The below Delhi HC judgment also limits the powers of courts to haul up litigants under criminal contempt of court.
————————————————————
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Date of Reserve: 2.9.2008
Date of Order: 8.9.2008
CCP (Ref) No. 9/2008
Court On Its Own Motion … Petitioner
Versus
Sunil Seth and Ors. … Respondents
1. This reference for contempt has been placed before me for
consideration. The
reference was sent by MM Patiala House through District Judge wherein he
has prayed
that this Court, if deems fit, should take cognizance of criminal
contempt against the
respondents Shri Sunil Seth, Smt. Kanchan Seth, Shri Surender Seth, Smt.
Bindu Khanna
and their Counsel Shri Rubinder Ghumman and Ms. Anu Mehta. The cause for
sending
reference to this Court was pendency of a criminal complaint filed by
Ms. Rashmi Seth
w/o Shri Sunil Seth before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate against
all her in-laws
against whom the Court has prayed for taking cognizance of contempt of
Court.
2. During pendency of the case, the trial Court passed an order of bail
of the inlaws.
While he directed the other in-laws to be released on executing personal
bond and
surety bond of Rs.20,000/- each, in respect of husband he passed an
order for his release
on executing personal bond and surety bond of Rs.50,000/- with the
result he had to
remain in jail for sometime as surety for this heavy amount could not be
arranged. There
were other circumstances, by which the husband and his family were
aggrieved and they
made an application of transfer of the criminal case from the Court of
this MM to some
other MM. In the transfer application allegations of bias were made
against the learned
MM quoting certain orders of the learned MM. The learned MM was informed
about the
moving of this transfer application by the respondents. The learned MM
after considering
the application made by the accused persons for transfer has made this
reference.
3. The learned MM seems to have spent a lot of time in framing this
reference
petition which runs into 37 pages and annexures to the reference run
into another more
than 100 pages. After perusal of the entire reference I find the
reference is not worth the
paper wasted by the learned MM on it. I find no imputation had been made
against the
learned MMs Court but of bias which was inferred from the orders passed
by him. It is
surprising that the learned MM should have sent this reference of
contempt only on the
allegations of bias made against him. However, on perusal of this
reference, I feel that the
learned MM definitely seems to be biased in favour of the wife and
against the husband
and other in-laws. Otherwise, there was no reason for him to get
provoked for sending
this reference, so that the family members of the husband are called by
this Court in
criminal contempt, despite the fact that no person insinuation was made
against him.
4. I consider it is a right of every litigant, who is facing proceeding
in a Court, that
justice should not only be done but should also seem to be done and if a
litigant feels that
what he was seeing was not justice but injustice, he has a right to move
transfer
application and if bias is inferred from the orders passed by the Court,
the Court has no
reason to send a reference for criminal contempt. This reference is
rejected. There is no
ground to summon the respondents. A copy of this order be sent to the
District Judge,
Delhi. A copy of this order be also sent to the Inspecting Judge of the
learned MM and to
Honble the Chief Justice.
Sd./-
September 8, 2008 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.