Delhi High Court
Court On Its Own Motion vs Roop Darshan Pandey And Ors. on 23 January, 2025
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh, Amit Sharma
$~31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 23rd January, 2025
+ CONT.CAS. (CRL) 13/2024
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Adv, Mr. Dayan
Krishnan Sr. Adv, Mr. Maninder
Singh, Sr. Adv, Mr. Rishi Agrawala,
Mr. Rahul Malhotra, Ms. Devika
Mohan, Mr. Ankit Banati, Mr.
Abhishek Anand, Ms. Manavi
Agarwal, Ms. Kashish Mathur, Ms.
Minal Kaushik, Ms. Sanjana Nair and
Mr. Rishu Kant Sharma, Advocates
for Vijay Srivastava.
versus
ROOP DARSHAN PANDEY AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Roop Darshan Pandey in person.
Ms. Anjali Sisodia for Ms. Neha Jain.
Mr. Deepak Dahiya, Advocate.
Mr. Atul Krishna, Journalist alongwith
Mr. Advait Ghosh, Advocate for The
New Indian.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
Background
2. The present contempt reference arises out of the order dated 28th
October, 2024 passed by a ld. Single Judge of this Court in CRL.M.C.
5587/2024 titled as Vijay Srivastava & Anr. v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.
The said CRL.M.C. was filed by Shri Vijay Srivastava and Hero Moto Corp.
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 1 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
Ltd. challenging the order dated 19th July, 2023 passed in Complaint Case
No.187/2024 wherein the ld. Judicial Magistrate directed registration of FIR
against the Petitioner. The said complaint was filed on 21st July, 2024, by the
contemnor Shri Roop Darshan Pandey, who was a director of Brain Logistics
Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred as ‘BLPL’).
Dispute between BLPL/Roop Darshan Pandey with Hero Moto Corp. Ltd.
3. The dispute between the contesting parties emanated out of a jobs
contract dated 1st October, 2001 signed with BLPL, for providing manpower
services at the spare parts division of the Petitioner company, which at the
relevant point of time was referred as Hero Honda Motors Ltd. (‘HHML’) and
now known as Hero MotoCorp Ltd. (hereinafter referred as ‘HML’). The said
contract was terminated on 30th March, 2010, on account of relations turning
sore between the parties. The said agreement dated 1st December, 2005
contained an arbitration clause 24. The same was invoked by BLPL, by
issuing notice dated 27th April, 2010. The Petitioner also changed their name
from Hero Honda Motors Ltd. to Hero MotoCorp Ltd sometime in the year
2011.
4. Late Hon’ble Justice H.S. Bedi (Retd.) of the Supreme Court was
appointed as the Sole Arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes between the
parties on 27th April, 2012. The ld. Sole Arbitrator had rendered the award
dated 20th May, 2018, which has been challenged before the Punjab &
Haryana High Court. Vide the said arbitral award ld. Arbitrator awarded to
BLPL, a sum of Rs.70,00,000/- towards short payments and interest @6% p.a.
from April, 2010+Rs.1,25,000/- service charge along with interest @6% p.a.
from March, 2010.
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 2 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
5. This contractual dispute, however, has unfolded into a plethora of
criminal cases between the parties. Various allegations were raised by BLPL
against HML and its officials. Various FIRs were sought to be registered
raising allegations related to certain documents and certain PF issues. One
such criminal complaint filed by BLPL against the company is Complaint
Case No.187/2024. In the said case, vide order dated 19th July, 2024, the ld.
Magistrate, Karkardooma Court directed registration of FIR within three days.
The said order was passed on Friday and the FIR was to be registered on
Monday i.e., on 22nd July, 2024.
6. The company HML and one of its officials filed a petition for quashing
being CRL.M.C.5587/2024 before this Court. In view of the urgency that an
FIR would be registered in three days, the petition was sought to be mentioned
for urgent listing by counsel for the Petitioners. Advance intimation of the
same was given by an email on 22nd July, 2024 itself in the morning that the
matter would be mentioned. Considering the advocate on record in the matter,
the matter could not have been mentioned before the extant DB-I and the
mentioning is stated to have been done before DB-II. Once mentioning was
done, the Court (DB-II) had allowed the listing of the matter on the same day
subject to office objections.
7. On 22nd July, 2024, notice was issued in CRL.M.C.5587/2024 and an
interim order was also passed by which the order of the ld. Magistrate dated
19th July, 2023 was stayed. The relevant portion of the order has been
extracted below:
“1. Matter has been listed by way of the ‘Supplementary
List’ and has been taken up in the post lunch session.
2. By way of present petition, the petitioners seek
quashing and setting aside of the order datedSignature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 3 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
19.07.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Complaint Case
187/2024 titled as ‘Brains Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Vijay
Srivastav and Ors.’ whereby a direction has been given
to register an FIR in pursuance of an application filed
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the
complainant/respondent No.2.
3. Learned Senior Counsels for the petitioners contend
that the dispute pertains to an underlying Job Contract
Agreement and a Supplementary Job Agreement both
dated 01.10.2001 executed between the parties initially
for a period of two years. Subsequently, in the year
2010, on account of relations turning sore between the
parties, the Agreements were terminated, resulting in
arbitration proceedings and passing of the arbitral
award. It is next contended that the application filed by
the complainant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. pertains
to fabrication, and forgery of the PF challans
concerning which, the present petitioners had already
lodged an FIR No.842/2013 under Sections 120-
B/418/420/467/468/471 IPC at P.S. Gurugram against
the respondent/complainant in which the charges were
framed against the complainant and its Director on
27.03.2018. Further, a challenge to the FIR by the
complainant vide CRM-M No.25759 of 2021 was
dismissed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court at
Chandigarh vide order dated 03.12.2021. A challenge
to the same, vide SLP (Crl) No. 808 of 2022 also came
to be dismissed by the Supreme Court on 07.02.2022.
4. It is also stated that FIR No.303/2023 registered
under Sections 463/467/468/471/34/477A/120B/406
IPC at P.S. Vasant Kunj North was filed by the
complainant against the petitioners and its Director
which has been stayed by this Court vide order dated
12.10.2023 passed in CRL.M.C.7480/2023.
Further, the complainant has also lodged another case
being FIR No.6/2013 at P.S. Shakarpur, Delhi alleging
fabrication of wages register of workmen,Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 4 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
misappropriation of wages, fabrication of PF challans
in which a closure report has been filed twice by the
police.
5. On the strength of above facts, learned Senior
Counsels contend that the impugned order has been
passed without due application of mind with respect to
an application alleging same set of allegations
concerning of forging, manufacturing PF challans. The
complaint is not only motivated but also highly belated.
6. Issue notice.
7. Learned APP for the State accepts notice.
8. Let the notice be also issued to respondent No.2 by all
permissible modes, returnable on 30.09.2024.
9. In the meantime, the directions contained in the
impugned order for registration of FIR shall remain
stayed, if not already acted upon.”
The passing of the stay order is stated to have been intimated by HML’s
counsel to the Respondents on 22nd July, 2024 itself by two emails, one
around 4.45 pm and the second email after 8 pm, when the copy of the order
was received by ld. Counsel.
