IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP-841-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision: 23.02.2026 GURPREET KAUR ..Petitioner Versus JAGADALE NILAMBARI VIJAY & ORS ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Sahil Soi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Animesh Sharma, Addl. A.G, Punjab.

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. (Oral)

1. The present contempt petition has been filed for deliberate and intentional disobedience of order passed by Hon’ble Court in Lalita Kumari Vs. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 and order dated 29.11.2024 passed in CRM-M-56795-2024 and order dated 30.07.2024 passed in CWP-2066-

2018.

2. On asking of the Court, Mr. Animesh Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of State and contends that vide order dated 24.04.2025, Senior Superintendent of Police, Moga was directed to decide the representation dated 22.03.2025 filed by the petitioner and the representation has already been decided vide order dated 30.06.2025, which is attached along with the present petition as Annexure P-3.

3. Since the petitioner knowingly that the order has been complied with rightly or wrongly, instead of challenging the order dated 30.06.2025, placed on record the same with the present contempt petition as Annexure P-3. Therefore, the present contempt petition is not even maintainable since the order has already been complied.

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 expeditiously, without being impeded by vexatious and unscrupulous litigation. At this juncture, reference may be made to the pertinent observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Subrata