Baljeet Singh Vs Satinder Singh Inspector

The present contempt petition has been filed for noncompliance of order dated 21.01.2026 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-73493-2025 whereby the following order was passed:-

¶16

“1. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that with regard to a complaint moved by the petitioner before the police authority, an enquiry was conducted and that in the above-mentioned enquiry, which was conducted by the Senior Superintendent of Police himself, although it has been observed that a false and fabricated compromise was created by the respondent No.8, yet instead of taking any action against the respondent No.8 the complaint has been closed by observing that this is a matter of civil nature.

¶17

2. In my opinion for the above-mentioned grievance, the remedy lies in the Court of Magistrate, where the petitioner is at liberty to move a complaint. He may also file an application for direction to the police to register the case.

¶18

MOHD AYUB 2026.05.27 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶19

-2-

¶20

COCP-2629-2026 (O&M)

¶21

3. With the above-mentioned observations, the present petition is hereby disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court of learned Area Magistrate.”

¶22

Despite the fact that order dated 21.01.2026 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-73493-2025 has already been complied with and having due knowledge of the legal position, the petitioner chose to file present contempt proceedings and continued to pursue the same without any justifiable or tenable grounds of law. Such conduct amounts to a gross abuse of the process of law and unnecessarily adds to the burgeoning pendency of cases before this Court.

¶23

It is well settled that contempt jurisdiction is required to be exercised with great caution and circumspection and only in cases where wilful and intentional disobedience of an order of the Court is clearly made out. The jurisdiction cannot be invoked to settle scores or to unnecessarily harass officials, particularly when the record reflects compliance with the directions issued by this Court.

¶24

Similar matter has already been dealt with by this Court in COCP-3579-2025 decided on 24.07.2025 titled as “ Payal Chaudhary V/s KAP Sinha IAS and others ”, while placing reliance on the judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as “ Dalip Singh V/s State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2010) 2 SCC 114, Subrata Roy Sahara V/s Union of India (2014) 8 SCC 470 and K.C. Tharakan V/s State Bank of India & Ors. Passed in Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).27458/2022 ” . The relevant paragraphs of Payal Chaudhary (supra ) are reproduced as under:-

¶25

“9. It is evident that the petitioner has engaged in what can only be described as a frivolous and vexatious litigation spree, seemingly driven by a misplaced sense of grievance. Such conduct constitutes a gross abuse of the

¶26

MOHD AYUB 2026.05.27 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶27

COCP-2629-2026 (O&M)

¶28

-3-

¶29

judicial process and contributes significantly to the burgeoning pendency of cases before this Court. The tendency of litigants to misuse the judicial forum by engaging in forum shopping, filing repetitive and meritless petitions, and adopting dilatory tactics undermines the very foundation of our legal system and clogs the administration of justice.

¶30

10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Dalip Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2010) 2 SCC 114 , has cautioned against this emerging category of unscrupulous litigants who, devoid of respect for truth, resort to falsehood and unethical practices in their pursuit of relief. The Supreme Court emphatically held that such litigants, who seek to pollute the stream of justice or who dare to touch the fountain of justice with unclean hands, are not entitled to any relief, interim or final. Relevant extracts of the same is reproduce as under:-

¶31

“In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. Courts have evolved new principles to curb such abuse, and it is now well established that a litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.”

¶32

11. The petitioner’s conduct in instituting frivolous litigation has resulted in a gross misuse of the judicial process, thereby squandering the valuable time and resources of this Court. It is imperative, in the interest of justice, that bona fide and timely claims are adjudicated expeditiously, without being impeded by vexatious and unscrupulous litigation. At this juncture, reference may be made to the pertinent observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India (2014) 8 SCC 470 , wherein the Court lamented the pervasive malaise of frivolous litigation afflicting the Indian judicial system. The Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:-

¶33

“The Indian judicial system is grossly afflicted with frivolous litigation. Ways and means need to be evolved, to deter litigants from their compulsive obsession towards senseless and illconsidered claims. One needs to keep in mind, that in the process of litigation, there is an innocent sufferer on the other side of every irresponsible and senseless claim. He suffers long drawn anxious periods of nervousness and restlessness, whilst the

¶34

MOHD AYUB 2026.05.27 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶35

COCP-2629-2026 (O&M)

¶36

-4-

¶37

litigation is pending, without any fault on his part.”

¶38

12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently emphasized the need to deter frivolous appeals and petitions by imposing exemplary costs on the litigating parties. In Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 27458/2022 titled as K.C. Tharakan v. State Bank of India & Ors . decided on 01.05.2023, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows:

¶39

“No legal system can permit a situation wherein a party repeatedly agitates the same issue after it has been conclusively adjudicated by the highest judicial forum. Such conduct amounts to a gross misuse of the judicial process and results in a significant waste of valuable judicial time. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed with costs. However, taking into consideration that the petitioner is a dismissed employee, we deem it appropriate to impose a nominal cost. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with costs quantified at ₹10,000/-, to be deposited with the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Welfare Fund, to be utilized for the benefit of the SCBA Library.”

¶40

In view of the above referred to judgments, this Court is firmly

¶41

of the opinion that the instant petition constitutes a glaring instance of misuse of the judicial process. It is, therefore, incumbent upon this Court to safeguard the sanctity of judicial proceedings and to prevent their exploitation by unscrupulous litigants. The time and resources of this Court are limited and must be reserved for bona fide grievances that merit judicial consideration.

¶42

The aforesaid judgments clearly emphasize that frivolous and vexatious litigation must be curbed with a firm hand. The repeated filing of meritless petitions not only results in wastage of precious judicial time but also causes unnecessary harassment to public officials who are constrained to defend themselves despite having acted in accordance with law.

¶43

MOHD AYUB 2026.05.27 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶44

COCP-2629-2026 (O&M) -5-

¶45

Accordingly, with the objective of sending a strong deterrent message, this Court finds it appropriate to impose costs of Rs.25,000/- upon the petitioner.

¶46

Accordingly, the present contempt petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only). The said amount shall be paid by the petitioner to the respondent. The respondent is directed to provide his bank details to the petitioner.

¶47

In the event of default in compliance, the amount shall be recovered from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue by the competent authority.

¶48

All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also

¶49

disposed of.

¶50

May 27^th , 2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Saahil/Ayub JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶51

MOHD AYUB 2026.05.27 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

Baljeet Singh v. Satinder Singh Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baljeet Singh v. Satinder Singh Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukhdev Kaur and Others Vs Dr. Hatinder Kaur

Laxmi Devi Vs Asha Rani and Ors.

Manisha Tayal Vs Asha Rani and Ors.

State of Haryana Thr Land Acquisition Colector Vs Veena Bindal and Ors.

Ex. P/Head Constable Anup Singh Alias Anoop Singh Vs Surendra Lamba, IPS

Vikas and Others Vs Chinmai Garg Secretary Hssc and Another