
Nitin Bansal took out the pistol and kept it on the
table to threaten and coerce the Local
Commissioner. Even assuming that the stand of the
Respondent is correct that the pistol in question was
already present on the table then also, in the
considered opinion of this Court, there was no
necessity for the pistol to be kept on the table at the
time when the Local Commissioner was visiting the
premises because keeping a weapon on the table in
itself is sufficient to intimidate any person. Further,
the affidavit filed by Mr. Nitin Bansal states that the
pistol in question is only a Toy Gun which is kept in
the premises to scare animals and monkey. This
Court fails to understand as to how a Toy Gun
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 16/2024 Page 6 of 18
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:29.10.2025
18:38:14
without pellets can scare animals and monkeys.
Therefore, the stand taken by Nitin Saxena does not
satisfy this Court at this juncture.
10. In view of the report of the Local Commissioner
and the statement of the ASI of PS Bhupani, who
stated that when he entered the office room, the
pistol (Air Gun) was present on the table, this Court
is of the opinion that prima facie a case of
interference with administration of justice is made
out which amounts to criminal contempt. Mr. Nitin
Bansal has prevented an officer of the Court, who
had gone for carrying her duties assigned by the
Court.
11. Accordingly, the Registrar General of this Court
is requested to place the records of the proceedings
before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for referring the
case to the concerned Division Bench handling
cases of Criminal Contempt against Mr. Nitin
Bansal."
10. Pursuant to the said Reference, the present contempt proceedings
were initiated against the Contemnor/Respondent and on 9th December,
2024 notice was issued and the Contemnor/Respondent was directed to file
his reply by the next date of hearing, showing cause as to why contempt
action ought not to be initiated against him.
11. In reply to the show-cause ssissued to him, the
Contemnor/Respondent submitted his response stating that he was
cooperative with the Local Commissioner and at no point attempted to
influence or obstruct the inspection process. It is also stated that the
allegations that the Contemnor/Respondent took out a pistol and placed it on
the table to intimidate the Local Commissioner are baseless.
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 16/2024 Page 7 of 18
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:29.10.2025
18:38:14
12. It is the case of the Contemnor that the alleged object was not a
firearm but a toy gun used to scare away stray animals and the said toy gun
was lying on the office table prior to the inspection, which unintentionally
got mixed with a pile of papers. Further defence taken by the
Contemnor/Respondent is that he, being a law-abiding citizen with no prior
criminal record, could not have engaged in such reckless conduct. On these
grounds, it was prayed by the Contemnor that the contempt proceedings be
dropped.
13. Thereafter, upon considering the reply of the Contemnor/Respondent,
this Court, on 21st February, 2025 directed that a status report be called from
the concerned SHO, P.S. Bhupani, Faridabad as to the events that transpired
on 13th July, 2024 when the local commission in O.M.P. (I) (COMM.)
186/2024 was being executed. The concerned Sub-Inspector, P.S. Bhupani,
Faridabad was also directed to produce the weapon which was seized by the
Local Commissioner and kept in his safe custody. The directions in the order
dated 21st February, 2025 are as under :
"6. The Local Commissioner's report states that the
gun is in the custody of the concerned Sub-Inspector,
P.S. Bhupani, Faridabad. In this view of the matter,
let a status report be called from SHO, P.S.
Bhupani, Faridabad as to the events
that transpired on 13th July, 2024 when the local
commission in O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) 186/2024 was
being executed.
7. The concerned Sub-Inspector, P.S. Bhupani,
Faridabad would also produce the weapon which
was seized by the Local Commissioner and kept in
his safe custody.
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 16/2024 Page 8 of 18
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:29.10.2025
18:38:14
8. Ld. Counsel for the Delhi Police shall coordinate
with SHO, P.S., Bhupani, Faridabad to file the said
status report by the next date of hearing.
9. The Contemnor/Respondent to remain present on
the next date of hearing."
14. Pursuant to the above directions, the gun which was seized from the
Contemnor/Respondent was produced before the Court by ASI Samsher
Singh, PS Bhupani, Faridabad on 28th May, 2025 and the following order
was passed:
"2. Pursuant to the directions passed by this Court
on 21st February, 2025, ASI Samsher Singh, PS
Bhupani, Faridabad has produced the gun which
was seized from the Contemnor/Respondent.
3. The seal of the package containing the seized
gun has been opened before the Court. The same
has been seen by the Court. It is clear that the
seized gun is not a toy gun but a real air gun.
4. Let the same be returned to the ASI Samsher
Singh, PS Bhupani, Faridabad, who shall re-seal it
and preserve it for the next date of hearing.
