A genuine and unconditional apology can lead to closure of contempt proceedings, provided there is acknowledgment of previous disobedience.

The petitioner has filed this contempt case alleging wilful disobedience of the directions contained in Annexure A1 order dated 26.03.2019 in W.P.(C)No.6882 of 2019.

2. By the order dated 17.07.2019, this matter was referred to Division Bench. Paragraphs 5 to 8 of that order read thus;

“5. The pleadings and materials on record would or delay the same in any manner make it explicitly clear that the respondent had undertaken further construction of the building, despite Annexure A1 order of this Court dated 26.03.2019. He had even opened a tea stall in that building, as evident from Annexure A4 photograph. In paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit, the respondent has made a false statement that he has obeyed the orders of this Court and never attempted to disrespect or delay the same in any manner.

6. In Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana [ (1995) 3 SCC 757 ] the Apex Court held that filing of false affidavit, or making false statement on oath in courts aims at striking a blow at the Rule of Law and no court can ignore such conduct which has the tendency to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions, because the very structure of an ordered life is put at stake. It would be a great public disaster if the fountain of justice is allowed to be poisoned by anyone resorting to filing of false affidavits or giving of false statements and fabricating false evidence in a court of law.

7. In Muthu Karuppan, Commissioner of Police, Chennai v. Parithi Ilamvazhuthi [ (2011) 5 SCC 496 ], the Apex Court expressed the view that filing of a false affidavit should be effectively curbed with a strong hand. In Sciemed Overseas Inc. v. BOC India Limited [ (2016) 3 SCC 70 ], the Apex Court held that the observations in Muthu Karuppan was made in the context of contempt of court proceedings, the view expressed must be generally endorsed to preserve the purity of judicial proceedings.

8. After considering the pleadings and materials on record, I find that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case to refer this Contempt Case to the Division Bench.”

3. Thereafter, Registry has posted the matter before this Court, in view of the order dated 02.02.2021 of the Division Bench in Contempt Case (C)No.1073 of 2014.

4. Today when this matter is taken up for consideration, the respondent has filed an affidavit dated 19.02.2024 tendering unconditional apology. Paragraphs 2 to 4 of the said affidavit read thus;

“2. I respectfully submit that as per Order dated 26.03.2019, this Hon'ble Court restrained the 3rd respondent from carrying out further construction in his property situated in Re.Sy.No.266/12-1 in Block-III, Karukutty Village, in view of the Stop Memo issued by the 2nd respondent.

3. I respectfully submit that I committed a mistake by not complying with the order of this Hon'ble Court, on time. Even though I stopped construction, removed the iron frames erected on top of the existing building and stopped the tea stall, it was done belatedly, which invited Contempt of Court proceedings against me.

4. I respectfully submit that I am a law abiding citizen and have utmost respect to the orders of Hon'ble Court. The non-compliance of the order of this Hon'ble Court was not a willful act but it happened by mistake, for which I really repent. I will not commit any such mistakes in future and I hereby tender my apology for all the mistakes committed by me. I pray for the kindness of this Hon'ble Court to pardon me for the mistakes committed by me and for which the accompanying petition is filed.”

4. Having considered the unconditional apology tendered as above by the respondent and the submissions made at the Bar, this Court is of the view that the contempt of court case can be closed.

Accordingly, this Contempt of Court Case is closed.