On its own motion, the Court examined a contempt reference initiated against the respondent for allegedly concealing the dismissal of his revision petition. The Court held there was no deliberate concealment and declined the reference.
Reference for initiation of criminal contempt proceedings was declined.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. O.C.P. No. 20 of 2009
DATE OF DECISION : 10.02.2011
Court on its own motion
.... PETITIONER
Versus
Chetan Shandilya
..... RESPONDENT
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL
Present: Mr. A.S. Grewal, Advocate, with the respondent-contemner.
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral )
On a reference made by the learned Single Judge on 22.9.2009, while hearing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Crl. Misc. No. M-18234 of 2009), filed by the respondent-contemner, the contempt proceedings were initiated against the respondent.
During the course of hearing of the aforesaid petition, filed by the respondent on 25.5.2009, the learned Single Judge observed that the respondent concealed the factum of dismissal of his revision petition by the court of Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, vide order dated 30.5.2009.
Undisputedly, in this case, wife of the respondent filed a petition for dissolution of marriage, which was decreed ex-parte on 11.10.2006. The respondent did not challenge the said ex-parte decree. In the separate proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., vide order dated 4.8.2006, passed by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, the
Crl. O.C.P. No. 20 of 2009 -2-
wife was awarded certain maintenance. The respondent challenged the said order by filing revision petition before the Sessions Court. On 13.5.2009, Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, passed an interim order directing the respondent to deposit 50% of the total arrears within 15 days, failing which the revision petition shall be dismissed for want of prosecution. The main petition was adjourned to 19.8.2009 for filing additional affidavit along with an application for condonation of delay by the respondent.
The respondent challenged the above said order by filing Crl. Misc. No. M-18234 of 2009 in this Court on 25.5.2009, which came for motion hearing on 9.7.2009. On that day, notice of motion was issued to the wife for 22.9.2009, and in the meanwhile, operation of the part of the order dated 13.5.2009, whereby the respondent was directed to deposit 50% of the total arrears within 15 days, was stayed.
In the meanwhile, when in terms of the interim order dated 13.5.2009, the amount was not deposited by the respondent, an application was fled by the wife of the respondent on 29.5.2009 and on that application, revision petition was taken up on 30.5.2009. On 30.5.2009, due to noncompliance of the interim order, the revision petition was dismissed by the court of Sessions Judge, Gurgaon.
The fact remains that no notice was issued on the said application to the respondent and on 30.5.2009, he was also not present in the court. It is the case of the respondent that this is the reason that on 9.7.2009, when the petition filed by him came up for motion hearing before this Court and notice of motion was issued to the wife, he did not mention
Crl. O.C.P. No. 20 of 2009 -3-
the factum of dismissal of his revision petition. On 22.9.2009, when the matter came for hearing before the learned Single Judge, wife of the respondent moved an application to the effect that the respondent has concealed the factum of dismissal of his revision petition, therefore, by suppressing the said fact, the interim order of stay was obtained by him. By taking note of the said fact, the learned Single Judge ordered for initiation of criminal contempt against the respondent.
After notice, the respondent has filed detailed reply in these proceedings. At one point of time, this Court had issued notice to the exwife of the respondent (Smt. Shivani) for amicable settlement between the parties with regard to arrears of maintenance. But she did not turn up.
Learned counsel for the respondent, who is present in court, argued that when Crl. Misc. No. M-18234 of 2009 was filed by the respondent on 25.5.2009, the revision petition filed by him before the court of Sessions was pending and he was under the impression that the same will be taken up for hearing on 19.8.2009. He further argued that on 9.7.2009, when the aforesaid petition was listed for motion hearing before the learned Single Judge, the respondent was not aware at all of the order dated 30.5.2009, whereby his revision petition was dismissed due to noncompliance of the interim directions. Therefore, there was no deliberate and conscious concealment on his part regarding the factum of order dated 30.5.2009, passed by the court of Sessions Judge, Gurgaon. In support of this, the respondent has placed on record various orders, which indicate that on 30.5.2009, he was not present in the court of Sessions Judge. It is also a
Crl. O.C.P. No. 20 of 2009 -4-
fact, as revealed from the record, that before passing the said order, no notice was issued to the respondent.
After hearing learned counsel for the respondent-contemner and taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that on 9.7.2009 when Crl. Misc. No. M-18234 of 2009 came for motion hearing and notice of motion was issued, and operation of the interim order dated 13.5.2009 was stayed, the respondent was not having any knowledge of the order dated 30.5.2009, passed by the court of Sessions Judge, Gurgaon. Therefore, in our opinion, it cannot be said that he deliberately and intentionally concealed the said fact from the court. In this regard, reference can be made to the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.S. Sujatha v. State of Karnataka, 2011 (1) RCR (Criminal) 365, wherein it has been observed that inquiry for contempt proceedings should be initiated by the court in exceptional circumstances, where the court is of the opinion that perjury has been committed by a party deliberately to have some beneficial order from the court, and mere suspicion cannot bring home the charge of perjury.
Thus, in the facts and circumstances of this case, in our opinion, no contempt is made out against the respondent. Hence, this reference is declined.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE
February 10, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) ndj JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether concealment of a dismissed revision petition order amounts to contempt of court.
Whether mere suspicion of perjury is sufficient to initiate contempt proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.S. Sujatha v. State of KarnatakaReferred¶27
R.S. Sujatha v. State of Karnataka, 2011 (1) RCR (Criminal) 365
Court on its own motion
Chetan Shandilya
Satish Kumar Mittal
M. Jeyapaul
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