5. List on 8th August, 2025 for hearing of the
submissions on behalf of the
Contemnor/Respondent. The contemnor shall remain
present in Court on the next date of hearing."
15. The matter was finally heard on 8th September, 2025 and submissions
were concluded by both parties. Upon query, the Contemnor/Respondent
maintained his stance that he is completely innocent. However, ld. Senior
Counsel who appeared for the Respondent had tendered an unconditional
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 16/2024 Page 9 of 18
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:29.10.2025
18:38:14
apology on his behalf. The matter has then been reserved for Orders and the
Contemnor was directed to appear before the Court today i.e., 29th October,
2025.
16. We have heard ld. Counsels for both parties and have examined the
material on record.
17. Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, defines "Criminal
Contempt", as follows:
"(c) "criminal contempt" means the publication
(whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or
by visible representations, or otherwise) of any
matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever
which --
(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or
tends to lower the authority of, any court; or
(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere
with, the due course of any judicial proceeding;
or
(iii)interferes or tends to interfere with, or
obstructs or tends to obstruct, the
administration of justice in any other manner;"
18. The scope and object of contempt jurisdiction have been highlighted
by the Supreme Court in Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj, (2014) 16 SCC 204,
wherein the Apex Court has observed as under:-
"11. The contempt jurisdiction conferred on to the
law courts power to punish an offender for his wilful
disobedience/contumacious conduct or obstruction
to the majesty of law, for the reason that respect and
authority commanded by the courts of law are the
greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen that his
rights shall be protected and the entire democratic
fabric of the society will crumble down if the respect
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 16/2024 Page 10 of 18
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:29.10.2025
18:38:14
of the judiciary is undermined. Undoubtedly, the
contempt jurisdiction is a powerful weapon in the
hands of the courts of law but that by itself operates
as a string of caution and unless, thus, otherwise
satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, it would neither
be fair nor reasonable for the law courts to exercise
jurisdiction under the Act. The proceedings are
quasi-criminal in nature, and therefore, standard of
proof required in these proceedings is beyond all
reasonable doubt. It would rather be hazardous to
impose sentence for contempt on the authorities in
exercise of the contempt jurisdiction on mere
probabilities[....]
12. Thus, in order to punish a contemnor, it has to
be established that disobedience of the order is
"wilful". The word "wilful" introduces a mental
element and hence, requires looking into the mind of
a person/contemnor by gauging his actions, which is
an indication of one's state of mind. "Wilful" means
knowingly intentional, conscious, calculated and
deliberate with full knowledge of consequences
flowing therefrom. It excludes casual, accidental,
bona fide or unintentional acts or genuine inability.
Wilful acts does not encompass involuntarily or
negligent actions. The act has to be done with a
"bad purpose or without justifiable excuse or
stubbornly, obstinately or perversely". Wilful act is
to be distinguished from an act done carelessly,
thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. It does
not include any act done negligently or
involuntarily. The deliberate conduct of a person
means that he knows what he is doing and intends to
do the same. Therefore, there has to be a calculated
action with evil motive on his part. Even if there is a
disobedience of an order, but such disobedience is
the result of some compelling circumstances under
which it was not possible for the contemnor to
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 16/2024 Page 11 of 18
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:29.10.2025
18:38:14
comply with the order, the contemnor cannot be
punished. "Committal or sequestration will not be
ordered unless contempt involves a degree of default
or misconduct."
19. The Supreme Court, in Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath
Ganguly, (2002) 5 SCC 352, has observed as under:-
"11. The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to
uphold the majesty and dignity of the courts of law,
since the respect and authority commanded by the
courts of law are the greatest guarantee to an
ordinary citizen and the democratic fabric of society
will suffer if respect for the judiciary is
undermined."
20. In the present case, the only plea raised by the Contemnor is that the
alleged object used to threaten the local commissioner was a toy gun and not
a real gun. As already recorded above, in order to ascertain the correct
position as to the nature of the gun, this Court vide order dated 21st
February, 2025, had directed the concerned Sub-Inspector, P.S. Bhupani,
Faridabad to produce the gun.
21. Accordingly, on 28th May, 2025, ASI Samsher Singh, PS Bhupani,
Faridabad produced the gun before the Court. The same was examined by
the Court and was found to be a real gun and not a toy gun, as was being
canvassed by the Contemnor. ASI Samsher Singh, PS Bhupani, Faridabad,
who was present in Court on the said date of hearing also confirmed this
position that the gun was not a toy gun.
22. Thus, clearly, the plea of the Contemnor/ Respondent was a false,
misleading plea and was taken only to pull wool over the eyes of the Court,
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 16/2024 Page 12 of 18
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:29.10.2025
18:38:14
with the hope that the Court would never call for the physical gun itself.
