Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 683 (DEL)

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. HARISH ABROL

2005-05-31

MANMOHAN SARIN, R.S.SODHI

body2005
Manmohan Sarin, J. ( 1 ) SH. SURESH Chugh, a Special Metropolitan Magistrate, appointed for carrying out the functions under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, filed the present petition under Sections 11, 12 and 15 (2) of the Contempt of Courts Act. Reference was made by him through the District and Sessions Judge to this Court and petition has been registered as a Criminal Contempt Petition. ( 2 ) NOTICE to show cause as to why contempt of Court proceedings be not initiated was issued to Mr. Harish Abrol, a Municipal Councillor, respondent/contemnor, herein. Respondent/contemnor filed his reply to the show cause notice on 17th March, 2004. An additional affidavit dated 11th August, 2004 was also filed. Finally, an affidavit dated 5th April, 2005, tendering his unconditional apology has been filed by the respondent/contemnor. ( 3 ) THE Special Metropolitan Magistrate in the reference petition stated that while he was holding Mobile Court on 16th July, 2003 and was taking up the challans of various traders, being presented for prosecution and disposal, respondent/contemnor, Harish Abrol came along with his supporters at the venue at Multani Dhanda, Kadam Sharif, Ward 31 and stopped the proceedings of the Court. Respondent/contemnor is the area Councillor of the MCD and also the Chairman of the Ward Committee, Sadar Pahar Ganj Zone. The Magistrate stated that respondent asked the MCD staff, assisting the Court, to leave, who under his threat and coercion, left the proceedings and stood by in the corner. Respondent thereafter came and sat on a chair next to him, as if he was holding the Court. Respondent at the top of his voice forced and stopped the Special Metropolitan Magistrate from carrying out of judicial functions and instructed him not to levy heavy fines. The Magistrate stated that result of the interference by the respondent was that offenders, who were present, left the Court without attending to their cases. It is further averred that subsequently on 1st August, 2003, when he was holding the Court in Room No. 25, S. P. Zone, respondent climbed the judicial platform and came behind his seat and asked him in a loud voice to stop the prosecution of the residents of his area. The aforesaid acts were reported as gross interference and obstruction in the course of judicial proceedings. The aforesaid acts were reported as gross interference and obstruction in the course of judicial proceedings. ( 4 ) RESPONDENT/contemnor in the affidavit filed in reply dated 17th March, 2004, inter alia, averred that he hails from a respectable family of freedom fighters. He is a religious person having a clean record. He has never disobeyed or breached law. Respondent is well placed in society and is an elected Councillor of MCD. ( 5 ) RESPONDENT denies the allegations, pertaining to the incident of 16th July, 2003. Respondent explains that being an elected Councillor and Chairman of S. P. Zone, when he was on his daily round, he saw 100-150 people standing on the road. On enquiry, he was told that Special Metropolitan Magistrate was holding mobile Court for violations under the MCD Act and imposing heavy fines of Rs. 2000-3000/- per case. He submits that the Special Metropolitan Magistrate was not wearing his robes and his black coat was kept at the back of the chair. On being informed that the Chairman of SP Zone had come, the Magistrate wore his robes. The Magistrate asked the respondent to sit on the chair on the dais along with him. Respondent admits that thereafter a mild discussion took place between the Special Metropolitan Magistrate and him with regard to the quantum of fine. Respondent denied that he uttered the words attributed to him. ( 6 ) IN reply, the incident of 1st August, 2003 is stated to be an exaggerated one and an after thought. Respondent claims that he had not uttered the words attributed to him and had simply enquired about the presence of the Special Metropolitan Magistrate in MCD office. Respondent further states that Special Metropolitan Magistrate had earlier filed a reference petition dated 4th August, 2003, a copy of which was also sent to him by the Special Metropolitan Magistrate. The said petition dated 4th August, 2003, did not include any mention of the incident of 1st August, 2003. Hence respondent submits that no credence can be given to it of the alleged incident of 1st August, 2003. ( 7 ) RESPONDENT in the additional affidavit has outlined his various social and other welfare activities and works being done in the service of his constituents. Hence respondent submits that no credence can be given to it of the alleged incident of 1st August, 2003. ( 7 ) RESPONDENT in the additional affidavit has outlined his various social and other welfare activities and works being done in the service of his constituents. ( 8 ) RESPONDENT has also brought to the notice of the Court an Article appearing in the magazine outlook dated 25th March, 2004, where the Special