2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 23167
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Mini Pushkarna, J
AMIT YADAV – Appellant
Versus
ANIL KUMAR TYAGI & ORS – Respondent
CONT.CAS(C) 349/2018
JINENDRA JAIN
Compliance with court orders is essential, and once established, no further orders are necessary.
Headnote:(A) Contempt of Court - Allegations of willful disobedience of court orders regarding provision of CCTV footage - The court found that the directions to provide footage had been complied with, and the petitioner had received the necessary footage as per the orders. (Paras 1-6)
(B) Compliance with Court Orders - The court emphasized that once compliance is established, no further orders are necessary. (Paras 4-6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner alleged non-compliance with an order to provide CCTV footage from specific cameras during a specified time related to an incident at Dwarka Courts. The footage was provided, but the petitioner claimed it was incomplete.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the required footage had been provided and that no further action was warranted.
Issues: The main issue was whether the order for CCTV footage had been complied with.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that compliance with the order had been established, negating the need for further orders.
Result: Contempt petition disposed of.
1. The present petition has been filed alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 28th January, 2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka, Delhi in FIR No. 198/2016, wherein directions were given to the Administrative Civil Judge, Dwarka Courts to provide copy of the un- tampered CCTV Footage of Gate Nos. 3 to 5 as well as Camera outside court No. 513 from 10:00 A.M. to 12:30 P.M for 30th March, 2016.
2. The contempt was filed as it was alleged that despite the aforesaid order, the footage of Gate No. 5 had not been provided. Further, only two minutes clip of Gate No. 3 has been provided.
3. This Court has perused the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 5, wherein, it has been stated as follows:
- “xxx xxx xxx 4.4. It is pertinent to note that in this application a prayer was made to preserve the CCTV footage of the Court premises area in front of Court no. 513. 4.5. This prayer had already been sought by the investigating office vide his application filed on 31.3.2016 and the footage was provided by the PWD on 31.3.2016 and has been provided to the Petitioner on 31.1.2017. It is submitted that the CCTV footage of the camera in front of Room No. 513 which had been duly preserved in terms of the order dated 31.3.2016 has been provided to the Petitioner. It is further respectfully submitted that apart from this no other footage is available.
4.6 It was only on 7.10.2016, after a lapse of over 7 months, that the Petitioner for the first time expanded his request and sought supply of the CCTV footage of all cameras outside Room No. 513. In this regard, it is pertinent to submit that there are 20 cameras installed on the 5th floor and 4 cameras in each of the 4 wings on the floor. Therefore, while the footage of the camera outside Room No. 513 has been provided, the CCTV footage of the other 19 cameras on that floor were not preserved and are hence not available.
4.7. The allegations made by the Petitioner against the investigating officer are false, frivolous, concocted and baseless and are an attempt to manufacture a basis for his defence.
5. The relevant factual background is being set out in brief hereinbelow: 5.1. It is submitted that the CCTV cameras installed inside Dwarka Court complex are under the exclusive control of Administrative Civil Judge, Dwarka Court, New Delhi who is the authorized person to pass orders for providing CCTV footage recorded by the said cameras. For this purpose, an application has to be filed before the Ld. Administrative Civil Judge (AG), Dwarka Court.
5.2. These CCTV cameras installed inside the Court complex are maintained by Pan Intellecom Ltd. under supervision of Executive Engineer (E), PWD, South West Division, JB Tito Marg, Andrews Ganj, whereas the CCTV cameras installed outside the Court premises are maintained by Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. under supervision of Inspector, Dwarka Court Security.
The footages recorded by CCTVcameras Installed outside the Court premises and maintained by Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. are preserved for a period of 15 days.
5.3. It is submitted that on 30.3.2016, at about 12.29 PM, an information vide DD No. 13PP/Dwarka Sector 10, PS Dwarka South, was received regarding an Incident of firing at Gate No. 3, Dwarka Courts from one Ankit Dagar, who received a gunshot injury. During the course of Investigation, an application was moved before the AG, Dwarka Courts on 31.03.2016 for providing CCTV footage of Gate No.3, Service Road and In front of Room No. 513 for 30.03.2016 for the period between 10:00 AM to 12:30 PM.
5.4. That the CCTV footage of the camera installed in front of Court Room No. 513 was I - requested to be preserved as the Injured had appeared before the Court No. 513 on that day as accused in another matter and the footage from Gate No. 3 near Service Road, Dwarka courts was requested as the shooting took place and the injured was found unconscious at Gate No. 3. Any other CCTV record