8. In respect of the said petition, various attempts were made by the
Respondents raised baseless allegations against the Petitioner. Vide email
dated 18th September, 2024 a legal notice was then served upon HML by a
law firm called M/s. CPS Legal from its email address [email protected]. In
the said notice, which is undated, various allegations were made by the said
law firm representing BLPL to the following effect:
(i) That HML was indulging in forum shopping;
(ii) That the mentioning before DB-II was in defiance of the Roster
as mentioning could only be done before the DB-I;
(iii) That allowing the petition to be listed subject to office objections
means that all objections were to be cleared but variousSignature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 5 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
objections were, in fact, not cleared;
(iv) Allegations were made against the Registry that it was
manipulated;
(v) That the Registry ignored the endorsement made by DB-II at the
time of mentioning and the case was listed as it is which was
contrary to the noting which allowed the listing, subject to the
office objections;
(vi) That false declaration was made by HML due to which the
Registry generated the supplementary cause list thereby listing
the matter in Court No.30 on 22nd July, 2024;
(vii) That an email was sent on behalf of HML at 4:48 p.m. whereas
the order was uploaded by the Court only at 8:10 p.m.;
9. A perusal of the notice reveals that the notice is undated and is attached
to an email dated 18th September, 2024. It does not give the name of the
lawyer who has signed the notice. The names of the lawyers who were part of
the firm are not reflected on the letter head. The bar council registration
numbers of the lawyers are also not mentioned. The e-mail and the attachment
are extracted here for perusal:
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 6 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
The legal notice itself is relevant and is extracted below:
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 7 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 8 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 9 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 10 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 11 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 12 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 13 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 14 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 15 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 16 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 17 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
10. The notice reveals that allegations were made regarding the mentioning
of the matter and the Registry’s clearing of defects and the listing of the
matter. Having perused this notice, on 3rd October, 2024, an application was
then filed by HML seeking to place on record the said email dated 18th
September, 2024 along with the notice. The said application was listed on 23 rd
September, 2024 and was thereafter taken up by the Court on 3rd October,
2024. On the said date, the Court noticed that Mr. Roop Darshan Pandey has
signed every page of the notice. It was also argued that the notice is
contemptuous against the High Court and casts aspersions on the Registry.
The said notice was also published on the online news media platform ‘The
New Indian’ authored by Mr. Atul Krishna on 23rd September, 2024 on the
‘X’ handle (previously known as ‘Twitter’) of ‘The New Indian’. It was urged
on behalf of the Company that the publication of this legal notice was also an
attempt to scandalize the Court. The Court on the said date came to the prima
facie conclusion that the allegations were malicious and contemptuous. The
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 18 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
observations of the Court are as under:
“16. This Court has perused the contents made in the
undated legal notice. During the course of proceedings,
the learned senior counsel for the applicant/petitioner
no. 2 handed over a copy of a news article dated 23rd
September, 2024 published by one Mr. Atul Krishna on
an online news media platform namely “The New
Indian”. He also handed over a copy of the post
published on the handle of “The New Indian” on “X”
(formerly known as Twitter). The said documents are
taken on record.
17. Upon perusal of the contents of the above said
notice, as well as the contents of the news article dated
23rd September, 2024 and post made on “X” (formerly
known as Twitter), it is made out that prima facie the
same contains malicious and contemptuous allegations
which not only seek to scandalise, interfere with the
administration of justice, but also makes false
assertions, cast aspersions on the entire institution and
the Registry of the High Court, and therefore, lower the
dignity and authority of the High Court. In light of the
same, this Court is of the view that the contents made in
the said notice makes serious allegations against the
Registry of the High Court by stating that the petitioner
has allegedly manipulated the Registry of the High
Court by tactics and misrepresentation.
18. It is observed by this Court that the non-
applicant/respondent no. 2 in the said legal notice stated
that the Predecessor Bench, in its order dated 22nd July,
2024, has “presumed” certain facts while passing the
directions in the said order. This Court is shocked at the
conduct of the respondent no. 2, whereby, it has alleged
that the Court has passed the directions in the said order
on the basis of presumptions and the same amounts to
making of contemptuous remarks against the High
Court and the entire institution.”
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 19 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
11. Notice was issued to ‘The New Indian’ and ‘X’ platform. Thereafter on
28th October, 2024, the Court after hearing parties observed that the aforesaid
act of Respondent No.2-Brain Logistics Pvt. Ltd. is contemptuous and
malicious in intention and therefore action for criminal contempt be initiated
against the Respondent No.2 , The New Indian and its correspondent, Mr.
Atul Krishnan. The relevant portion of the said order is as under:
“9. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances
and material placed on record, this Court is prima facie
satisfied that acts committed by respondent no.2 of
issuing a legal notice though the counsel which contains
certain allegations which tend to not only scandalize
and interfere with the administration of justice, but also
make false assertions, cast aspersions on the Delhi High
Court, and also lowers the dignity and authority of the
entire institution, ultimately affecting the judicial
system. Issuing of legal notice containing baseless
allegations against the High Court and making it
available in the public domain is an instance of
misconduct, thereby, prima facie amounting to contempt
of Court.
10. In light of the aforesaid discussions, this Court is of
the considered view that the aforesaid act of the
respondent no. 2 carries contemptuous/malicious
intention in terms of Section 15 (3) of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 and Article 215 of the Constitution of
India, and therefore, criminal contempt proceedings is
liable to be initiated against the respondent no. 2.
11. Accordingly, subject to orders of Hon’ble the Chief
Justice, list before the Division Bench on 5th November,
2024 to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against
the respondent no. 2, ‘The New Indian’ and Mr. Atul
Krishna.”
12. The present matter i.e., CONT. CAS. (CRL.)13/2024 was then listed
before this Bench on 5th November, 2024 and after considering the matter as
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 20 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
also the fact that the dispute was primarily a contractual dispute, the matter
was sent to mediation on 6th November, 2024. The relevant paragraphs of the
said order are listed below:
“7. The Court has also considered the matter and
it is clear that the entire dispute arises out of one Jobs
Contract dated 1st October 2001, which was entered
between the firm Respondent No. 2-Brains Logistics
Private Limited through its Director Mr. Roop Darshan
Pandey and the company Hero MotoCorp Limited/ Hero
Group. The said contract was terminated by the
Petitioner No. 2-Hero Motocorp Ltd. on 30th March,
2010, which resulted in an arbitral award dated 20th
May, 2018, passed by ld. Tribunal consisting of a retired
Supreme Court judge. Challenge in respect of the said
award under Section 37 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 is stated to be pending before the
Punjab and Haryana High Court being FAO(CARB)
No.12/2019.
8. Be that as it may, since these criminal disputes
and cases have arisen out of one contractual dispute,
Mr. Nayar, ld. Sr. Counsel on instructions and Mr.
Dahiya, ld. Counsel on instructions from Mr. Roop
Darshan Pandey, who is present in Court submit that
parties are willing to explore negotiation and try an
amicable resolution on the disputes.
9. Accordingly, Mr. J.P. Sengh, ld. Sr. counsel
[M:9810034286] and Mediator is appointed as a
Mediator in this matter. The ld. Mediator shall hold
mediation sessions and shall submit a report by 2:30
p.m. tomorrow.
10. In the mediation proceedings, two persons
from each side shall participate. On behalf of the
Respondents-Mr. Deepak Dahiya, Advocate along with
Mr. Roop Darshan Pandey shall participate. On behalf
of the Petitioner-Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Advocate and Mr.
Vijay Srivastava, competent official from the Petitioner
company shall participate.”
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 21 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
13. On 7th November, 2024, after considering the fact that unnecessary
allegations were made in the legal notice, the Court directed the counsels to
file an appropriate affidavit explaining their understanding of the terms
“subject to office objections”. On the said date, Mr. Roop Darshan Pandey
also informed the Court that the allegations of forum shopping were made by
him in the legal notice on the advice of his two Counsels – Mr. Deepak Dahiya
and Mr. Mohit Yadav. In view of the same, the Court directed as under:
“4. Further, in pursuance to the direction issued
by the Court yesterday in the present matter, Mr. Mohit
Yadav, Advocate who had addressed the legal notice
along with e-mail dated 18th September, 2024 is present
today. He tenders an apology to the Court.
5. The language in the legal notice compels this
Court to direct Mr. Dahiya and Mr. Yadav to file an
affidavit explaining the meaning of the terms “subject to
office objections”, qua which in the legal notice
allegations have been made against the Registry of this
Court as well.
6. Mr. Dayan Krishnan, learned Senior Advocate
has further pointed out the allegations made in the said
legal notice in paragraph nos. 3 and 4. Petitioner no.1-
Mr. Roop Darshan Pandey, who is present in Court
states upon being queried as to how he acquired
knowledge of the Roster and why he made allegations of
forum shopping, he states that he consulted with the
lawyers Mr. Dahiya and Mr. Yadav. Let both the
Counsels file an affidavit in this regard.
