To constitute contempt, there must be a deliberate action done with evil intent or bad purpose to disobey or disregard the law. Mere unintentional disobedience is not enough to hold anyone guilty of contempt.

G.P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

CRL. MA. 18091/2012 (Exemption)

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The Application is allowed.

CRL. REV. P. 598/2012

1. The Petitioner challenges an order dated 30.06.2012 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, East whereby an application to initiate contempt proceedings under Section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 (the Act) moved by the Petitioner was dismissed.

2. The Petitioner’s grievance is that in spite of repeated opportunities granted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, copy of the complaint and other documents was not supplied by the Respondent (the Complainant) to the Petitioners who had been summoned as accused in the Complaint case.

3. Mere non supply of the copy of the Complaint and other documents filed along with it in pursuance of the directions given by a Court by itself would not amount to Contempt of Court.

4. It is well settled that to hold a person guilty of contempt, there must be willful disobedience of the order of the Court. In Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha & Ors. (2003) 11 SCC 1, the Supreme Court analysed the concept of willful disobedience of the order of the Court. Para 17 of the report is extracted hereunder:

“17. Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act defines “civil contempt” and it means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of undertaking given to a court. “Wilful” means an act or omission which is done voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do something the law forbids or with the specific intent to fail to do something the law requires to be done, that is to say, with bad purpose either to disobey or to disregard the law. It signifies a deliberate action done with evil intent or with a bad motive or purpose. Therefore, in order to constitute contempt the order of the court must be of such a nature which is capable of execution by the person charged in normal circumstances. It should not require any extraordinary effort nor should be dependent, either wholly or in part, upon any act or omission of a third party for its compliance. This has to be judged having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case……..”

5. In Kapildeo Prasad Sah v. State of Bihar, (1999) 7 SCC 569 it was indicated that although even negligence and carelessness may amount to contempt but it was reiterated that the Petitioner who complained of breach of the Court order must allege and prove deliberate or contumacious disobedience of the Court order and if such allegation is proved only then contempt is said to have been made out and not otherwise.

6. Thus, in order to be guilty of contempt an intention has to be there to act in violation of the Court’s order, that is, to consciously defy the Court. In a later judgment in Dinesh Kumar Gupta v. United India Insurance Company Limited, (2010) 12 SCC 770, the Supreme Court dealt in detail with the question of civil contempt and held that mere unintentional disobedience is not enough to hold anyone guilty of contempt. Absence of wilful disobedience on the part of the contemnor will not hold him guilty unless the contempt involves the task of fault or misconduct. Paras 17, 23 and 24 of the report are extracted hereunder:-

“17. This now leads us to the next question and a more relevant one, as to whether a proceeding for contempt initiated against the appellant can be held to be sustainable merely on speculation, assumption and inference drawn from facts and circumstances of the instant case. In our considered opinion, the answer clearly has to be in the negative in view of the well-settled legal position reflected in a catena of decisions of this Court that contempt of a civil nature can be held to have been made out only if there has been a wilful disobedience of the order and even though there may be disobedience, yet if the same does not reflect that it has been a conscious and wilful disob