Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 23129
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J
Shaik Janimiya – Appellant
Versus
Sri Rajeev Trivedi IPS and 3 others – Respondent
CC/2447/2018
Litigants must disclose all relevant documents; failure to do so may constitute fraud on the court and lead to abuse of process.
Headnote:(A) Contempt of Court - The court addressed the issue of non-compliance with a previous order dated 03.10.2017 in W.P.No.32483 of 2017 - The contempt petitioner filed the case despite having received relevant documents, leading to an assertion of fraud upon the court - The court emphasized the necessity for litigants to present all relevant documents to avoid abuse of process. (Paras 3, 5, 8, 10)
(B) Abuse of Process - The court highlighted that the contempt petitioner, by withholding vital documents, attempted to gain an advantage and wasted the court's time, thus constituting gross abuse of process. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The contempt petitioner sought to punish the respondent for failing to comply with court orders, despite having received the necessary proceedings earlier.
Findings of Court:
The court found no contempt as the proceedings were in compliance with earlier orders and imposed costs instead of imprisonment.
Issues: The main issues were whether the contempt petitioner acted with unclean hands and whether the court's orders were complied with.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the contempt petitioner’s failure to disclose the document constituted an abuse of process, leading to the court's decision to impose costs rather than imprisonment.
Result: Contempt case closed with costs imposed.
ORDER:
This contempt case is filed with the following prayer:
“… to punish the respondent herein for willfully committing contempt in not implementing and obeying the orders of this Hon’ble Court dt.03.10.2017 in W.P.No.32483 of 2017 in accordance with law and pass such order or orders as this Hon’ble High Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
2. Heard Ch. Ganesh, learned counsel for the contempt petitioner, Mr. T. Rajinikanth Reddy, learned Additional Advocate General and learned Government Pleader for Services.
3. On 29.10.2024, after six years, a counter affidavit is filed annexing a copy of the proceedings, dated 30.08.2018, of Superintendent of Police issued in obedience to the orders passed in W.P.No.32483 of 2017, dated 03.10.2017, and W.A.No.105 of 2018, dated 18.06.2018. This Court is surprised as to why there is so much of delay in producing a copy of the proceedings issued on 30.08.2018 in a contempt matter pertaining to year 2018.
4. On 30.10.2024, when the matter was heard, this Court directed the presence of respondent No.1, on noticing that nothing was brought on record with regard to payment of salary. Before directing the presence of respondent No.1, the counsel for petitioner was asked whether contempt petitioner pleaded all the facts and whether all documents were annexed. On instructions from the petitioner present in the Court, it was stated by the counsel that every fact was pleaded and all the documents were annexed. Prima facie, on examining the record and the order of learned Single Judge, this Court was of the opinion that the order of learned Single Judge was not complied with even after six years.
5. Today, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents has invited the attention of this Court to the proceedings issued by the Superintendent of Police and submitted that pursuant to orders of learned Single Judge, the concerned authority has taken a decision and communicated the same to contempt petitioner. Hence, there cannot be any contempt, as canvassed by the counsel. It is pointed out that having received the proceedings, dated 30.08.2018, petitioner is guilty of approaching the Court with unclean hands.
6. This Court has no hesitation to hold that had the respondents produced a copy of the proceedings, dated 30.08.2018, at the earliest point of time, the contempt proceedings could have been closed at an earlier date.
Be that as it may, this Court has perused the proceedings dated 30.08.2018, it is observed that contempt petitioner has received the copy by putting his signature and date (31.08.2018). On a close scrutiny of the signature in the contempt affidavit and the signature in the proceedings, it is observed that both the signatures are similar. This Court queried learned counsel for contempt petitioner that why petitioner has filed the contempt after receiving the document. On instructions from the contempt petitioner, who was present in the Court, learned counsel for contempt petitioner stated that it was an inadvertent mistake on the part of the petitioner to have filed the contempt case.
7. The Apex Court in S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath,
“… A litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party.”
8. This Court is inclined to hold that the contempt petitioner by withholding the vital document and by filing the contempt case tried to gain advantage on the strength of the pleadings made in the contempt affidavit. The contempt petitioner successfully consumed the Court’s valuable time by playing fraud on the Court as well as on the opposite party. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the firm view that the very filing of the contempt case amounts