7. In addition, Mr. Dahiya and Mr. Yadav shall
also state in their affidavit as to what are the
compliances that have been undertaken in view of
yesterday’s order, which require the full name, the Bar
Council registration number, website details etc. to be
mentioned in every notice. Let the said affidavit be filed
by Monday i.e., 11th November, 2024.
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 22 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
8. Parties shall bring a list of all the proceedings
pending between them on the next date of hearing.”
14. As can be seen from the above, the Counsels were directed to file
affidavits and the list of all the litigations pending between the parties. On 17th
December, 2024, arguments were heard. As per the said order, Mr. Mohit
Yadav and Mr. Deepak Dahiya had both filed affidavits. Mr. Roop Darshan
Pandey had also filed an affidavit. He however did not engage any counsel to
represent him. After hearing the arguments on behalf of the HML, the two
lawyers and Mr. Pandey himself, the hearing was concluded and the matter
was listed for orders.
Submissions
15. The submissions on behalf of HML is as under:
i. Mr. Pandey has abused the process of the Courts repeatedly. He
has converted a contractual dispute into multiple criminal cases.
ii. It is highlighted that both the matters arise out of the same
contract and the same arbitration proceedings. The allegations
are also similar, i.e., use of Hero MotoCorp Limited seal for
attesting the true copy of documents which were belonging to
Hero Honda Motors Limited, the predecessor in the interest
company. The use of the said seal is stated to be only due to a
name change which took place and all the allegations in the
criminal complaint being filed are on the basis of the said true
copy attestation.
iii. Mr. Dayan Krishnan, ld. Counsel also points out that even
recently another notice has been issued by Mr. Pandey on 15 thSignature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 23 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
December, 2024 to the entire board of directors of HML, making
allegations of forgery of the Board Resolution. In this manner,
Mr. Pandey continues to harass the company as also all its
officials.
iv. The ld. Senior Counsel has also brought to the notice of the
Court, the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 11th
September, 2024, which again notes all the proceedings which
are pending and the manner in which multiple applications,
petitions, criminal complaints are being filed against the
company and its officials. The observations in the said order are
referred to.
v. It is further submitted that the entire attempt of Mr. Pandey is to
merely extort a substantial sum of money. Though, the company
is willing to pay the amount as per the Arbitral award along with
the interest, he is unwilling to take the same and is subjecting the
company and its officials to continuous harassment in this
manner.
16. Mr. Deepak Dahiya submits that he has not issued the notice and that
he is not a part of CPS Legal. It is submitted that the notice was signed by Mr.
Mohit Yadav, though, his name does not appear in the legal notice. Mr.
Dahiya submitted that from the signature, it can be deciphered that Mr. Yadav
has signed the legal notice. Mr. Dahiya submits that the unconditional
apologies have been submitted both on behalf of himself and Mr. Mohit
Yadav and the legal notice which was given has also been withdrawn.
17. Mr. Pandey himself submits that he has filed his affidavit and he does
not wish to say anything more. He further seeks to defend the email dated 15 th
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 24 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
December, 2024 to the Board of Directors on the ground that since the Board
Resolution is forged, the Board of Directors ought to have been aware of the
same.
18. On behalf of New Indian, Mr. Atul Krishnan- the journalist, and Mr.
Advait, ld. Counsel submit that the legal notice was published on the
Journalist’s Twitter account. On a query from the Court as to whether any
verification relating to the contents was done, Mr. Atul Krishnan submits that
except calling the company, no other steps was taken. He specifically states
that no checking and verification was done from the High Court Registry in
respect of allegations in the said legal notice. He also informs the Court that
he does not wish to disclose the source of the legal notice, which he wished
to keep as confidential. Finally, he submits that he unconditionally apologies
to the Court and undertakes to be careful in future whenever such publishing
is done by him.
Analysis and Conclusions
19. The Court has perused the record. It is seen that Mr. Pandey and his
company – BLPL have filed multifarious cases in various forums including
criminal complaints against HML, its directors and its promoters. The details
of the said cases are as under:
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 25 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 26 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 27 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 28 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 29 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 30 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 31 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 32 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 33 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
20. Coming to the present contempt, even after the contempt reference was
made, Mr. Pandey continued to insist on the allegations that the matter was
wrongly entertained for mentioning in DB-II and has placed on record the
Rosters of the Delhi High Court for the relevant period with an intention to
completely scandalize the Court further. There are primarily three allegations
made by BLPL and Mr. Pandey in the legal notice against the Court:
i) That the mentioning could not have been done in DB-II;
ii) That the mentioning was allowed “subject to office objections”
and therefore the Registry ought to have ensured that all objections are
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 34 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
cleared and could not have listed the matter without the clearance of all
objections;
iii) That the Registry could not have listed the matter in Court No.30
by presuming that the matter was connected to CRL.M.C. 5587/2024.
21. In the opinion of this Court, all the three allegations made by Mr.
Pandey and BLPL as also his Counsels, are completely incorrect. Firstly, as
per the usual practice in the Delhi High Court mentioning of all urgent matters
is before DB-I. However, owing to the Counsel on record in this case who has
been appearing, and who could not have appeared before DB-I, the matter had
to be mentioned before DB-II. There was nothing wrong in this procedure.
22. Insofar as the expression ‘subject to office objections’ is concerned, the
clear understanding and practice of the Court is that due to urgency, if there
are any objections raised in the scrutiny of the papers by the Registry, the
matter would be listed before the Court “subject to office objections” and the
Court would then pass directions regarding the objections or clearing of the
objections in its order. In effect, therefore, the matter would be listed despite
the objections raised by the Registry. This understanding of “subject to office
objections” is known generally to all Counsels and the Registry of this Court.
The Court had directed both the lawyers to file an affidavit explaining this
expression and in response thereto in the affidavit of Mr. Dahiya, it is stated
as under:
“2. That vide order dated 07.11.2024, this Hon’ble
court was pleased to direct the deponent to explain the
meaning of “subject to office objections”, qua which in
the legal notice allegations have been made against the
Registry of this Court as well. In this regard, it is humbly
submitted that the meaning of “subject to office
objections” is that any matter filed, can be placed beforeSignature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 35 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
the Hon’ble court with a condition that the ‘office
objections’, if any, shall be cleared in the due course as
per applicable rules, or as directed by the Hon’ble court
before which the matter is listed.”
23. Even in the affidavit of Mr. Yadav, it is stated as under:
“2. That vide order dated 07.11.2024, this Hon’ble
court was pleased to direct the deponent to explain
the meaning of “subject to office objections”, qua
which in the legal notice allegations have been made
against the Registry of this Court as well. In this
regard, it is humbly submitted that the meaning of
“subject to office objections” is that any matter filed,
can be placed before the Hon’ble court with a
condition that the ‘office objections’, if any, shall be
cleared in the due course as per applicable rules, or
as directed by the Hon’ble court before which the
matter is listed.”
24. Mr. Pandey has also filed an affidavit as under:
“6. That with great humility and unconditional apology,
the deponent submits that at the time of issuing of
subject matter legal notice, it was understood that fresh
matter approved for listing “subject to office
objections” and the Ld. Registry has raised ‘office
objections’ then the same are to be cleared in due course
of time as per applicable rules. The Deponent, humbly
submits that the ‘office objections’ to be that “any fresh
matter filed by the litigants / Ld. Counsels on which the
Ld. Registry has raised ‘office objections’ then the said
fresh case can be listed with ‘subject to office objections’
mentioned in the cause list for further directions by the
Hon’ble Court before which the matter is listed and the
‘office objections’ are to be cleared by the by the
litigants / Ld. Counsels in the due course as per
applicable rules”. It is humbly submitted that the
deponent has / had no intent to make any allegations
against the Ld. Registry of this Hon’ble Court or thisSignature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 36 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
Hon’ble Court. However, the Deponent sincerely
tenders bona fide, unconditional apology before this
Hon’ble Court.”
