Back
2005 Supreme(UK) 269
2005 (2) U.D., 168
High Court of Uttaranchal
Hon'ble Cyriac Joseph, C.J. and Hon'ble Rajesh Tandon, J.
Sunil Kumar Chaudhary
Vs.
Sri Nandan Arya
Defective Criminal Contempt Petition No. 1 of 2005,
Decided on : 15-07-2005.
Sri P.M.N. Singh Senior, Advocate assisted by Ms. Prabha, Advocate for the petitioner.
Sri Nandan Arya, Addl. Government Advocate in person.
The duty of counsel to ensure factual correctness in their statements in court and the discretion of the court in deciding contempt proceedings.
Headnote:
Contempt of Court - Criminal Contempt - Article 215, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Rule 3 (3)(c) of the Contempt of Courts (Allahabad High Court) Rules, 1977 - [Article 215, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Rule 3 (3)(c)] - The court dismissed the criminal contempt petition as it found no valid ground to initiate proceedings against the respondents for committing criminal contempt. The court emphasized the duty of counsel to ensure factual correctness in their statements in court and warned about the consequences of making incorrect statements.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a criminal contempt petition against the respondents for wilful disobedience of court orders. The respondents allegedly made a false statement before the court, leading to the dismissal of a writ petition. The petition was not accompanied by the consent of the Advocate General as required by the rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the statement made by the respondents was factually incorrect and was a result of inadvertence. It held that there was no valid ground to initiate proceedings against the respondents for committing criminal contempt.
Issues: The issues involved the alleged false statement made by the respondents before the court, the requirement of consent of the Advocate General for the contempt petition, and the duty of counsel to ensure factual correctness in their statements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the duty of counsel includes making statements based on proper instructions and verifying facts. It held that the proceeding of contempt is between the court and the alleged contemner, and there was no valid ground to initiate proceedings against the respondents.
Final Decision: The criminal contempt petition was dismissed by the court.
(Per Hon'ble the Chief Justice)
1. The petitioner who filed this Criminal Contempt Petition under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is the only petitioner in Writ Petition No. 991 of 2004 (M/B). He prays for summoning the respondents and punishing them in accordance with law for committing wilful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court.
2. The respondents in this petition are (1) Sri Nandan Arya, Additional Government Advocate, state of Uttaranchal, Nainital; (2) Asarhu Lal Arya, Inspector, Vigilance Establishment, State of Uttaranchal, Dehradun and (3) Sri Amit Agarwal, S/o Sri Naveen Agarwal, R/o 61/2 Balveer Road Dehradun. The allegation is that when Writ Petition No. 991 of 2004 (M/B) came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court on 20-04-2005, the first respondent, acting at the behest of respondents Nos. 2 and 3, made a false statement before the Court that charge-sheet in the criminal case from which the said writ petition arose had been flied against the petitioner and in view of the said statement, the writ petition was dismissed as Infructuous. It is stated that the aforesaid statement of respondent No. 1 was totally false as no such charge-sheet had been filed. It is alleged that such a false statement was made by the first respondent at the instance of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and that their action was not only illegal but also malafide. It is further stated that in the interest of Justice this Court may summon the respondents and punish them in accordance with law for committing criminal contempt.
3. The registry has noted a defect in this petition. The objection raised by the Registry is that this criminal contempt petition is not accompanied by the consent in writing of the Advocate General as required under Rule 3 (3)(c) of the Contempt of Courts (Allahabad High Court) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) framed under Section 23 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971. It is not disputed that the said Rules are applicable to the High Court of Uttaranchal. Rule 3 (3)(c) of the said Rules reads thus:
"A petition made under Section 15 (1) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 shall be accompanied by the consent in writing of the Advocate General and a copy thereof."
However, Sub-Rule 4 of Rule 3 of the said Rules provides as follows:
"4. Every petition in respect of criminal contempt, where it is not moved by the Advocate General and where the consent in writing of the Advocate General had not been obtained and every petition in regard to criminal contempt of a subordinate court where no reference has been made by it and the petition is moved without the consent of the Advocate General, shall clearly state the reasons why the consent In writing of the Advocate General could not be obtained and why the court has been approached to act suo motu."
4. In paragraph 11 of the affidavit in support of the petition, the petitioner has stated the reason for not seeking and obtaining the consent of the Advocate General. It is stated that since the first respondent Sri Nandan Arya, Additional Public Prosecutor is the junior of the Advocate General Sri M.S. Negi, he cannot be expected to give consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against his own junior. It is further stated that a general practice of the State Law Officers making false and frivolous statements is prevailing in this Court. It is also stated that in such circumstances, the petitioner is directly filing the petition without seeking the consent of the Advocate General and that it is necessary to take a lenient view in the matter for the ends of justice. We are not prepared to presume that the learned Advocate General who holds an important Constitutional Office will be swayed by extraneous or Irrelevant considerations while discharging his statutory functions and that he will be influenced by the fact that the alleged contemner is a Law Officer working
