SWATI ACHARYA Vs. ARUNA SURESH AND ANOHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 215 of the Con- stitution of India whereby the petitioners pray that proceed- ings for Contempt of Court be initiated against the first respondent, who is the Additional Sessions Judge, and the second respondent, who is one of the persons against whom the first petitioner lodged a First Information Report, being No.733/95, regarding commission of offences under Sections 114, 120-B, 506, 376/511 Indian Penal Code with Police Station, Janakpuri, New Delhi. The facts relevant for the disposal of the peti- tion are as follows:-

(2.) Two actions have been attributed to the first respondent which according to the petitioners amount to Con- tempt of Court: i) The first respondent on 7/4/1997 issued bailable warrants against the petitioners in the sum of Rs.3000.00 alongwith notices under Section 350 of the Code of Criminal Code for their non-appearance in the Court with a view to secure their presence even before framing of charges against the accused in gross violation of the procedure laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure; and ii) On 15/7/1997 when the petitioners appeared before the first respon- dent, she started scolding & threatening them and asked them to withdraw the complaint, and told them that if they do so, they will receive a sum of Rs.7 lakhs from the second respon- dent. When the petitioners refused to accept the offer made by the first respondent, they were harassed, humiliated and ill treated by her. The petitioners having become nervous due to aggressive behaviour of the first respondent, requested for an adjournment to consider the offer. On the next date when the petitioners appeared before the first respondent, she offered a draft of Rs.1 lakh to the peti- tioners with the promise that the balance sum of Rs.6 lakhs shall be paid to them at a later date. On the refusal of the petitioners to accept the offer, they were again threatened and humiliated by the first respondent.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. It appears to us that in consonance with the deci- sion of this Court in Anil Kumar Gupta vs. K. Suba Rao and another ILR (1974) 1 Delhi 2, the office, in first instance, ought not to have listed the matter before us on the judicial side. The petition should have been placed before the Chief Justice in Chamber for orders and it was for the Chief Jus- tice to decide either by himself or in consultation with other Judges of the Court whether to take cognizance of the information contained in the petition. It is significant to note that this petition has neither been filed by the Stand- ing Counsel for the State nor the petitioners have taken consent in writing of the Standing Counsel for filing the same under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. According to the said provision, the Supreme Court and a High Court can take action either on its own motion or the motion made by the Advocate General or any other person with the consent in writing of the Advocate General. However, in relation to the High Court of Delhi, it is the Standing Coun- sel for the State who has been authorised for this purpose. In Anil Kumar (supra) it has been pointed out that whether it is a petition under the Contempt of Courts Act or Article 215 of the Constitution where the informant is not one of the persons named in Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, the same should be placed before the Chief Justice for orders in Chamber and the Chief Justice may decide himself or in consultation with the other Judges of the Court whether to take any cognizance of the information. At this stage, it will be convenient to set out the observations of this Court:-