23. The narration of the facts above would show that the acts of the
Contemnor/Respondent with the Local Commissioner constituted a clear
threat to the Local Commissioner to not to execute the commission. The
Contemnor is engaged in business activities alongside his father, Mr. Ashok
Bansal, and also operates an independent enterprise.
24. As discussed above, the ld. Single Judge had appointed a Local
Commissioner to ascertain as to whether there was a breach of interim order
dated 31st May, 2025 passed by the ld. Single Judge in O.M.P. (I) (COMM.)
186/2024 which was also interfered with by the Contemnor. The contemnor
has indulged in abusive conduct against the Local Commissioner. Hence,
there was a clear interference in the course of judicial proceedings.
25. A Local Commissioner appointed by any Court is an extension of the
Court itself, as has been held in the recent decision of the Coordinate Bench
of this Court in Court on its own Motion v. M/s Obsession Naaz & Ors.
(2025:DHC:7206-DB). In the said case, the Court was dealing with
contempt proceedings initiated against persons who were alleged to have
beaten up and threatened the local commissioners appointed by the Court.
The Court has condemned such action by parties who interfere in the
execution of the Local Commission. The relevant portion of the said
decision reads as under:
"81. Advocate Commissioners were given the task to
visit shops, prepare inventory of counterfeit products
being sold under the trademark "Samsung" and the
oval slanted logo or any other mark deceptively
similar to the Plaintiff‟s trademark. The Advocate
Commissioners were directed to seize all such
articles, seal them and then release them on
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 16/2024 Page 13 of 18
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:29.10.2025
18:38:14
Superdari with directions to produce them before the
Court as and when required. The Court
Commissioners have been brutally beaten up by the
Contemnors, striking terror in their minds and
forcing them to flee from the place. The facts reveal
that the idea was to dissuade Local Commissioners
from performing the work assigned to them by the
Court. Interfering with the work assigned to the
Advocate Commissioners amounts to interference
in the administration of justice. If such of those
persons who have interfered with the
administration of justice are not dealt with heavy
hands, the majesty of law will come down in the
eyes of ordinary citizens which will have a
deleterious effect on the fabric of the society. It is,
therefore, imperative; rather, duty of the Court, to
ensure that people who interfere in the
administration of justice are dealt with severely so
that people respect and adhere to law for the rule
of law to prevail."
26. This Court in Court on Its Own Motion Versus Sanjay Rathod
(Advocate) (2024:DHC:6390-DB), observed that in cases where the conduct
and language used by the Contemnor scandalizes the Court, interferes in the
administration of justice, the same shall be considered to be contempt on the
face of the Court. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereinbelow:
"15. This question has been squarely answered in
both the decisions cited by the Ld. Amicus. In
Bathina Ramakrishna Reddy vs. State of Madras
(supra) the Supreme Court while deciding on the
corresponding provision i.e. Section 2(3) of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1926, held that the
jurisdiction of the High Cout in such
cases is only barred where the acts that constitute
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 16/2024 Page 14 of 18
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:29.10.2025
18:38:14
contempt of a subordinate Court are punishable as
contempt under specific provisions of the Indian
Penal Code and not where these acts amount to
offences of other description for which punishment
has been provided for in the Indian Penal Code. The
relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted
hereinunder:
"10. In our opinion, the sub-section referred to
above excludes the jurisdiction of the High Court
only in cases where the acts alleged to constitute
contempt of a subordinate court are punishable as
contempt under specific provisions of the Penal
Code but not where these acts merely amount to
offences of other description for which punishment
has been provided for in the Penal Code. This
would be clear from the language of the sub-
section which uses the words "where such
contempt is an offence" and does not say
"where the act alleged to constitute such contempt
is an offence". It is argued that if such was the
intention of the legislature, it could have expressly
said that the High Court's jurisdiction will be ousted
only when the contempt is punishable as such under
the Penal Code. It seems to us that the reason for
not using such language in the sub-section may be
that the expression "contempt of court" has not
been used as description of any offence in the Penal
Code, though certain acts which would be
punishable as contempt of court in England, are
made offences under it.""
27. Further, in the facts of the present case, this Court has also ascertained
the fact that the plea being taken by the Contemnor before the Court that the
alleged gun is a toy gun is a dishonest and contumacious plea. At each and
every stage, therefore, it is clear that the Contemnor has left no stone
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 16/2024 Page 15 of 18
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:29.10.2025
18:38:14
unturned in committing illegalities after illegalities. Yet, the Contemnor
shows no remorse. The unconditional apology tendered by the Contemnor is
nothing but a lip service. Thus, owing to the deliberate obstruction by the
Contemnor, this Court does not find it appropriate to accept the apology
tendered.
