Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 104
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, YOGESH KHANNA, JJ.
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION - Petitioner
Versus
DEEPAK MALIK INSPECTOR - Respondent
CONT.CAS.(CRL) 18/2018
Decided On : 08-01-2019
For the Respondent:Mr. Jaideep Malik, Mr. Rakesh Chahar, Mr. Sumit Chaudhary, Mr. Arun Rathi and Mr. Avinash Kapoor, Advocates.
The inadvertent nature of an act and lack of willful or deliberate intent may be considered in determining whether an action constitutes criminal contempt.
Headnote:
Criminal Contempt - Video Recording in Court - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 2(c), Section 13 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the alleged surreptitious video recording of court proceedings by Inspector Deepak Malik. He tendered an apology and explained that the recording was inadvertent due to his lack of familiarity with his new smartphone.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that Inspector Deepak Malik's conduct in recording the proceedings was neither willful nor deliberate, and accepted his unequivocal and unconditional apology. The notice to show cause for criminal contempt proceedings was discharged, but Inspector Deepak Malik was cautioned to refrain from carrying a mobile telephone inside the courtroom in the future.
Issues: The main issue was whether Inspector Deepak Malik's video recording of the court proceedings constituted criminal contempt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the lack of connection between Inspector Deepak Malik and the proceedings, his lack of familiarity with the smartphone, and the inadvertent nature of the recording in reaching its decision.
Final Decision: The notice to show cause for criminal contempt proceedings was discharged, and Inspector Deepak Malik was cautioned to refrain from carrying a mobile telephone inside the courtroom in the future.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.
1. The present criminal contempt is predicated on a reference dated 20th October, 2018, made by Ms. Ekta Gauba, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (North West), Rohini Courts, Delhi.
2. The gravamen of the charge against Inspector Deepak Malik, Police Station Maurya Enclave is that, he surreptitiously made video recordings of the Court proceedings on 20th October, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the subject video recordings’).
3. The sealed pulanda containing the video recordings have been viewed by us. We have perused the reply to the show cause notice filed on behalf of Inspector Deepak Malik.
4. In this behalf, it is observed at the outset that, Inspector Deepak Malik has tendered an unequivocal and unconditional apology for the subject video recordings. In his response to the charge levelled against him, he has expressed remorse and by way of justification, submitted the following explanation:-
“2. That on 20.10.2018, the deponent was present in the Hon’ble Court of Ms. Ekta Gauba, Ld. ACMM (North-West), Rohini Courts, Delhi; as an application moved by him in his capacity as the investigating officer for seeking initiation of 83 Cr.P.C. proceedings against 2 accused persons namely Amit @ Dabang and Sandeep @ Dhillu, who are wanted in the aforesaid case FIR, was listed for hearing. The copy of the application alongwith its true typed copy is annexed herewith as Annexure-R/1. The said application was filed by the deponent, which was listed for hearing on 20.10.2018 and finally vide order dated 27.10.2018, the Hon’ble Court was pleased to declare the aforesaid Sandeep @ Dhillu and Amit @ Dabang as proclaimed offenders. The copy of the order dated 27.10.2018 passed by the Ld. ACMM, North West, in this regard is annexed herewith as Anneuxre-R/2.
3. That on the same day, some other application in connection with another case FIR No. 373/2018, under Sections 302/392/365 IPC, P.S.-Maurya Enclave, Delhi; moved by Inspector Ranjay Atrishya, SHO, P.S. Maurya Enclave, Delhi; was being heard by the Hon’ble Court while the deponent was waiting for his turn. The deponent had recently purchased a new smart phone (which is the case property in the instant contempt case) on 30.09.2018 and while waiting for his turn, the deponent was checking its features. The purchase invoice of the smart phone (case property) is annexed herewith as Annexure-R/3. The deponent is not very well versed with the features of smart phones and apparently inadvertently video recording got initiated. The factum of these video recordings being inadvertent is corroborated by these video recordings itself. The moment the deponent realized that video recording has been initiated, the deponent immediately stopped it and closed the video recording application. Thereafter, the deponent did not use his phone and held it in his hand without even having a look at it. One Ld. Advocate present in the court, pointed it out to the Hon’ble Court that the deponent was recording the court proceedings, however, the deponent was completely unaware of any recording being done through his phone. On being questioned by the Hon’ble Court, the deponent expressed his innocence and told the court that he had not done anything of that sort. Thereafter, the Hon’ble Court called someone from the IT Cell and the phone of the deponent was inspected after the deponent wilfully disclosed his numeric phone password and also disclosed that his face was the other password. The phone was inspected in the presence of the Ld. Presiding Officer and the deponent was informed by the Ld. Presiding Officer about 3 video recordings of the same date.
4. That neither the deponent was I.O. of the case, which was being heard by the Hon’ble Court at the time of incident nor the deponent is witness in the said case and had no connection with the said case whatsoever. Moreover, on the day of incident, the deponent was working as ATO at P.S. Rani Bagh, Delhi; where he was temporarily tr