25. In the above affidavits it is clearly admitted by Mr. Pandey as also his
counsels that the term “subject to office objections” means that the matter can
be listed before the Court despite the objections. It is thus clear that the
allegation made in the legal notice to the contrary, that all objections had to
be removed prior to listing, was completely false to the knowledge of both the
lawyers and the client. The allegation in the legal notice was clearly to
scandalize the Court and the Registry as also to raise unnecessary doubts as
to the functioning of the Court. Moreover, even if the allegations are not
direct, allusions to wrong doing by the Court or the Registry, which is clear
from the legal notice, would also not be permissible.
26. Insofar as the third allegation is concerned i.e., that the two matters
were not connected and the Registry could not have listed the matter before
the same Bench which was hearing CRL.M.C. 5587/2024 is concerned, even
the said allegation is completely bereft of any merit. On behalf of the
Petitioners, a note has also been filed along with the comparative chart giving
the similarities between the two cases, i.e., CRL.M.Cs. 7840/2023 and
5587/2024. The Court has also perused the two petitions. A perusal of the
same would show:
i) That they arise out of the same contractual dispute between the
parties i.e., HML and BLPL;
ii) That the allegation is in respect of certain documents produced
by HML;
iii) That the allegation is about putting of a stamp of Hero Moto Corp
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 37 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
instead of Hero Honda Motors Ltd. which is alleged to be a
forgery;
iv) In CRL.M.C. 7480/2023, the allegations is in respect of
summary sheets for the year 2009-10 and in CC 187/2024 which
is the subject matter of CRL.M.C. 5587/2024. The allegations
are in respect of PF Challans for the year 2009-10.
v) The contesting parties in both the matters are the same.
27. The endorsement made by HML that CRL.M.C. 5587/2024 is
connected to the pending petition CRL.M.C. 7480/2023 which is pending
before a particular Court, is thus not a wrong statement. It does not amount to
forum shopping. In fact there is a duty cast upon any litigant to inform the
Registry of any dispute between the same parties arising out of the same
contract which may be pending. This is in order to ensure that contradictory
orders or multiple litigations are not heard on similar subject matter by
different Courts. This is also expedient in the interest of conservation of
judicial time. The allegations that there was wrong-doing by the Registry is
also thus baseless.
28. In Krishna Lal Chawla and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.,
(2021) 5 SCC 435 the Court emphasised on the importance of judicial time
and the responsibility of clients and counsels. The Court also frowned upon
filing of multiple cases relating to the same issue which leads to resource
crunch of the opposing party. The relevant portion of the judgment has been
extracted below:
“10. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees that the
right to life and liberty shall not be taken away except
by due process of law. Permitting multiple complaints
by the same party in respect of the same incident,Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 38 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
whether it involves a cognizable or private complaint
offence, will lead to the accused being entangled in
numerous criminal proceedings. As such, he would be
forced to keep surrendering his liberty and precious
time before the police and the courts, as and when
required in each case. As this Court has held
in Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah [Amitbhai Anilchandra
Shah v. CBI, (2013) 6 SCC 348 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri)
309] , such an absurd and mischievous interpretation of
the provisions of the CrPC will not stand the test of
constitutional scrutiny, and therefore cannot be adopted
by us.
xxx
22. Frivolous litigation should not become the order of
the day in India. From misusing the public interest
litigation jurisdiction of the Indian courts to abusing the
criminal procedure for harassing their adversaries, the
justice delivery system should not be used as a tool to
fulfil personal vendetta. The Indian judiciary has taken
cognizance of this issue. In 2014, this Court elucidated
as follows, the plight of a litigant caught in the cobweb
of frivolous proceedings in Subrata Roy
Sahara v. Union of India [Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union
of India, (2014) 8 SCC 470 : (2014) 4 SCC (Civ) 424 :
(2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 712] : (SCC p. 642, para 191)
“191. … One needs to keep in mind, that in the
process of litigation, there is an innocent sufferer
on the other side, of every irresponsible and
senseless claim. He suffers long drawn anxious
periods of nervousness and restlessness, whilst the
litigation is pending, without any fault on his part.
He pays for the litigation, from out of his savings
(or out of his borrowings), worrying that the other
side may trick him into defeat, for no fault of his.
He spends invaluable time briefing counsel and
preparing them for his claim. Time which he should
have spent at work, or with his family, is lost, for
no fault of his.”
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 39 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
While the Court’s ruling pertained to civil proceedings,
these observations ring true for the criminal justice
machinery as well. We note, with regret, that 7 years
hence, and there has still been no reduction in such
plight. A falsely accused person not only suffers
monetary damages but is exposed to disrepute and
stigma from society. While running from pillar to post
to find a lawyer to represent his case and arranging
finances to defend himself before the court of law, he
loses a part of himself.”
29. The Court in Buddhi Kota Subbarao v. K. Parasaran, (1996) 5 SCC
530 also observed that litigants cannot file frivolous petitions to satisfy their
whims. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:
“11. The applicant, it appears to us is labouring under
grave misconception both of law and facts and has filed
this petition unmindful of the scope of the provisions of
Section 340 CrPC as well as of Sections 191, 192 and
193 IPC. …………….
……………The course adopted by the applicant is
impermissible and his application is based on
misconception of law and facts. No litigant has a right
to unlimited drought on the court time and public money
in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he
wishes. Easy access to justice should not be misused as
a licence to file misconceived or frivolous petitions.
After giving our careful consideration to the
submissions made at the Bar as well as those contained
in the memorandum of the application, we are of the
opinion that this application is misconceived, untenable
and has no merits whatsoever. It is accordingly
dismissed.”
30. Therefore the said endorsement by HML can hardly be termed as
forum shopping and the Registry cannot be blamed in any manner for having
listed the matter before the same Bench where CRL.M.C. 7480/2023 was
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 40 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
pending. The allegations against HML and its counsels as also the Registry
was therefore completely baseless. In fact, in the affidavit of Mr. Pandey, he
continues to insist that the two matters are not connected. The relevant
paragraph of the affidavit is set out below:
“4. It is respectfully submitted that while the
‘advance’ service of the above Main Petition was
effected on the deponent through email received at
08:57 AM on 22.07.2024, the ‘index’ of the said main
petition did not mention the para 3 as follows” 3. The
present petition arises out of same dispute from
respondent no.2 which is pending adjudication before
this hon’ble court in Crl. M.C No.7480 of 2023, under
which the proceedings has been stayed by order dt.12.1
0.2023″ and the said para was only added later on by
the Petitioners who knew very well that both said
matters are completely unrelated and are subject matter
of different jurisdictions, i.e. Crl. M.C No. 7480 of 2023
at PS Vasant Kunj (North -Delhi) and Crl. M.C No.5587
of 2024 at Laxmi Nagar (East-Delhi). Further, above
referred email of advance service also mentioned that
the said matter will be mentioned before the DB-II of
this Hon’ble Court of Delhi.”
31. The language in the legal notice completely scandalises the Court and
raises baseless allegations and aspersions against the administration of justice
by the Court by raising doubts about the functioning of the Registry of this
Court. In any case, after issuance of the legal notice, special and deliberate
attempt has been made either by the lawyers or the litigant to get it published
in online platforms. The Journalist – Mr. Atul Krishna who is present has
tendered an unconditional apology. However, the fact remains that the said
notice was published on the ‘X’ (former Twitter) platform of the media
handle. Without any verification of facts, the notice was clearly leaked by Mr.
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 41 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
Pandey/BLPL not only with an intent to cause damage and harm to the
reputation of HML but with a clear intent to also lower the dignity of the Court
amongst the public. The habit of releasing pleadings and documents to the
media even before Courts have had the opportunity to consider the same is
also not acceptable as it tends to prejudice the parties and influence
independent decision-making by Courts.