28. It is also the settled position in law that for any apology to be accepted
by the Court, it has to be meaningful, genuine and bona fide which in this
case it is not.
29. Thus, plea of the contemnor that the said gun was a toy gun is found
to be false and is accordingly rejected. The gun which was seized by the
police and subsequently produced before this court, has been verified and
found to be a real air gun. The photograph of the gun, as placed on record,
clearly shows the presence of the said gun on the table at the premises where
the local commission was conducted. The said picture is extracted
hereinbelow:
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 16/2024 Page 16 of 18
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:29.10.2025
18:38:14
30. This Court is of the view that the non-cooperative conduct of the
Contemnor, coupled with the fact that the gun was placed on the table
by him during the course of the proceedings being conducted by the
Local Commissioner, as recorded in the report of the Local
Commissioner, sufficiently demonstrates that the Contemnor intended
to obstruct the task entrusted to her by the Court. Such conduct on the
part of the Contemnor reflects a deliberate attempt with evil motive
towards the interference in the administration of justice, and therefore,
contemnor is liable to be punished for criminal contempt.
31. The Court, therefore, holds that the conduct of the Contemnor
clearly constitutes criminal contempt. Accordingly, in terms of Section
12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Contemnor is sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month along with
Rs.2,000/- as fine. If there is non-payment of fine, the sentence shall
extend for a further period of 15 days.
32. It is directed that the police authorities shall take Contemnor into
custody from the Court itself and the Contemnor be sent to Jail.
33. The contempt petition is accordingly disposed of in the above
terms, along with pending applications, if any.
34. Order dasti under the signatures of Court Master has been
provided to the Contemnor.
35. Order of this Court be uploaded forthwith.
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 16/2024 Page 17 of 18
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:29.10.2025
18:38:14
36. Copy of this order be communicated to the concerned Jail
Superintendent for necessary information and compliance.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
JUDGE
OCTOBER 29, 2025
abk/sds/ss
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 16/2024 Page 18 of 18
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:29.10.2025
18:38:14
$~7 (SDB)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CONT.CAS.(CRL) 16/2024
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION .....Petitioner
Through:
versus
NITIN BANSAL .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Nihal Ahmad, Mr. H. R. Khan,
Ms. Sabiha Fatima and Mr. Kashif
Salman, Advs. along with Contemnor
- Mr. Nitin Bansal. (M: 7983528756,
8130230009)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
ORDER
% 29.10.2025
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. Today, vide a separate detailed order, the contempt case has been disposed of and the Contemnor/Respondent has been held guilty of criminal contempt under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Accordingly, the Contemnor has been sentenced to one month simple imprisonment in the following terms.
"30. This Court is of the view that the non- cooperative conduct of the Contemnor, coupled with the fact that the gun was placed on the table by him during the course of the proceedings being conducted by the Local Commissioner, as recorded in the report of the Local Commissioner, sufficiently demonstrates that the Contemnor intended to obstruct the task entrusted to her by the Court. Such conduct on the part of the Contemnor reflects a deliberate attempt with evil motive towards the interference in the administration of justice, and Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Date:29.10.2025 18:38:14 therefore, contemnor is liable to be punished for criminal contempt.
31. The Court, therefore, holds that the conduct of the Contemnor clearly constitutes criminal contempt. Accordingly, in terms of Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Contemnor is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months along with Rs.2,000/- as fine. If there is non-payment of fine, the sentence shall extend for a further period of 15 days.
32. It is directed that the police authorities shall take Contemnor into custody from the Court itself and the Contemnor be sent to Jail.
33. The contempt petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms, along with pending applications, if any."
3. At this stage. ld. Counsel for the Contemnor submits that there is a wedding in the family of the Contemnor and thus, he prays that the Contemnor be permitted to surrender on 6th November, 2025 before the concerned Jail Superintendent.
4. Accordingly, it is directed that the Contemnor shall voluntarily surrender before the concerned Jail Superintendent, Central Jail No.2, Tihar, New Delhi on 6th November, 2025.
5. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent, Central Jail No.2, Tihar, New Delhi for information and compliance of the order.
6. If the Contemnor does not surrender on the said date, the concerned Jail Superintendent is free to take action in accordance with law.
7. Let a copy of this order as also the order of sentence be communicated Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Date:29.10.2025 18:38:14 to Mr. Sanjay Lao, ld. Standing Counsel (Criminal).
8. No further orders are called for in this matter.
9. Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J OCTOBER 29, 2025 dk/ss Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Date:29.10.2025 18:38:14