Metropolitan Magistrate appears to have given his views to the magazine. Following is an extract from the publication:- MAGISTRATE Suresh Chugh, a former IB Officer, thunders about the grim reality of laying down the law on thestreets of Delhi with no police protection. He recounts an incident when a local goon, Noor Alam, started hurling utensils and mineral water bottles at him when he came to clear an encroachment. The police just stood around doing nothing. These hawkers pay hafta to junior police officers and barzenly flout rules after that. After the incident, he went to the deputy commissioner and joint commissioner of police, complaining about the corruption in their ranks. Says chugh: My file is still with them and nothing has been done. CHUGH has been forced to file a court case against Harish Abrol, the elected municipal Councillor of the Sadar Paharganj area for protecting encroachers with deep pockets and obstructing justice. What is the use of appointing us when we are given no clear set of power or jurisdiction and have no way to enforce our judgments? he asks. His clash with Abrol was a direct result of this predicament. Chugh alleges that Abrol, in return for monetary favours, has been extending his protection to the biggest encroachers in the region. He threatened me when I asked these builders, who cover up to eight feet of public road with their girders, cement and construction material to clean up their act. He thinks I am infringing on his set of powers, which he has been misusing for quite some time. He remarks there is no point challaning small time hawkers and paanwals, unless bigger offenders are booked, too. ( 9 ) MR. ARUN Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the respondent/contemnor was heard on 5th April, 2005 and 9th May, 2005. Mr. Bhardwaj submitted that the respondent is a religious man devoted to public service. He remarks there is no point challaning small time hawkers and paanwals, unless bigger offenders are booked, too. ( 9 ) MR. ARUN Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the respondent/contemnor was heard on 5th April, 2005 and 9th May, 2005. Mr. Bhardwaj submitted that the respondent is a religious man devoted to public service. He had no intention to lower the dignity of the Court and irrespective of the contents of the reply affidavit filed earlier, respondent was tendering his unconditional apology vide his affidavit dated 5th April, 2005. ( 10 ) RESPONDENT in reply affidavit filed, denied the allegations, as wrong and sought to justify his conduct by submitting that it was the Special Metropolitan Magistrate, who asked him to sit on the chair on the dais and thereupon a mild discussion had taken place with regard to the quantum of fine. Respondent denied that he uttered the words attributed to him but did not spell out as to what he had stated. The version of events, as set out by the Special Metropolitan Magistrate in his affidavit has already been noted. To recapitulate, on his daily round, respondent found that 100-150 persons standing on the road and on enquiry, he was told that the Special Metropolitan Magistrate was holding the Court and was issuing challans for alleged violation of DMC Act at Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 3,000/- per case. It would appear that it was a Mobile Court being conducted next to the road. Respondent, it appears, took up the cudgels on behalf of those, who were being fined. In these circumstances, the version of the Special Metropolitan Magistrate that the Municipal Councillor, who was there with his supporters, took and occupied the seat next to him, appears credible rather than drawing an inference that the Special Metropolitan Magistrate invited the respondent to hold the Court along with him and one ASI. I am unable to subscribe to this conclusion. The Special Metropolitan Magistrate could not have visualized that extension of an elementary courtesy to an elected representative would result in a harrowing and humiliating experience of brazen interference in Court proceedings. The mere presence of the ASI, in the proceedings, when challans are presented and the Municipal Councillor, who, as per the Special Metropolitan Magistrate, of his own occupied the chair next to him. The mere presence of the ASI, in the proceedings, when challans are presented and the Municipal Councillor, who, as per the Special Metropolitan Magistrate, of his own occupied the chair next to him. It is also to be noted that this is a Mobile Court, which is being held, hence, there may not be any dais or podium. ( 11 ) RESPONDENT admits occupying the seat next to the Special Metropolitan Magistrate and telling the Special Metropolitan Magistrate not to levy heavy fines or for that matter having a mild discussion on the quantum of fine. This deflects the course of justice and amounts to contempt. Respondent has accordingly, obstructed and inteferred with the due course of justice and in lowering the dignity of the Court. This is the position even if the incident of 1st August, 2003, as claimed by the Special Metropolitan Magistrate, was ignored. ( 12 ) IN these circumstances, there