32. While trying to justify the conduct in the affidavit dated 28th
November, 2024, Mr. Pandey has also tendered an apology in the following
terms:
“7. It is humbly submitted that, in light of above
background, in capacity of the authorized
representative of BLPL, the Deponent has signed the
subject matter legal notice and at my instructions, the
said legal notice was sent as an attachment of email
dated on 18.09.2024 ‘only’ to the noticee i.e. HMCL / its
directors, to seek their reply. It is once again humbly
submitted that the deponent has / had no intent to make
any allegations against the Ld. Registry of this Hon’ble
Court or this Hon’ble Court and the Deponent sincerely
tenders bona fide, unconditional apology before this
Hon’ble Court.
xxx xxx xxx
9. That, the deponent holds this Hon’ble High Court in
high regard and esteem and it was never the intention of
the deponent to undermine the majesty of this Hon’ble
High Court and he once again tenders unconditional
apology.”
33. Mr. Atul Krishna has also filed an affidavit tendering an apology in the
following terms:
“xxx xxx xxx
4. That I hold this Hon’ble Court in the highest esteem
and regard the institution of the judiciary as the
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 42 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
cornerstone of justice, fairness, and democracy.
5. That I submit my unconditional apology for
publication or action on my part or on behalf of “New
Indian” that may have been construed as contemptuous
or disrespectful to this Hon’ble Court. It is submitted
that in great regard to this Hon’ble Court, the Published
contemptuous material has been immediately taken
down from the Platform.
6. That it was never my intention to undermine the
authority, dignity, or majesty of this Hon’ble Court, and
I deeply regret any inconvenience or harm caused due
to my actions.
7. That I assure this Hon’ble Court that I have taken all
necessary steps to rectify the error and ensure that no
such incident occurs in the future. Further, I shall
remain vigilant and cautious in the discharge of my
professional duties as a publisher.
8. That I solemnly undertake to exercise the utmost
caution and due diligence in the future to ensure that no
such act or omission occurs and that the integrity and
dignity of this Hon’ble Court remain intact at all times.
9. That this unconditional apology is tendered with
utmost sincerity, bona fide intention, and without any
reservation whatsoever. I humbly pray for the
forgiveness and indulgence of this Hon’ble Court.”
34. Even the counsel – Mr. Dahiya has stated in his affidavit as under:
“3. …..
Therefore, it is the humble understanding of the
Deponent that in view of the roster, all urgent matters
will be mentioned only before the DB-1. That once
again, it is humbly submitted that the deponent has / had
no intent to make any allegations against the Registry of
this Hon’ble court or this Hon’ble court.
4. That it is submitted that the Deponent has been
informed by Mr. Yadav that all future notices will be
issued by his firm, with website details of firm, full name
of advocate and the Bar Council registration number,Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 43 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
etc. and as per applicable law.”
35. Mr. Yadav, ld. Counsel in his affidavit dated 12th November, 2024 has
also stated as under:
“3. …..
Therefore, it is the humble understanding of the
Deponent that in view of the roster, all urgent matters
will be mentioned only before the DB-1. That once
again, it is humbly submitted that the deponent has / had
no intent to make any allegations against the Registry of
this Hon’ble court or this Hon’ble court.
4. That it is submitted that the Deponent shall ensure
that all future notices shall be issued with website detail
of firm, full name of advocate and the Bar Council
registration number and as per applicable law.”
36. Having heard the parties and having seen the record and also having
perused the affidavits filed on behalf of the Respondents and lawyers and the
Journalist, this Court is at pains to observe that every lawyer and litigant who
is before the Court has a responsibility to ensure that any conduct which
lowers the faith in the judicial system ought not to be resorted to. Over the
course of various hearings, it has become clear to the Court that while Mr.
Pandey himself has become a habitual litigant indulging in various practices
which would constitute abuse of process, the advice being given to him by his
lawyers is also clearly far from bona fide. Mr. Pandey has categorically made
a statement before the Court that the content of the legal notice were based on
the advice given to him by his lawyers.
37. All three i.e., Mr. Dahiya, Mr. Yadav and Mr. Pandey have admitted
that insofar as the term ‘subject to office objection’ is concerned, they had
clearly made a wrong allegation in the notice. This Court is also clear that
insofar as the mentioning before the DB-II and the listing of the matter before
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 44 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
the Bench where CRL.M.Cs. 7840/2023 was pending, there is no irregularity
whatsoever. Even Mr. Atul Krishan had a duty to verify the allegations before
bringing the notice in public domain.
38. Responsible journalism has been emphasised by the Court in In Re:
Harijai Singh and Anr., In Re: Vijay Kumar, (1999) 6 SCC 466 where the
Court observed that not verifying and evaluating the correctness and
credibility of the information being published is an irresponsible conduct and
attitude on the part of editor, publisher and reporter. The relevant portion of
the judgment has been extracted below:
“11. In the present case, as we have noticed above,
neither the printer, publisher nor the editor and reporter
took the necessary care in evaluating the correctness
and credibility of the information published by them as
the news items in the newspapers referred to above in
respect of an allegation of a very serious nature having
great repercussions causing an embarrassment to this
Court. An editor is a person who controls the selection
of the matter which is to be published in a particular
issue of the newspaper. The editor and publisher are
liable for illegal and false matter which is published in
their newspaper. Such an irresponsible conduct and
attitude on the part of the editor, publisher and the
reporter cannot be said to be done in good faith, but
distinctly opposed to the high professional standards as
even a slightest enquiry or a simple verification of the
alleged statement about grant of petrol outlets to the two
sons of a Senior Judge of the Supreme Court, out of
discretionary quota, which is found to be patently false
would have revealed the truth. But it appears that even
the ordinary care was not resorted to by the contemners
in publishing such a false news items. This cannot be
regarded as a public service, but a disservice to the
public by misguiding them with a false news. Obviously,
this cannot be regarded as something done in good faith.
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 45 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
12. But it may be pointed out that various judgments and
pronouncements of this Court bear testimony to the fact
that this Court is not hypersensitive in matters relating
to contempt of courts and has always shown
magnanimity in accepting the apology on being satisfied
that the error made in the publication was without any
malice or without any intention of disrespect towards
the courts or towards any member of the judiciary. This
Court has always entertained fair criticism of the
judgments and orders or about the person of a Judge.
Fair criticism within the parameters of law is always
welcome in a democratic system. But the news items
with which we are concerned can neither be said to be
fair or made in good faith but wholly false and the
explanation given is far from satisfactory. Shri Hari
Jaisingh, editor of The Sunday Tribune and Lt. Col.
H.L. Dheer, publisher as well as Vijay Kumar Chopra,
editor and publisher of daily Punjab Kesari have taken
the stand that they had taken the news items to be
correct on the basis of the information supplied by a
very senior journalist of long standing, Dina Nath
Misra. But this cannot be accepted as a valid excuse. It
may be stated that at common law, absence of intention
or knowledge about the correctness of the contents of
the matter published (for example as in the present case,
on the basis of information received from the
journalist/reporter) will be of no avail for the editors
and publishers for contempt of court but for determining
the quantum of punishment which may be awarded.
Thus they cannot escape the responsibility for being
careless in publishing it without caring to verify the
correctness. However, since they have not only
expressed repentance on the incident but have expressed
their sincere written unconditional apology, we accept
the same with the warning that they should be very
careful in future. As regards the case of Dina Nath
Misra, we find he acted in gross carelessness. Being a
very experienced journalist of long standing it was hisSignature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 46 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
duty while publishing the news item relating to the
members of the Apex Court, to have taken extra care to
verify the correctness and if he had done so, we are sure
there would not have been any difficulty in coming to
know that the information supplied to him had
absolutely no legs to stand and was patently false and
the publication would have been avoided which not only
caused great embarrassment to this Court but conveyed
a wrong message to the public at large jeopardizing the
faith of the illiterate masses in our judiciary. Shri Dina
Nath Misra has no doubt committed a serious mistake
but he has realised his mistake and expressed sincere
repentance and has tendered unconditional apology for
the same. He was present in the Court and virtually
looked to be gloomy and felt repentant of what he had
done. We think this sufferance itself is sufficient
punishment for him. He being a senior journalist and an
aged person and, therefore, taking a lenient view of the
matter, we accept his apology also. We, however, direct
that the contemners will publish in the front page of their
respective newspapers within a box their respective
apologies specifically mentioning that the said news
items were absolutely incorrect and false. This may be
done within two weeks. The Contempt Petitions Nos.
