IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 28.11.2025 Shekhar Anand ……Petitioner Versus Abhishek Jorwal, IPS, DCP & others ……Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr.Arun Luthra, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.Ram Karan Sharma, DAG, Haryana.

SUDEEPTI SHARMA , J. (Oral)

1. The present contempt petition has been filed for deliberate and intentional disobedience of order dated 21.05.2024 passed by this Court in CRM-M-21449-2024 (Annexure P-11).

2. Relevant portion of the order dated 21.05.2024 is reproduced as under:

“8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

9. Admittedly, when the order dated 01.05.2024 was passed, it had been wrongly stated that a cancellation report had been filed on 03.01.2024. However, the said factual position has been rectified today by the learned State counsel when he submits that the cancellation report had been prepared but came to be approved by Senior Officers only on 07.05.2024 and would be presented in Court within a period two weeks.

10. In view of the submissions made, the present petition is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to avail his remedies in accordance with law including but not limited to challenging the cancellation report when presented.”

3. A perusal of the order referred to shows that no direction is passed by this Court. Hence, no contempt of the order dated 21.05.2024 (Annexure P-11) is made out. This amounts to gross abuse of the judicial process and contributes significantly to the burgeoning pendency of cases before this Court.

4. Similar matter has already been dealt with by this Court in COCP-3579-2025 decided on 24.07.2025 titled as “Payal Chaudhary V/s KAP Sinha IAS and others”, while placing reliance on the judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as “Dalip Singh V/s State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2010) 2 SCC 114, Subrata Roy Sahara V/s Union of India (2014) 8 SCC 470 and K.C. Tharakan V/s State Bank of India & Ors. Passed in Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).27458/2022”. The relevant paragraphs of Payal Chaudhary (supra) are reproduced as under:- “9. It is evident that the petitioner has engaged in what can only be described as a frivolous and vexatious litigation spree, seemingly driven by a misplaced sense of grievance. Such conduct constitutes a gross abuse of the judicial process and contributes significantly to the burgeoning pendency of cases before this Court. The tendency of litigants to misuse the judicial forum by engaging in forum shopping, filing repetitive and meritless petitions, and adopting dilatory tactics undermines the very foundation of our legal system and clogs the administration of justice.

10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Dalip Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2010) 2 SCC 114, has cautioned against this emerging category of unscrupulous litigants who, devoid of respect for truth, resort to falsehood and unethical practices in their pursuit of relief. The Supreme Court emphatically held that such litigants, who seek to pollute the stream of justice or who dare to touch the fountain of justice with unclean hands, are not entitled to any relief, interim or final.

Relevant extracts of the same is reproduce as under:-

“In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. Courts have evolved new principles to curb such abuse, and it is now well established that a litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.”

11. The petitioner’s conduct in instituting frivolous litigation has resulted in a gross misuse of the judicial process, thereby squandering the valuable time and resources of this Court. It is imperative, in the interest of justice, that bona fide and timely claims are adjudicated