Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 4641
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ALKA SARIN, J
Sanjay Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Tek Ram & Ors – Respondent
CR-7045-2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R.N. Lohan
For the Respondents: Parbeen Kumari, Amit Kumar Jain, Ram Bhati, N.K. Chhokar
The court ruled that directing the registration of an FIR after dismissing a contempt petition exceeded judicial authority.
Headnote:(A) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Contempt proceedings - Dismissal of contempt petition and direction for FIR against petitioner found to be beyond jurisdiction - Court cannot issue directions for FIR registration after dismissing contempt petition - Relevant laws establish the limits of judicial authority in contempt matters. (Paras 2, 6, 7)
(B) Jurisdiction of High Court - Only High Court has the authority to address contempt matters - Lower courts exceed their jurisdiction when directing FIR registration without legal basis. (Paras 3, 4, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged a contempt order allowing registration of an FIR against him despite dismissal of the contempt petition. A previous case with similar circumstances had been adjudicated in favor of the petitioner.
Findings of Court:
The Court ruled that the Additional Sessions Judge exceeded jurisdiction by directing an FIR registration after dismissing the contempt charge.
Issues: The principal issue was whether a court can direct registration of an FIR post dismissal of contempt petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The impugned order was set aside as the Court's direction for FIR lacked legal grounds, emphasizing that jurisdictionally, only the High Court can adjudicate contempt matters conclusively.
Result: The present revision petition is allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court jurisdiction over contempt and its proceedings. (Para 1 , 2) |
ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)
1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 01.10.2016 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jind on a petition for contempt of court.
2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that 665 kanals 14 marlas of land owned by Jumla Mustarka Malkan in Village Butani was attached under Sections 145/146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and possession of the said land was handed over to the Receiver. Vide order dated 02.01.2011 the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Safidon ordered the release of the land in favour of the Gram Panchayat. The income earned during the period the land remained in possession of the Receiver was also handed over to Yogesh Sharma 2025.09.18 10:20 Sarpanch – Sanjay Kumar. The respondents herein challenged the order dated 02.01.2011 passed by the SDM. The revision petition was allowed and the order of the SDM was quashed vide order dated 18.01.2012 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jind. The original Receiver was directed to take possession of the property. Thereafter, the respondents herein filed a petition before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jind for initiation of contempt proceedings for violation of the order dated 18.01.2012. Vide the impugned order the Additional Sessions Judge, Jind though dismissed the contempt petition, however, directed the registration of an FIR against Sanjay Kumar, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Village Butani, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind (petitioner herein) and to conduct a detailed investigation into the embezzlement made by him during his tenure as Sarpanch. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that only the High Court has the power to try for contempt and that having dismissed the contempt petition, the Court has totally gone beyond its jurisdiction in directing the registration of an FIR against the petitioner herein. Learned counsel has further relied upon the order dated 21.05.2015 passed in CRM-M-36876-2012 to contend that in an identical case between the same parties, wherein the contempt proceedings were initiated, the order was set aside by this Court.
4. Per contra learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5 would contend that a reference was sent to this Court to convict the petitioner under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and, therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned order.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Yogesh Sharma 2025.09.18 10:20
6. In the present case the respondents herein filed a petition alleging contempt of the order dated 18.01.2012. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jind while taking cognizance of the petition dismissed the petition qua the issue of contempt of court, however, directed the registration of an FIR against the petitioner herein. Having noticed in para 10 of the order that reference has to be made to this Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 , the Court went on to hold that the contempt was not made out and dismissed the petition qua the contempt of the order dated 18.01.2012. Thereafter, the Court went further to direct the registration of an FIR against Sanjay Kumar, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Village Butani, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind (petitioner herein). It is not understandable as to under what provisions of law the petition was filed and subsequently entertained and directions were issued for registration of an FIR. Learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to point out to any provision of law under which such directions could have been passed by the Court.