206-207 of 1996 are disposed of accordingly.
39. Similarly in Suit (L) No.398/2024 bearing title Khanjan
Jagadishkumar Thakkar v. Waahiid Ali khan & Ors., the Court observed
that a journalist or a reporter cannot transgress their limits of right of speech
and expression, without justifying the publication on the basis of its
truthfulness. The relevant portion of the judgment has been extracted below:
“25] As a result of position of Law which has evolved in
India, the truth of defamatory words is a complete
defence to an action of libel and slander, but a
Journalist or Reporter is not expected to transgress the
limits of his right of speech and expression and cannotSignature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 47 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
claim protection by simply stating that the information,
was provided to him by someone and it is in public
interest to divulge the same, on the pretext that duty lies
in giving out that information to the public.
Investigative Journalism definitely does not enjoy any
special protection and the umbrage of public interest
definitely do not permit a publication, which would
amount to lowering down the reputation of any person ,
in any manner particularly without justifying the
publication on the basis of its truthfulness. Just because,
the Defendant No.1 is interested in ascertaining the
truth or is interested in going to roots of the complaint
that is filed, resulting into an FIR, do not necessarily
mean that the publication is in public interest and
particularly when the complaint is under investigation.”
40. In this background, it deserves to be noted that, after the ld. Single
Judge came to a prima facie conclusion that the notice was contemptuous, the
same has been taken down from the online platforms. The Court after having
heard Mr. Atul who was present in Court during all the hearings also feels that
the apology tendered by him is bona fide and therefore the contempt notice
against Mr. Atul Krishna is discharged with the direction that he ought to
exercise caution in future and continue his journalism with a greater sense of
responsibility.
41. Insofar as the two Counsels are concerned, both have not merely
misadvised their client but have also expressed least remorse even during the
hearings. Their legal notice did not comply with the required conditions of
giving the name of the counsel, the bar council registration number, the date
of the notice, the website, the name of the other lawyers working in the firm,
etc., none of it is mentioned in the legal notice. Such strategies are usually
adopted by lawyers in order to insulate themselves from any action while
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 48 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
shooting in the dark and make wild allegations.
42. The Bar Council of India has also prescribed certain rules with respect
to the duties of the Advocates towards the Court and their Client. The said
Rules are been extracted below:
“Rules on an Advocate’s Duty Towards the Court
4. Refuse to act in an illegal manner towards the
opposition
An advocate should refuse to act in an illegal or
improper manner towards the opposing counsel or the
opposing parties. He shall also use his best efforts to
restrain and prevent his client from acting in any
illegal, improper manner or use unfair practices in any
mater towards the judiciary, opposing counsel or the
opposing parties.
5. Refuse to represent clients who insist on unfair
means
An advocate shall refuse to represent any client who
insists on using unfair or improper means. An advocate
shall excise his own judgment in such matters. He shall
not blindly follow the instructions of the client. He shall
be dignified in use of his language in correspondence
and during arguments in court. He shall not
scandalously damage the reputation of the parties on
false grounds during pleadings. He shall not use
unparliamentary language during arguments in the
court.”
43. A perusal of the above rules would shows that the Bar Council of India
casts responsibility upon the Advocates to prevent their clients from acting in
an illegal manner not only towards judiciary but also opposing counsel and
parties. The counsels in the present case should have advised their clients
with respect to the procedure of listing of cases in Delhi High Court and
should not have raised such baseless allegations, functioning of the Court.
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 49 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
44. During the hearings in the Court also, it was clearly felt that they
continued to justify their conduct rather than express any sense of remorse.
The non-reflection of names of counsels, their bar council registrations is also
contrary to the practice directions notified by the Delhi High Court. As per the
Circular No. STBC/Cir/No.18/2006 dated 5th July, 2006, issued by the High
Court of Delhi it has been made compulsory for the Advocates to mention
their enrolment number on their letter heads. The said circular is extracted
below:
“It has come to notice that Bar Council of India, in the
year 2006, had issued a Circular
No.STBC/Cir/No.18/2006 dated 5.7.2006 to all the State
Bar Councils, communicating its approval to the new
Rule 105A, framed by the Bar Council of Delhi, whereby
it was made compulsory for the Advocates to mention
enrolment number on their letter heads and
vakalatnamas.
All the Officers and Dealing Assistants of the Filing
Counter are requested to ensure that the Vakalatnamas,
filed by the Advocates, must contain their enrolment
numbers as well, in addition to other requirements of the
Vakalatnama.”
45. The above stated Rule 105 A has been extracted below:
Rule 105A: Every advocate shall mention his/her
enrollment number on every visible representation
(wherever the letter “Advocate”/”Attorney”/
“Counsel” is mentioned after or before the same)
including visiting card, letter head, vakalatnama etc.
46. A perusal of the above stated rule shows that the enrolment number
needs to be mandatorily added at all places in the letter where
“Advocate”/”Attorney”/ “Counsel” is mentioned. It can be seen that in the
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 50 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
present case neither the letterhead mentions the details of the Advocate and
the enrolment number. The same is also not mentioned in the end salutation.
It’s a prescribed practice to write the name and enrolment number of the
Advocate sending the legal notice to verify the authenticity of said notice.
Moreover, legal notices are made on the letterhead of the concerned
advocate/firm/chamber who is sending the notice and absence of such details
questions the validity of the said notices.
47. The Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 172/2014 titled
Shaikh Farooq v. Shaikh Rafiq and Ors. also observed that without any
signature a typed document in the form of a notice cannot be considered as a
legal notice as nobody would own up to the correctness of its contents.
48. Under these circumstances, both the lawyers have violated the Bar
Council Rules and the practice directions of this Court. This Court is of the
opinion that the Counsels have indulged in unprofessional conduct. The
matter is accordingly referred to Bar Council of Delhi for initiating
disciplinary proceedings which shall be decided in accordance with law. In
addition, they shall henceforth comply with the said Rules and modify their
letterheads and all other communications in accordance with the said Rules.
49. Insofar as Mr. Roop Darshan Pandey is concerned, his conduct has been
totally defiant even during Court proceedings. The apology is completely
conditional and the intent has been to justify all the allegations which have
been made. The allegations are clearly false to the knowledge of Mr. Pandey
who is a habitual litigant in the Court. The attempt of Mr. Pandey appears to
be somehow continue to harass the company HML, its officials and its
Counsels while making wild allegations against them. Mr. Pandey has also
not spared the Court or the Registry of this Court when clearly there was no
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 51 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
fault of the Registry of the Delhi High Court in the clearing of the matter for
listing and also listing of the matter on an urgent basis.
50. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Banik
(Smt.) and Ors., (2007)14 SCC 1 observed that anyone who tends to tarnish
the image of the judiciary should not be allowed to go unpunished. In such
cases the ultimate victim is the institution. The Court in the said case also
observed that the apology of the Contemnor was not genuine and instead he
tried justifying the malicious statement given by them, therefore the Court
sentenced the Contemnor to two months of imprisonment. The relevant
portion of the judgment reads as under:
“1.”Judge bashing” and using derogatory and
contemptuous language against Judges has become a
favourite pastime of some people. These statements tend
to scandalise and lower the authority of the courts and
cannot be permitted because, for functioning of
democracy, an independent judiciary to dispense justice
without fear and favour is paramount. Its strength is the
faith and confidence of the people in that institution.
That cannot be permitted to be undermined because that
will be against the public interest.
2. Judiciary should not be reduced to the position of flies
in the hands of wanton boys. Judge bashing is not and
cannot be a substitute for constructive criticism.
xxxx
12. There is guarantee of the Constitution of India that
there will be freedom of speech and writing, but
reasonable restrictions can be imposed. It will be of
relevance to compare the various suggestions as
prevalent in America and India. It is worthwhile to note
that all utterances against a Judge or concerning a
pending case do not in America amount to contempt of
Court. In Article 19 the expression “reasonable
restrictions” is used which is almost on a par with theSignature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 52 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
American phraseology “inherent tendency” or
“reasonable tendency”. The Supreme Court of America
in Bridges v. California [314 US 252 : 86 L Ed 192
(1941)] said : (L Ed p. 203)
“What finally emerges from the ‘clear and present
danger’ cases is a working principle that the substantive
evil must be extremely serious and the degree of
imminence extremely high before utterances can be
punished.”
