Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

e. Thereafter, the appellant also filed Contempt Application (Civil) No. 3201 of 2024 before this Honble Court, seeking initiation of contempt against the respondent for deliberately filing a false affidavit in violation of the mandate given in Rajnesh v. Neha (Supra), which expressly provides that false statements and misrepresentations in maintenance affidavits may invite proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and contempt of court. The learned Single Judge disposed of the contempt application by the judgment and order dated August 13, 2024 without recording any finding whether prima facie contempt was made out or not and directed the appellant to pursue the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. before the learned trial court. It is this judgmnet dated 13.08.2024, which has been impugned in the present intra-court appeal.
(iii) Pratibha v. Kunwar Singh Tanwar & Ors.; RFA 695/2016 (Delhi High Court); to contend that misleading statements made before the court can invoke its contempt jurisdiction.
(iv) Secretary, Hailkandi Bar Association v. State of Assam and Anr. reported in AIR 1996 SC 1925; to contend that contempt of court and proceedings under Section 340 CrPC can run simultaneously.
(v) Board of Cricket Control in India v. Cricket Association of Bihar and Ors. in (Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014); wherein the court has issued notice to explain as to why proceedings under Section 340 CrPC and contempt of court should not be initiated against the contemnor.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent has vehemently opposed the aforesaid arguments and submits that the present special appeal is not maintainable as the order passed by the Contempt Court neither adjudicated the merits of the dispute nor issued any substantive directions, and rightly discouraged multiplicity of proceedings since the appellant had already invoked Section 379 BNSS on the same subject matter before the court below. It is contended that the appellant has attempted to mislead the Court regarding the respondents affidavit, whereas the alleged discrepancy (N/A) was merely an inadvertent error without any intention to misrepresent, which stands contradicted by consistent disclosures of her status as a judicial officer in prior proceedings and orders. The respondent emphasizes that parallel proceedings on the same issue are impermissible, and in view of the proviso to Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, contempt jurisdiction is barred where the alleged act constitutes an offence under the IPC, which the appellant himself has invoked through Section 340 Cr.P.C. proceedings. The appellants reliance on Rajnesh v. Neha (Supra) is misconceived, as the expression and therein must be read disjunctively as or, in line with settled principles of interpretation. It is further pointed out that the appellants application under Section 340 has already been dismissed on merits.

5. In view of the above, the present contempt application is disposed of with liberty to applicant to move transfer application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned for transfer of application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. pending before Civil Judge, Junior Division, FTC, (Women related offences). In case, such application is filed within a period of two weeks from today then it is expected from the Chief Judicial Magistrate to pass appropriate order on the application.

9. The question is whether the observation of learned Single Judge that multiple proceedings not be permitted defies the right of the appellant to pursue the two remedies as per the judgment of Rajnesh v. Neha (Supra), wherein it was observed that for filing false affidavits, court may initiate proceedings under Section 340 CrPC and for contempt of court.