Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 130
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
M.M.S. BEDI, GURVINDER SINGH GILL, JJ.
Court on its own motion – Appellant
Versus
Mulkh Raj, ASI & Naresh Kumar SHO – Respondent
CROCP No. 11 of 2017
Decided on : 23-03-2018
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Preetinder Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate, Amicus-Curie
IMPORTANT POINT
Contempt – Criminal Contempt – Where the alleged contemptuous act which prima facie is also offence under IPC, it would not warrant initiation of proceedings under the Contempt Act.
Contempt – Criminal Contempt – Jurisdiction in contempt is not to be invoked unless there is real prejudice which can be regarded as a substantial interference with the due course of justice.
Headnote:(A) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, S.2 & S.10 – Criminal Contempt – Fabricating false evidence – In bail application, Judge found certain blank pages signed by accused were there in police file when presented to him – Held; Any attempt made by a police officer to create evidence for this securing conviction is required to be deprecated and cannot be tolerated but launching contempt proceedings when the same can also be effectively dealt with alternate provisions specifically provided for such conduct, should be avoided – Initiation of criminal contempt proceedings is not warranted in present case – Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.195. (Para 25)
Section 192 read with 195 of IPC neither pertains to insult to public servant nor pertains to interruption of judicial proceedings but deals with cases where someone interferes with judicial proceedings by way of fabricating false evidence with an intention to procure conviction. Such interference, which otherwise qualifies to be termed as 'criminal contempt' as defined in Section 2(c)(iii) of the Act, is specifically made punishable as such under provisions of 195 of IPC and stringent punishment is provided. The present case is infact a case of an attempt to commit offence punishable under Section 195 of IPC.
(B) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, S.10 – Criminal Contempt – Jurisdiction of High Court – Where the alleged contemptuous act which prima facie is also offence under IPC, it would not warrant initiation of proceedings under the Contempt Act – Held; In view of the bar contained in proviso to S.10 of the Act, the jurisdiction of the High Court would not be ousted; but then resort should not ordinarily be had to proceedings under the Act by High Court. (Para 19)
(C) Contempt of Courts, Act, 1971, S.2(c) – Criminal Contempt – Jurisdiction in contempt is not to be invoked unless there is real prejudice which can be regarded as a substantial interference with the due course of justice. (Para 23)
(D) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, S.2(c) – Criminal Contempt – Judicial Proceedings – Any irregularity, during the course of investigation, prior to the presentation of report under S. 173(2) Cr.PC and before taking cognizance of the offence, can be said to be a judicial proceeding in context to the provisions of S.193 Cr.PC within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defining "criminal contempt". (Para 10)
(E) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,S.2(c) – Criminal Contempt – Judicial Proceedings – Proceedings of a bail application even at a stage when the challan has not been presented would be "judicial proceedings" within the ambit of section 2(c)(ii) of the Act. (Para 10)
(F) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, S.2 and S.10 – Criminal Contempt – Purpose of Act – Held; The underlying purpose of law of contempt is not only protection of the machinery of Justice but also the interest and confidence of the general public in the efficacy of such machinery – Unlike the cases of civil contempt where normally it is the aggrieved party which seeks initiation of contempt proceedings, in cases of criminal contempt the proceedings are generally initiated suo-moto by the Court – Propriety and caution demands that before initiating suo-moto proceedings the Court should be circumspect in taking a decision in this regard – In every case, Contempt would not be the omnibus remedy to uphold the dignity of the Courts. (Para 24)
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.
1. This reference was received from learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jalandhar for initiation of contempt proceedings against Inspector Naresh Kumar, SHO and ASI Mulkh Raj, Investigating Officer in FIR No. 93 dated 11.5.2017 under section 379-B and 411 of IPC and section 22 of the NDPS Act, P.S. Basti Bawa Khel, Jalandhar.
2. While considering a bail application on behalf of accused Sajan Kumar and Lovely Kumar in above referred case, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge came across few blank papers signed by the accused in the investigation file produced before the Court. The learned Judge impounded the file and issued notice to the accused/applicant Sajan Kumar who, upon appearance, stated before the Court that he along with co-accused had been arrested by the police officers who threatened them to implicate them falsely and got several blank papers signed from them. Subsequently ASI Mulkh Raj, Investigating officer, made an application before the learned Judge, admitting his mistake and while apologising requested to be forgiven. The learned Judge, prima-facie finding the act of the police officers highly prejudicial to due course of judicial proceedings which tended to interfere with the same and obstructed the administration of justice, made the present reference for initiation of proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act 1971(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), vide letter dated 14.7.2017.
3. Upon perusal of the reference, following points for determination were spelt out in our order dated 3.11.2017:
“(1) Whether any irregularity, during the course of investigation, prior to the presentation of report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C and before taking cognizance of the offence, can be said to be a judicial proceeding in context to the provisions of Section 193 Cr.P.C. within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defining “criminal contempt”.
(2) Whether the reference of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jalandhar presuming that conduct of the investigating officer is prejudicial to the judicial proceedings pending before the Court, warrant initiation of proceedings of criminal contempt of Court.
(3) Whether the facts and circumstances of the present case contemplate the punishment of the contemnors for contempt of subordinate Court under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act for punishing the contemnors as per Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.”
4. Shri Preetinder Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist this Court. We have considered the report submitted by Sh. Preetinder Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate and also the submissions made by him. Each of the three points is being dealt with separately as under.
Point No. (1) :
5. In the present case the trial court was seized of a bail application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. and at that stage the prosecution had not filed any challan against the accused as the matter was still at the stage of investigation. Section 2(c) of Contempt of Courts Act visualises and defines a 'criminal contempt' in relation to something done during judicial proceedings. Section 2(c) of the Act for the sake of ready reference is reproduced below:
“2. Definitions .In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, –
(a) xxx xxx xxx
(b) xxx xxx xxx
(c) “criminal contempt” means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which –
(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any Court; or
(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or
(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner;
(d) xxx xxx xxx”
6. A bare perusal of the aforesaid definition shows that the Act visualises commission of crim
