AMARJEET SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 11.10.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge thereby rejecting the petitioner's application for taking action against the respondent under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short the 'Act').

(2.) Briefly stated, facts leading to this petition are that FIRNo. 1265/1998, under Section 406, IPC was lodged by respondent No. 7 herein at Police Station Defence Colony, New Delhi. The petitioner who was cited as accused in the case, applied for anticipatory bail. Arguments on the said application were heard on 7.3.2000. A perusal of order dated 7.3.2000 reveals that on behalf of the petitioner it was argued that the complainant and her husband who is younger brother of the petitioner had stayed with the petitioner till 1997 and thereafter separated and no Stridhan articles remained with the petitioner and he has been falsely implicated under Section 406, IPC. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned P.P. that the complainant's husband remained with the petitioner up to October, 1998. It was also submitted from prosecution side that another case under Section 406, IPC has been registered at P.S. Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi vide FIR No. 1039/98. After considering rival contentions advanced on both sides, learned Additional Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner vide order dated 7.3.2000. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application dated 15.3.2000 seeking initiation of Contempt of Court proceedings against the complainant, her husband and some other persons. Ground taken in the application was that during the hearing of arguments on the application for anticipatory bail on 7.3.2000 various mis-statements of facts were made with intention to obstruct the course of justice. This application was disposed of by learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide impugned order dated 11.10.2000. In the impugned order learned Additional Sessions Judge noted that, it appears that the I.O. and the complainant had made a false statement in the Court at the time of hearing of the application for anticipatory bail on 7.3.2000, for which they can be suitably dealt with under the provisions of Indian Penal Code so there is no need to invoke the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this revision.

(3.) The petitioner who argued the petition himself cited several decisions of the High Court as well as of Supreme Court dealing with the subject of Contempt of Court. Special reference was made to the case of Murray and Co. v. Ashok Kr. Newatia and Anr., I (2000) SLT 550=2000(1) SCALE 251, wherein it was held that filing false affidavit in the Courts amounts to criminal contempt. In the present case it is not the petitioner's case that any false affidavit or statement on oath was made before the Court at the time of hearing of the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner. The petitioner pointed out following two mis-statements of facts made by the prosecution side, (1) that the complainant and her husband lived with the petitioner till October, 1998, (2) that another case vide FIR No. 1039/98, under Section 406, IPC, P.S. Lajpat Nagar is pending against the petitioner. According to the petitioner he had already severed all connections with his brother in the year 1997 itself and the other case FIRNo. 1039/98, P.S. Lajpat Nagar, Delhi, had already been cancelled. Thus, according to the petitioners these mis-statements of facts were deliberately made on behalf of the prosecution side with a view to cause prejudice in the mind of the Court thereby inducing the Court to give verdict against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, these mis-statements of facts were intended to interfere/obstruct the course of justice which amounts to criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2(C) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which reads as under: (2) Definitions In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,