Filing false affidavits and contradicting earlier statements in judicial proceedings constitutes criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

P.K.BHASIN, J:

A Reference was made to this Court by a Civil Judge for initiation of contempt proceedings against one Kanwar Singh Saini, who was the sole defendant in a Civil Suit for injunction (hereinafter referred to as „the defendant/contemner?) which had been disposed of on 12/05/03. On a preliminary examination of the Reference and the records forwarded alongwith it by the learned Civil Judge on the administrative side of the High Court by a Single Judge Committee constituted for examining contempt applications/References it was found to be a case of „criminal contempt? and Hon?ble the Chief Justice concurring with the view of the learned Single Judge directed the Reference to be placed before a Division Bench since cognizance of „criminal contempt? of a Subordinate Court could be taken only by a Division Bench as provided under Section 18 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971(hereinafter referred to as „the Act of 1971?). Accordingly the Reference was placed before the Division Bench and the Division Bench directed issuance of show-cause to the defendant/contemner who entered appearance and filed his response to the show-cause notice.

2. After considering that reply and other material cognizance of „criminal contempt? was taken. The defendant/contemner decided to contest the contempt action. The defendant-contemnor and the plaintiff thereafter led evidence by filing their respective affidavits and cross-examined each other. We now proceed to dispose of the contempt Reference.

3. The background in which these contempt proceedings came to be initiated may first be noted. On 26-04-2003 one Mohd. Yusuf(hereinafter referred to as „the plaintiff?) filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant/contemner. That suit was filed by the plaintiff on the averments that he had purchased property No. 148, in village Khirki, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi-110017 from the defendant vide registered sale deed dated 5-9-2002 and further that at the time of the execution of the sale deed the physical possession of the said property (hereinafter to be referred as „the suit property?) was also handed over by the defendant to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had kept household articles there. On 24-04-2003 the defendant alongwith 5-6 unknown persons came to the suit property and started throwing the articles lying in the suit property belonging to the plaintiff and also threatened to take forcible possession of the suit property. However, because of the resistance offered by the plaintiff and his raising hue and cry several neighbours gathered at the spot and when they were shown the sale deed which the defendant had executed in respect of the suit property those neighbours intervened and the defendant could not then succeed in taking forcible possession of the suit property and went away but while leaving they extended further threats that he would come again within 2 - 3 days with full force and would take possession of the suit property forcibly. On these allegations, the plaintiff prayed for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant as well as his associates, agents, servants etc. from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property or interfering in any manner in his peaceful possession thereof, illegally and without following due process of law and an ex-parte injunction to the same effect was also sought by filing an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC.

4. On 26-04-2003 the following order was passed in the suit: “Present : Ld. counsel for the plaintiff. Arguments on injunction application heard. No ground for granting ex-parte stay order at this stage, request in this regard is declined. Issue summons of the suit and notice of the interim application to the defendants on PF and RC, courier, UPC and dasti also for 29-04-2003. Sd/- CJ/Delhi 26-04-2003”

5. On 29-04-2003 the defendant appeared in the Court of the Civil Judge and filed his written statement wherein he took the plea that although he ha