can be no doubt, especially, in view of the unconditional apology tendered that the respondent, who is the Municipal Councillor, disrupted and interfered with the Court proceedings on 16th July, 2003. Respondent/contemnor, who is an elected representative of the people cannot be said to be ignorant or oblivious of the legitimate legal remedies available against imposition of unconscionable and unwarranted heavy fines. The remedy is certainly not to obstruct the judicial proceedings, assuming there was any grievance. Law cannot permit interference or obstruction in the course of judicial functioning. In case, this is permitted, it would be the very negation of the rule of law. In the present case, respondent claims that he was offered a seat next to the Magistrate, while the latter has sworn that it was an act of the respondent himself, who occupied the next seat and sat down. Disruption in Court proceedings either by sitting next to the Judge or asking the staff to leave or having a mild discussion on quantum of fine, would certainly be interference with the judicial proceedings and an act of contempt, which cannot be countenanced. ( 13 ) IT is apparent from the admitted course of events that this situation had been brought about primarily on account of the acts of the respondent/contemnor. Respondent has tendered his unconditional apology, as noted earlier. Paras 1 and 2 of the said affidavit dated 5th April, 2005 are reproduced below for the facility of reference: 1. ( 13 ) IT is apparent from the admitted course of events that this situation had been brought about primarily on account of the acts of the respondent/contemnor. Respondent has tendered his unconditional apology, as noted earlier. Paras 1 and 2 of the said affidavit dated 5th April, 2005 are reproduced below for the facility of reference: 1. THAT the deponent has highest regards for the rule of law and for this Hon ble Court and all Hon ble Courts in general. The deponent hereby submits and tenders his sincere, unqualified and unconditional apology to this Hon ble Court for the acts which form the basis of the present criminal contempt pending before this Hon ble Court. 2. That the deponent respectfully submits that he shall take all possible steps to ensure that such a situation is not repeated and that the rule of law is followed in all instances. In view of the above averment and assurance of the respondent that he would take all possible steps to ensure that such a situation is not repeated, denial on merits is not even available to the respondent. ( 14 ) THE next question which arises for consideration is whether in this case the apology tendered by the respondent ought to be accepted or not? The legal position in this regard is fairly well settled. An apology should not be accepted unless it was really intended to be an expression of regret and penitence. It should not merely a pretext to escape the consequences. An apology must be genuine, honest and bona fide. As held by the Supreme Court in M. Y. Shareef and another Vs. Hon ble Judges of the Nagpur High Court and ors. reported at AIR 1955 Supreme Court 19, there cannot be both justification and an apology. Apology is not a weapon of defence to purge the guilty of their offence nor is it intended to operate as a universal panacea but it is intended to be evidence of real contriteness. In Mulkh Raj Vs. the State of Punjab reported at AIR 1972 Supreme Court 1197, it was held that if an apology is offered at a time when the contemnor feels that Court is going to impose punishment, it ceases to be an apology and it becomes an act of a cringing coward. In Mulkh Raj Vs. the State of Punjab reported at AIR 1972 Supreme Court 1197, it was held that if an apology is offered at a time when the contemnor feels that Court is going to impose punishment, it ceases to be an apology and it becomes an act of a cringing coward. It was held that apology should be offered at the earliest and in good course. ( 15 ) HAVING held that the action of the respondent in obstructing the judicial proceedings on 16th July, 2003, would constitute criminal contempt, the question to be considered is whether the apology tendered should be accepted and the contempt notice discharged. Considering the background of the respondent, who is an elected representative of the people, a Municipal Councillor, fully conversant with the activities of the Municipal Corporation, the offences under the DMC Act, whichwere dealt with by the Special Metropolitan Magistrate, namely, encroachments, littering, covering of public street and place etc. , it cannot be said that the respondent was a naive person, who did not comprehend the consequences of interference in judicial proceedings. Rather, it would appear to be the act of an elected representative of the people, conscious of the authority and power which he wields attempting to browbeat and influencing a Judicial Officer to desist from exercising his functions without fear and favour by not imposing fines on his constituents, which are considered heavy by him. It is brazen inference in performance of the duties of a Judge and/or in the judicial process. The rationale for punishing such actions in contempt is given in the following observations of the Supreme Court in Advocate General, State of Bihar Vs. M/s. Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries and another reported at (1980) 3 Supreme Court Cases 311. It may be necessary to punish as a contempt, a course of conduct which abuses and makes a mockery of the judicial process and which thus extends it pernicious influence beyond the parties to the action and affects the interest of the public in the administration of justice. It may be necessary to punish as a contempt, a course of conduct which abuses and makes a mockery of the judicial process and which thus extends it pernicious influence beyond the parties to the action and affects the interest of the public in the administration of justice. The Court has the power to commit for contempt of court, not in order to protect the dignity of the court against insult or injury as the expression contempt of court may seem to suggest, but to protest and to vindicate the right of the public that the administration of justice shall not be prevented, prejudiced, obstructed or interfered with. It is a mode of vindicating the majesty of law, in its active manifestation against obstruction and outrage. ( 16 ) THE Supreme Court in Bineet Kumar Singh s case reported at (2001) 5 Supreme Court Cases 501 noted that the law of contempt is essentially meant for keeping the administration of justice pure and undefiled. It has to be ensured that the stream of justice remains pure and its course is not hindered or obstructed in any manner, that justice is delivered without fear or favour. The sole object of the Court wielding its power to punish for contempt is always for the course of administration of justice. ( 17 ) IN determining the punishment to be administered for contempt, the Court is not to be vindictive or harsh. Imposition of symbolic or minimum punishment should not at the same time, result in encouraging the wrong doer. A message must go to the contemnor that the Court will brook no interference in administration of justice and judicial proceedings. In the instant case, it may also be noted that the apology did not come in the first instance, rather, it has come nearly after one year and three months of the issuance of notice, at a stage, when the matter was ripe for disposal. The perusal of the proceedings shows that the respondent during the course of contempt proceedings was present personally six times out of the total fifteen hearings, while the case had been adjourned at the request of the respondent/contemnor or his counsel nine times. No advantage, therefore, on account of prolongation of proceedings can accrue to the respondent/contemnor. The perusal of the proceedings shows that the respondent during the course of contempt proceedings was present personally six times out of the total fifteen hearings, while the case had been adjourned at the request of the respondent/contemnor or his counsel nine times. No advantage, therefore, on account of prolongation of proceedings can accrue to the respondent/contemnor. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the respondent is guilty of contempt punishable under Section 2 (c) and the apology should not result in discharge of the contempt notice. The apology tendered by him can at best be an extenuating factor along with another aspect which is being discussed hereinafter. The Special Metropolitan Magistrate failed to exercise the requisite judicial restraint by offering his views to the media in respect of discharge of his judicial functions and the alleged illegal activities of the respondent. It is not for a Judicial Officer to levy allegations in the media against third parties, which touch upon the discharge of his judicial functions. However, it is for the respondent, if aggrieved, by any imputation considered to be defamatory, to avail of his remedy at law. In these circumstances, I direct that a copy of this judgment be placed in the record of the Special Metropolitan Magistrate maintained in this Court. In view of the foregoing discussion, considering the apology tendered, though belatedly, and the above extenuating circumstance, as discussed, the ends of justice in this case would be sub served by punishing and sentencing the respondent/contemnor till the rising of the Court i. e. till 4. 15 p. m. and imposing a fine of Rs. 2,000/- to be deposited with the Delhi Legal Services Authority within a week. Ordered accordingly. I have read the post-script added by my learned brother R. S. Sodhi, J. to his judgment of 31st may,2005. . Some additions, corrections regarding the number of hearings and proceedings and rearrangement of paragraphs was done in the draft circulated. Barring the above, the basic content, substance, authorities as cited and quoted, rationale and the conclusion remained same. In these circumstances, it ought not to have been described as a changed judgment which has a different connotation. As for the perception of my learned brother of the apology being extracted, I refrain from joining issue, being matter of record. --- *** --- .