13. The vehemence of the language used is not alone the
measure of the power to punish for contempt of court.
The fires which it kindles must constitute an imminent,
not merely a likely, threat to the administration of
justice. The stream of administration of justice has to
remain unpolluted so that purity of court’s atmosphere
may give vitality to all the organs of the State. Polluters
of judicial firmament are, therefore required to be well
taken care of to maintain the sublimity of court’s
environment; so also to enable it to administer justice
fairly and to the satisfaction of all concerned. To similar
effect were the observations of Lord Morris in Attorney
General v. Times Newspapers [1974 AC 273 : (1973) 3
WLR 298 : (1973) 3 All ER 54 (HL)] , AC at p. 302. It
was observed that when
“unjustifiable interference is suppressed it is not
because those charged with the responsibilities of
administering justice are concerned for their own
dignity : it is because the very structure of ordered life
is at risk if the recognised courts of the land are so
flouted that their authority wanes and is supplanted.”
(All ER p. 66f)
xxxx
29. Considered in the light of the aforesaid position in
law, a bare reading of the statements makes it clear that
those amount to a scurrilous attack on the integrity,
honesty and judicial competence and impartiality of
Judges. It is offensive and intimidating. The contemnor
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 53 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
by making such scandalising statements and invective
remarks has interfered and seriously shaken the system
of administration of justice by bringing it down to
disrespect and disrepute. It impairs confidence of the
people in the court. Once door is opened to this kind of
allegations, aspersions and imputations, it may provide
a handle to the disgruntled litigants to malign the
Judges, leading to character assassination. A good
name is better than good riches. Immediately comes to
one’s mind Shakespeare’s Othello, Act II, Scene iii, 167:
“Good name in man and woman, dear my Lord is the
immediate jewel of their souls; who steals my purse,
steals trash; its something, nothing; ‘T was mine, its his,
and has been slate to thousands; But he that filches from
me my good name,
Robs me of that which not enriches him
And makes me poor indeed.”
30. Majesty of law continues to hold its head high
notwithstanding such scurrilous attacks made by
persons who feel that the law courts will absorb
anything and everything, including attacks on their
honesty, integrity and impartiality. But it has to be borne
in mind that such divinity and magnanimity is not its
weakness but its strength. It generally ignores
irresponsible statements which are anything but
legitimate criticism. It is to be noted that what is
permissible is legitimate criticism and not illegitimate
insinuation. No court can brook with equanimity
something which may have tendency to interfere with the
administration of justice. Some people find judiciary a
soft target because it has neither the power of the purse
nor the sword, which other wings of democracy possess.
It needs no reiteration that on judiciary millions pin
their hopes, for protecting their life, liberty, property
and the like. Judges do not have an easy job. They
repeatedly do what rest of us (the people) seek to avoid,
make decisions, said David Pannick in his book Judges.
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 54 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
Judges are mere mortals, but they are asked to perform
a function which is truly divine.
xxxx
34. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that
anyone who intends to tarnish the image of judiciary
should not be allowed to go unpunished. By attacking
the reputation of Judges, the ultimate victim is the
institution. The day the consumers of justice lose faith in
the institution that would be the darkest day for
mankind. The importance of judiciary needs no
reiteration.
35. When the background facts highlighted above are
considered in the background of the principles set out
above, the inevitable conclusion is that the contemnor
deserves no sympathy. In fact, the lenient approach of
the Gauhati High Court seems to have encouraged him
to make statements on oath tarnishing the image of the
Judges of the highest judiciary. His apology seems to be
not genuine. This is more so because he wanted to justify
the statements made in Para 4.
36. Therefore, we find the contemnor guilty of contempt.
He is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period
of two months. He shall be taken into custody and sent
to Tihar Jail, New Delhi, forthwith to serve the sentence
awarded.”
51. The Court in Ram Niranjan Roy v. State of Bihar and Ors., (2014) 12
SCC 11, observed that contempt matters are committed in the face of the High
Court and these matters not only humiliate Judges but scandalise the
institution by lowering its dignity in the eyes of the public. The relevant
portion of the said judgment has been extracted below:
16. Thus, when contempt is committed in the face of the
High Court or the Supreme Court to scandalise or
humiliate the Judge, instant action may be necessary. If
the courts do not deal with such contempt with strongSignature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 55 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
hand, that may result in scandalising the institution
thereby lowering its dignity in the eyes of the public. The
courts exist for the people. The courts cherish the faith
reposed in them by people. To prevent erosion of that
faith, contempt committed in the face of the court need
a strict treatment. The appellant, as observed by the
High Court was not remorseful. He did not file any
affidavit tendering apology nor did he orally tell the
High Court that he was remorseful and he wanted to
tender apology. Even in this Court he has not tendered
apology. Therefore, since the contempt was gross and it
was committed in the face of the High Court, the learned
Judges had to take immediate action to maintain honour
and dignity of the High Court. There was no question of
giving the appellant any opportunity to make his
defence. This submission of the appellant must,
therefore, be rejected.
xxxxx
19. In Bineet Kumar Singh, In re [(2001) 5 SCC 501 :
2001 SCC (Cri) 908] a forged/fabricated order of this
Court was used for the purpose of conferring some
benefits on a group of persons. This Court took a strict
view of the matter and observed as under: (SCC pp. 506-
07, para 6)
“6. The law of contempt of court is essentially
meant for keeping the administration of justice
pure and undefiled. It is difficult to rigidly define
contempt. While on the one hand, the dignity of the
court has to be maintained at all costs, it must also
be borne in mind that the contempt jurisdiction is
of a special nature and should be sparingly used.
The Supreme Court is the highest court of record
and it is charged with the duties and
responsibilities of protecting the dignity of the
court. To discharge its obligation as the custodian
of the administration of justice in the country and
as the highest court imbued with supervisory and
appellate jurisdiction over all the lower courts and
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 56 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
tribunals, it is inherently deemed to have been
entrusted with the power to see that the stream of
justice in the country remains pure, that its course
is not hindered or obstructed in any manner, that
justice is delivered without fear or favour. To
discharge this obligation, the Supreme Court has
to take cognizance of the deviation from the path of
justice. The sole object of the court wielding its
power to punish for contempt is always for the
course of administration of justice. Nothing is more
incumbent upon the courts of justice than to
preserve their proceedings from being
misrepresented, nor is there anything more
pernicious when the order of the court is forged
and produced to gain undue advantage. Criminal
contempt has been defined in Section 2(c) to mean
interference with the administration of justice in
any manner. A false or misleading or a wrong
statement deliberately and wilfully made by a party
to the proceedings to obtain a favourable order
would undoubtedly tantamount to interference with
the due course of judicial proceedings. When a
person is found to have utilised an order of a court
which he or she knows to be incorrect for
conferring benefit on persons who are not entitled
to the same, the very utilisation of the fabricated
order by the person concerned would be sufficient
to hold him/her guilty of contempt, irrespective of
the fact whether he or she himself or herself is the
author of fabrication.”
We respectfully concur with these observations.”
52. In the case of National Lawyers Campaign for Judicial Transparency
and Reforms and Ors. v. Union of India [W.P.(C) No.191/2010 decision
dated 12th March, 2019], the Supreme Court observed as under:
“13. When contempt is committed in the face of the
Court, judges‟ hands are not tied behind their back”
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 57 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
53. In Court on its own Motion v. Virendra Singh Advocate,
2024:DHC:174-DB, an advocate raised allegations against several judges
with respect to unreasonable and flimsy proceedings before the Trial Court.
