Court on Its Own Motion v. Vipin Chaudhary Advocate and Ors.

Delhi HC6 May 2024CONT.CAS.(CRL)/3/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court, on its own motion, examined CCTV footage which showed multiple advocates present during an alleged utterance of contemptuous words. Due to the absence of audio and the presence of numerous individuals, the Court held that the remarks could not be attributed to the specific contemnors, leading to the discharge of the petition.

What did the court decide?

The present contempt proceedings are closed and the contemnors are discharged. The contempt petition stands disposed of.

Court on Its Own Motion Vs Vipin Chaudhary Advocate and Ors. — Contempt of Court | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2024

¶4

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through:

¶6

versus

¶7

VIPIN CHAUDHARY ADVOCATE AND ORS. .... Respondents

¶8

Through: Mr. Puneet Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rependra Pratap Singh and Mr. Amit Basoya, Advocates for R-1 & 2

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

¶10

O R D E R % 06.05.2024

¶11

Pursuant to order dated 01.03.2024, Mr. Vinod Sharma, Advocate, President of Saket Bar Association has handed over reply in Court today. Same is taken on record.

¶12

In reply, it is mentioned that after going through the relevant CCTV footage of camera No.14 four Advocates, namely, Mr. Vijay Pratap Singh, Mr. Kapil tanwar, Mr. Sunil Chauhan and Mr. Pawan Gupta, are seen passing through the corridor in front of Court Room No.511, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi between 12:17:32 PM till 12:17:50 PM. Along with the above-named four Advocates, there was a one more Advocate whose identity could not be established as his face was not visible in the CCTV footage.

¶13

Page 1 of 2

¶14

CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2024

¶15

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 08/05/2024 at 12:36:30

¶16

It is also stated in the reply that no voice is audible in the CCTV footage and, therefore, it cannot be ascertained whether the aforementioned five Advocates had made any contemptuous remarks against the judicial officer or not.

¶17

SI Lal Bahadur had earlier stated before this Court on 02.04.2024 that on 23.02.2024, contemnors Vipin Chaudhary and Gaurav Sharma were neither present inside nor outside the court room.

¶18

Be that as it may, fact remains that in view of material on record, it is not possible to identify as to who had used the alleged contemptuous words. As noted above, CCTV footage does not contain any audio. The concerned learned Judicial Officer heard some words while holding the court but these utterances were made by someone who was outside the court room. The video footage shows presence of many Advocates outside his court at that point of time but in the absence of audio, it is not possible to attribute such remarks to anyone, on the basis of guess work alone.

¶19

Therefore, we hereby close the present contempt proceedings and discharge the contemnors.

¶20

Accordingly, the present contempt petition stands disposed of.

¶21

SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J

MANOJ JAIN, J

MAY 6, 2024/rk

Page 2 of 2

CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2024

¶26

Court on Its Own Motion v. Vipin Chaudhary Advocate and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Court on Its Own Motion v. Vipin Chaudhary Advocate and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sh. Suresh Roy Vs the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

Sunil Kumar Vohra Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Others

Bibi Tarannum Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Ammar Abdul Rahiman Vs National Investigation Agency

Meenu Duggal Vs the State and Ors.

Naushad Ahmed Vs the State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.