SUDHIR CHONA Vs. SHAHNAZ HUSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A shop at 31-A Khan Market is at the root of controversy. Petitioner-landlord executed an agreement dated 13/3/1993 for letting out a portion of it to respondent. Later differences cropped up between them and respondent filed suit no.1768/1993 for specific performance and for award of compensation of Rs.9.5 lacs. Petitioner defended the suit and also set up a counter claim of Rs.7.42 lacs against respondent. The suit is pending in this court and both parties have been ordered to maintain status quo in respect of suit property. Apart from the suit, parties have also taken recourse to other methods to show each other down by lodging rival complaints and other proceedings. Petitioner on his part has filed an application under Section 340 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the respondent charging him of filing the suit on fabricated and false documents. Though all this is not relevant for our purpose but one of the acts attributed to respondent in this connection forms the basis of this contempt petition. Petitioner's case is that respondent had exerted her influence in the Income-Tax Department with a view to constrain him to withdraw his counter claim and his application under Section 340 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 As a sequel thereto, proceedings were taken against him by Income-tax Authorities and while contesting these, he was threatened with extreme penalty and told by one of the I.T.Os, Mr.R.C.Bakshi that all this was being done against him at the instance of respondent. He was also threatened by respondent to withdraw his counter claim and petition under Section 340 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and that respondent had also passed a copy of his counter claim to the Income-Tax Authority. All this, he claims, was designed to pressurise and deter him from pursuing his judicial remedies thus constituting a criminal contempt. He, however, admits in the same breath that he had lodged a complaint against ITO Bakshi in which FIR was registered and action taken against him. L/C for petitioner Ms.Chopra submitted that respondent was an influential lady and adopting various methods and tactics to threaten and pressurise petitioner to dissuade and deter him from taking recourse to judicial remedies. She has also referred to excerpts from some tape recorded conversation between petitioner and ITO Bakshi to show that Income-Tax Authorities had proceeded against him at respondent's instance thus causing interference with the judicial process and administration of justice.

(2.) Respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit denying all allegations. She says that the boot was on the other leg and it was the other way round that petitioner was adopting different pressure tactics to compel her to withdraw the suit. She denies that she had approached the Income-Tax Authorities for taking any action against petitioner who was using this as a ploy to derive undue advantage in a malafide exercise. Mr.Neeraj Malhotra, representing respondent submitted that this petition was barred by limitation and even on merits petitioner had not disclosed or established any act which either scandalises the court or lowers its authority or interfered with any judicial proceedings or process or tended to do so. A contempt of court may be constituted by any act or conduct which lowers and undermines the authority of the court or tends to do so or which brings the administration of justice into disrespect and disrepute. Contempt of Court's Act, 1971 defines it as a civil and criminal contempt. While civil contempt is an offence of private nature depriving a party of the benefit of the court order, criminal contempt is contumacious or obstructive conduct or behaviour directed against the court and involves an element of criminality in it. It is despising, undermining and eroding the authority of the court and is punishable to protect and safeguard the public faith in the administration of justice. Section 2(c) of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 defines criminal contempt as publication of any matter or doing of any other act whatsoever which (i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of court; or (ii) prejudices or interferes or tends to interfere with due course of any judicial proceedings; or (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner."

(3.) An analysis of this definition would show that the publication of any matter or doing of any other act whatsoever must fall in any one of these categories to constitute a criminal contempt. In other words, the act complained of must tend to scandalise the court or scandalise it, prejudice the due course of judicial proceedings or te,ndLto interfere with it or interfere with the administration of justice and cause obstruction in it in any manner. The Supreme Court dealing with this in Delhi Judicial Service Association. Tis Hazari Court Vs. State of Gujarat. AIR 1991 SC 2176 observed thus:-