SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(Del) 1131

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
ANIL KUMAR,V.K.SHALI
R.P.Malik - Appellant
Versus
Anil Sharma - Respondent
Crl. Contempt Petition No.27 of 2000
Decided On : 12-11-2008

Advocates Appeared:
Mr.K.K.Sud Sr. Advocate with Mr.J.K.Chawla Advocates for the Petitioner
Mr.S.S.Gandhi, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Digvijay Rai, Advocate for Respondents withMr.Anil Sharma, Respondent No.1; Mr.Babu Lal, Respondent No.2 and Mr. RajivRanjan, Respondent No.3.

The court emphasized that every abuse of the process of Court may not necessarily amount to contempt of Court and that only abuse calculated to hamper the due course of judicial proceeding or the orderly administration of justice constitutes contempt of Court.

Headnote:

The petitioner, a retired Superintendent of Tis Hazari Courts, sought contempt proceedings against police officials who arrested him pursuant to an FIR registered on the complaint of Mr. Navin Soni. The petitioner alleged that his arrest interfered with the due course of judicial proceedings initiated by him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and obstructed the administration of justice. The court analyzed the facts, the contentions of the petitioner, and the respondents, and emphasized the legal principles established in various judgments to determine whether the respondents committed criminal contempt. The court concluded that there were no grounds to take action against the respondents for committing criminal contempt of Court and dismissed the petition.

ANIL KUMAR J.

1. The petitioner, who is stated to be a retired Superintendent of Tis Hazari Courts, seeks contempt proceedings against the police officials who had arrested him pursuant to an FIR registered pursuant to the direction of Commissioner of Police on the complaint of Mr.Navin Soni, who is not a party to the present petition, being FIR No.270/2000 under Section 379/420/468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code on the ground that his arrest had interfered with the due course of judicial proceedings initiated by him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and because his arrest has also obstructed administration of justice.

2. Brief facts to comprehend the controversies are that Mr.Navin Soni resident of 3, DLF Industrial Area, Moti Nagar, on 5th October, 1996 had made a written complaint addressed to SHO, Police Station Kirti Nagar, New Delhi, that he had lost two signed blank cheques one of them bearing number 722832 of Punjab National Bank, Khari Baoli, and other cheque of its sister concern, M/s.Shobit Enterprises, of Punjab and Sind Bank, Fateh Puri, New Delhi, along with other documents. He had also sent a communication dated 6th October, 1996 to Punjab National Bank, Khari Baoli, Delhi, stating that he had lost the above-mentioned cheque in transit and requested the bank to

stop the payment. Similar letter was also sent to Punjab and Sind Bank. The letter dated 6th October, 1996 is stated to have been received by the Bank on 7th October, 1996 by speed post. On receipt of complaint from Mr.Navin Soni, the Bank had sent a letter dated 8th October, 1996 raising various queries. Mr.Navin Soni replied to the queries raised by the Bank by his letter dated 12th October, 1996.

3. The said Mr.Navin Soni had received summons under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 403/406/420/120 of Indian Penal Code for dishonour of a cheque bearing No.722832 of Punjab National Bank, Khari Baoli, Delhi and a demand of Rs.15.00 lakh was made.

4. On 27th October, 1998, the said Navin Soni, who is not a party to the present petition made a complaint to the DCP West that the said cheques which were lost by him, were stolen by the petitioner and he has forged them and on the basis of the forged cheques, a forged agreement to sell dated 14th January, 1998 was also prepared by him. \

5. Since no FIR was registered on the complaint dated 27th October, 1998, he made a complaint to the Commissioner of Police detailing the facts and requested that an FIR be registered against the petitioner. The Commissioner of Police passed an order dated 12th May, 2000 directing that an FIR be registered and matter be investigated. The said order was endorsed by the Joint Commissioner of Police, Southern Range, on 12th May, 2000. The order came to ACP, Rajouri Garden, on 15th May, 2000 and reached the office of SHO, Kirti Nagar, on 16th May, 2000. Subsequently an FIR bearing No.270/2000 under Section 379/420/468/471 of IPC was registered against Shri R.P. Malik, the petitioner. On the registration of the FIR the matter was entrusted to respondent No.1, Shri Anil Sharma for investigation. In order to investigate the allegations made in the FIR, the respondent No.1 inspected the file of the complaint filed against Shri Navin Soni under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act on 23rd May, 2000 and on inspection it transpired that the original cheque bearing No.722832 of Punjab National Bank and alleged agreement to sell dated 14th January, 1998 were not on record. The respondents arrested the petitioner on 29th June, 2000 as it was deemed appropriate by them to have custodial interrogation of the petitioner.

6. According to the petitioner, an agreement to sell dated 14th January, 1998 was executed between him and Smt.Asha Soni, Proprietor of M/s.New Gayatri Cork Industry, 3 DLF Industrial Area, for the purchase of 450 sq.mtrs. of plot No.3 DLF Industrial Area, Moti Nagar, for a total sale consideration of Rs.30.00 lakh out of which Rs.15.00






Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top