Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a petition filed by an advocate under Section 4821 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) seeking direction to register the FIR in the present case against the respondents, which included two advocates and four judicial officers, claiming that they had grabbed public property in collusion with each other by misusing their positions, a Single Judge Bench of N.S. Shekhawat, J., rejected the petition holding that the petitioner’s allegations were vague and baseless and he was guilty of undermining the dignity of the Court. The Court also directed the petitioner to deposit Rs 25,000 with the PGI Poor Patient Welfare Fund, Chandigarh, within two months.
The Court noted that the petitioner made a vague averment that the respondents grabbed the public property in collusion with each other by misusing their official position in the judiciary. However, in the entire petition, he failed to mention details of any property. Further, he vaguely alleged that the respondent judicial officers decided the cases of other respondents in an expeditious manner. The petitioner also falsely alleged that even members of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana were acting at the dictates of respondent lawyers without mentioning any detailed particulars and seemingly aimed at maligning the members of the Bar Council.
Regarding the contention that the petitioner did not file a complaint as the DGP of Orissa was related to one of the respondents, the Court noted that neither had any information been provided about which respondent the DGP was related to nor had the DGP been impleaded.
The Court stated several other sensational and baseless allegations were levelled against the respondents. Further, it was apparent from the bare perusal of the petition that the petitioner made veiled, intemperate and frivolous allegations against several judicial officers.
The Court remarked that there was a rising tendency to malign a judicial officer’s reputation by the disgruntled elements, who failed to secure an order that they desired, and it was high time that serious note was taken of the same. No litigant could be permitted to browbeat the Court. The Court stated that the petitioner attempted an arrogant and contemptuous attitude, but the dignity of the Court was not so brittle that it shatters with a stone thrown by a madman.
Thus, the Court held that the petitioner was guilty of undermining the dignity of the Court, and his action was motivated, deliberate, and designed.
The Court held that the averments and language used by the petitioner scandalized the Court, interfered in the administration of justice, and amounted to contempt of Court. However, at this stage, the Court was not inclined to initiate contempt proceedings against the petitioner with the hope that he would conduct himself in the future as a disciplined member of the legal fraternity and cause no embarrassment to anyone. He was also warned not to file such frivolous petitions.
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000 directed to be deposited by the petitioner with the PGI Poor Patient Welfare Fund, Chandigarh within two months. In case the amount was not deposited it shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue.
[Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana, CRM M-58284 of 2023, decided on 27-01-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: Suresh Kumar, petitioner in person
For the respondent: DAG Rajinder Kumar Banku and Amicus Curiae Jasdev Singh Mehndiratta
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
1. Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