The Advocate asked for a stay of the Trial Court proceedings. The Division
Bench of this Court, then observed that there is a direct attack on the reputation
and functioning of not only one judge but several judges and it also affects the
administration of justice. The Court observed that the scandalous allegations,
imputation against a Judge, discharging his judicial function are more serious
in nature and it’s the Courts responsibility to deal such actions with firm
hands. Thereafter, the concerned advocate was sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment of 6 months along with fine. The relevant portion of the
judgment is as under:
“35. We refuse to accept the submissions made by the
contemnor/respondent with the aforesaid averments
made by him in the appeal that have been mentioned to
give the entire background so as to establish the
injustice suffered by the victim leading to acquittal of the
accused persons. It is manifest from the above that the
contemnor/respondent has made contumacious
allegations in the appeal making scandalous,
unwarranted and baseless imputations against the
learned Judges of this Court as well as District Courts
who have been discharging their judicial function.
Moreover, being an Officer of this Court making such
averments in the judicial pleading are more serious in
nature. It is incumbent upon the Courts of justice to
check such actions with a firm hand which otherwise
will have pernicious consequences.”
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 58 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
54. In Sanjeev Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors., 2024:DHC:8705-
DB, the Appellant had filed several complaints against his in-laws, close
associates of his wife, police officials, judicial officers, Judges of this Court
and had also misbehaved with judges in Court. The Court observed that he has
changed a matrimonial dispute into multifarious criminal complaints thereby
occupying substantial judicial time. The Court then sentenced him to 4 months
simple imprisonment.
55. Considering the settled law, as contained in the above judgments, there
is no doubt that Mr. Roop Darshan Pandey is liable to be punished for
Contempt of Court. His frivolous allegations against the Court as also the
Registry of the Delhi High Court with respect to listing matters is completely
baseless. Such allegations if ignored, would over a period of time lead to
erosion of faith in the well-established and fair systems and procedures of the
Court. The clear allusions are that there was some wrong-doing, when clearly
no such needle of suspicion could have been raised. Under these
circumstances, Mr. Pandey is held guilty of criminal contempt as per Sections
11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
56. This is the second instance when allegations of contempt have been
raised against Mr. Pandey. Earlier, on 10th February, 2016, Mr. Pandey had
filed a complaint to the Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Justice,
against the Senior Advocate representing HML and one of the Judges of this
Court alleging that they are “known to each other”, amongst other allegations.
The said complaint requested the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and the Chief
Justice of this Court for a fair enquiry against such conspiracies. Thereafter
several applications were filed against Mr. Roop Darshan Pandey in
CRL.MC.2451/2013 titled Hero Motocorp Ltd. & Anr v. State & Anr. and
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 59 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
other connected matters with respect to the said complaint on 4th March, 2017.
57. The Court noticed that such a complaint would fall under the list of
“Subject/Topics which cannot be treated as grievances” as per the Centralised
Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring system portal. However, the
Ministry of Law and Justice sent an Office Memorandum dated 23 rd March,
2016, forwarding the complaint to the Secretary General of the Supreme Court
of India, who in turn forwarded it to the Secretary, Bar Council of India by a
communication dated 24th March, 2016.
58. The question that arose in the said case was whether the contempt
petition is barred by limitation in terms of Section 20 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1972, which clearly states that the complaint has to be filed within
one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been
committed. Therefore, the above said applications were dismissed as time
barred considering the contemptuous act took place on 10th February, 2016
and the application has been filed on 4th March, 2017. The relevant portion
of the said order has been extracted below for a bare perusal:
“11. The present applications were filed on 4th March
2017. The trigger was a complaint dated 10th February,
2016 filed by Mr. Roop Darshan Pandey with the
Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Justice,
Government of India under the Centralized Public
Grievance Redressal and Monitoring System
(“CPGRAM”). A copy of the said complaint filed online
by Mr. Pandey has been enclosed with the present
applications as Annexure-C. The complaint is, inter
alia, to the effect that the Senior Advocate representing
HML and one of the Judges of this Court “are known to
each other” and that the Senior Advocate “openly
claims that he has all his following high profile cases
involving rich and powerful people managed” with theSignature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 60 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
said learned Judge and that “date after date are
contained by the senior advocate to drag and frustrate
the cases”. The details of two of the main cases i.e. Crl.
Misc Nos. 2451/2013 and 2525/2013 were mentioned in
the complaint. It was further requested that the Hon’ble
Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of this Court
“be informed for fair enquiry” about this conspiracy
immediately to meet the ends of justice. Certain
documents were purportedly enclosed with the
complaint.
12. The CPGRAM portal lays down a list of
“Subjects/Topics which cannot be treated as
grievances‟. One of these categories is „Court
related/subjudice matters”. There is a declaration by
the Respondent No.2 to the effect that “I agree that my
grievance does not fall within the above listed
categories”. The Applicants/Petitioners point out that
this was a false declaration.
13. The grievance of the Applicants/Petitioners is that
acting on the said online complaint, the Ministry of Law
and Justice sent an Office Memorandum („OM‟) dated
23rd March 2016 forwarding the complaint to the
Secretary General of the Supreme Court of India, who
in turn forwarded it to the Secretary, Bar Council of
India by a communication dated 24 th March, 2016.
Copies of these communications have also been
enclosed. It was further forwarded by the Deputy
Registrar of the Supreme Court of India to the Bar
Council of India („BCI‟). The BCI took up the matter
and sent a copy of the OM dated 23rd March, 2016 to
the concerned senior counsel for his comments.
xxx
23. On the first question whether the contempt petition
is barred by limitation in terms of Section 20 of the Act,
the reply of Mr Tiku on behalf of the Applicants is that
although the complaint was filed online on 10th
February 2016, action was taken on the said complaint
by the Ministry only on 23rd March, 2016 and it wasSignature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 61 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
only then that the actual scandalizing of the judiciary
took place.
24. The Court is unable to agree with the above
submission. When the complaint was filed online on
10th February 2016, it was already available to be seen
by anyone in the Ministry dealing with such complaints.
If it is the contention of the Petitioner that this act itself
constituted contempt, then clearly the date of the
commission of the contempt was 10th February, 2016
and not 23rd March, 2016. In any event, as far as the
Petitioners are concerned, Respondent No.2 committed
contempt on 10th February, 2016 when he filed the
complaint containing the allegedly scandalous
allegations on line on the CPGRAM. . That date cannot
be postponed only because the Ministry took more than
a month to actually send a further communication to the
Secretary General, Supreme Court of India.
25. There is no scope for condoning the delay in filing
the present applications seeking to invoke the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 15 of the Act.
Section 20 of the Act makes it clear that the complaint
has to be filed within one year from the date on which
the contempt is alleged to have been committed. The
jurisdiction of the Court to initiate any proceedings for
contempt thereafter “either on its own motion or
otherwise” is taken away. With the present applications
having been filed on 4th March, 2017 i.e. more than one
year after 10th February 2016, the question of
entertaining them on the basis of the complaint made by
the Respondent No.2 on the CPGRAM on 10th
February, 2016 does not arise.
xxx
27. The consequence of accepting the above
submission would be for this Court to direct these
petitions to be placed on the administrative side before
the Chief Justice. However, in view of its decision that
these applications are time barred in terms of Section
20 of the Act, there is no point in adopting that course.
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 62 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
28. The applications are accordingly dismissed as time
barred.”
59. It is clear from the above order that Mr. Pandey is in the habit of making
allegations against Courts, judges and counsels. The offending conduct is
therefore not an inadvertent error or by mistaken advice. It is done with
deliberate and with ulterior motives. The apology is thus not bonafide. Mr.
Pandey is accordingly sentenced to two weeks of simple imprisonment with
fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further simple
imprisonment for 07 days.
60. It is directed that the police authorities shall take the Contemnor into
custody from the Court itself and the Contemnor be sent to Jail.
61. The Contempt Reference is accordingly disposed of in these terms.
62. A copy of this judgment be given Dasti to ld. Counsels for the parties
under the signatures of Court Master.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
AMIT SHARMA
JUDGE
JANUARY 23, 2025
Rahul/dk/ks
Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS.(CRL) 13/2024 Page 63 of 63
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:34
[ad_1]
Source link