PRESEDENT OF INDIA Vs. BALWAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These contempt proceedings have been initiated against Balwan Singh (hereinafter referred to as "the contemner") on the basis of notice dated 3/8/1996 issued in pursuance of the direction contained in the order dated 12/7/1996 passed by the court in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 296 of 1993. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows. Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India

(2.) Jugti Ram and Bhura Ram are brothers. They were having 300 bighas of land in their joint khata in Village Farmana in District Rohtak in the State of Haryana. 150 bighas of the said land belonged to Jugti Ram. Jugti Ram has eight daughters, three from his first wife Smt Sarti and five daughters from his second wife, Smt Birmati, the petitioner in the aforementioned writ petition. The contemner is the son of Bhura Ram and was the Sarpanch of Village Farmana. The writ petition was filed by Smt Birmati in this court with the allegation that one Shamsher Singh had kidnapped her two minor daughters, Geeta and Seema, and was keeping them in illegal confinement. On the basis of orders passed by this court the said two daughters of Smt Birmati were recovered by the police. In the writ petition Smt Birmati was being supported by Mahila Dakshita Samiti (for short "the Samiti") , a voluntary organisation. An application for directions (Crmp No. 240 of 1994) was filed in the writ petition wherein it was stated that Mrs Vinay Bhardwaj, secretary of the Samiti, had been threatened by Shri Anand Singh Dangi and the contemner and it was prayed that appropriate action be taken against them for their blatant attempts to interfere with the administration of justice. The said application was accompanied by the affidavit of Smt Bhardwaj dated 15/1 /1994 wherein it was stated that on 30/11/1993 Shri Anand Singh Dangi requested her to meet him at Haryana Bhavan at New Delhi and that she met him there and that at that time the contemner was also present and had demanded that Smt Birmati and her three daughters, Geeta, Rekha and Seema, be handed over to him to which Smt Bhardwaj refused. In the said affidavit Smt Bhardwaj also stated that there was another meeting between her and Shri Anand Singh Dangi and the contemner on 7/1/1994 at the Samiti Office at 19, Fire Brigade Lane, Connaught Place, New Delhi and in the said meeting Shri Anand Singh Dangi suggested that the case pending in this court be withdrawn and the three girls be handed over to the contemner who would be their guardian and Smt Bhardwaj was also threatened by Shri Anand Singh Dangi who stated that this court cannot pass any order as regards the land and even if it does they shall ensure that it is not implemented and that no one can sell the land nor cultivate it without his approval. Notices were issued to Shri Anand Singh Dangi and the contemner and in response to the said notices counter-affidavits were filed by Shri Anand Singh Dangi as well as the contemner. In their counter-affidavits they admitted the two meetings with Smt Vinay Bhardwaj but denied any high-handed acts of intimidation as alleged by her. In the circumstances this court, by order dated 26/4/1994, directed Shri Dharmendra Kumar, Deputy Commissioner of Police of the area where the Samiti's premises are situate, to conduct an investigation into the matter and submit a report as to the correctness and probabilities of the situation. The contemner as well as Shri Anand Singh Dangi and other persons whose involvement was alleged by Smt Bhardwaj were directed to appear before Shri Dharmendra Kumar (who had been appointed as Commissioner of the court) and to assist him in the investigation. In pursuance of the said order Shri Dharmendra Kumar, after recording the statements of Smt Bhardwaj and the witnesses produced by her as well as the statements of Shri Anand Singh Dangi, the contemner and their witnesses, has submitted his report dated 24/5/1994. A copy of the said report was forwarded to Shri Anand Singh Dangi as well as the contemner. The contemner filed his affidavit dated 28/11/1994 setting out his submissions on the said report. On 12/5/1996, the court, after satisfying primafacie that a case is made out for issuing a notice to the contemner for having committed criminal contempt by interfering with the proceedings pending before this court, directed that notice be issued to the contemner requiring him to show cause why he be not punished for contempt of this court. In pursuance of the said direction notice has been issued to the contemner and contempt proceedings have been initiated. In response to the said notice the contemner has filed his affidavit dated 20/9/1996.

(3.) We have heard Shri Hardev Singh, the learned Senior Counsel, for the contemner.