For contempt to be established, there must be intent to interfere with the administration of justice, which was not found in this case despite evident negligence.

judgment?

found that no paragraph/sentence of the General Power of Attorney authorised Mukesh Sharma to lease the property. This was a statement of fact that the general power of attorney did not contain any authority to lease the property and not a construction of a document. Para-1 of the General Power of Attorney mentions that the holder Mukesh Sharma was authorised to manage, control, look after, supervise, maintain and sign the Lease Agreement and negotiate the rent. This shows that the holder of the power of attorney was authorized to execute the lease. Hence, the statement in the status report that the holder was not authorized to lease the property is factually incorrect and was made to mislead the Court. The explanation furnished by the SHO that it was a case of misinterpretation of the clauses is not correct because the status report does not show any interpretation but a positive assertion of the fact. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha , 2024 SCC On Line SC 56 that where an attempt was made to deceive the Court, it amounts to interference with the Administration of Justice and contempt of the Court. Reliance was placed upon the earlier judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chandra Shashi Vs. Anil Kumar Verma 1995 (1) SCC 421 . The SHO has not even felt any remorse for making a wrong statement of fact rather he has tried to justify his act by saying that it would apply to a case of renting the premises for Homestay which was never asserted in the status report. Thus, the act of the SHO, prima-facie, amounts to Contempt of Court and interference with the Administration of Justice.

4. Hence, the papers be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for taking appropriate action under the Contempt of Courts Act, if deemed proper.”

2. Initially, the notice was issued to Inspector Ankush Dogra, who was posted as SHO Dharampur, District Solan, H.P. during the relevant period. During the proceedings of this petition, it has transpired that Inspector Ankush Dogra was on leave w.e.f. 24.11.2023 till 4.12.2023 and he was not the author of the status report dated 30.11.2023, filed in the proceedings of Cr.MP(M) No. 2424 of 2023 before the Court. It was also disclosed that the status report dated 30.11.2023 was filed by the Sub-Inspector Hari Chand, who was officiating SHO on the relevant date. Accordingly, notice was issued to Sub-Inspector, Hari Chand.

3. In response, the respondent Sub-Inspector, Hari Chand submitted his apology with an explanation that the contents of the status report, which were found to be against the factual position by the Hon’ble Single Judge, were incorporated on the basis of a bonafide understanding of the contents of the documents. The respondent admitted his mistake and assured that he would be more vigilant and keen in future.

4. On 29.10.2024, this Court recorded its dis-satisfaction with the explanation, so rendered by the respondent. Thereafter, on 12.11.2024, the respondent filed his supplementary affidavit stating inter-alia that the status report dated 30.11.2023 was in fact prepared by one Sh. Ashok Kumar and the respondent being in-charge of Police Station had appended his signatures on the same at about 9.00 p.m. The respondent also pleaded that his conduct was neither intentional nor willful either to mislead the Court or to benefit any of the party. He further pointed out that the parties had in fact now resolved their inter-se dispute and a petition for quashing of the FIR had already been filed before this Court. The respondent also submitted that during his entire service career of more than 32 years, there has been no similar or any other kind of complaint ever lodged against him.

5. The facts reveal that FIR No. 75 of 2023 dated 7.7.2023 was registered at Police Station, Dharampur, District Solan under Sections 380, 448, 504, 505, 201 read with Section 34 IPC. The complainant was one Charan Singh, who claimed himself to be the care taker of