Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, on November 6, sentenced the lawyer, who insulted the judges through VC chatbox during an online hearing, to 4 months of simple imprisonment. 

“The manner in which the Contemnor refers to the ld. Single Judge of this Court and the various allegations which are made are completely unacceptable and are gross”, the bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma held. 

Sanjeev Kumar, the contemnor's case was that his wife, Ms. X, had disclosed to him long ago that she had been raped by her cousin when she was in Grade 11 and aged 16. The contemnor and his wife had marital disputes, resulting in the filing of complaints and cross-complaints. One of the complaints filed by the contemnor sought an investigation into this alleged rape incident, which, according to him, was disclosed to him prior to their marital discord. The contemnor asserted that the incident constituted an offense, prompting him to lodge the complaint, and he contended that the police should have conducted an investigation and registered an FIR.

The complaint was examined by the MM, who was presented with an application under Section 156(3). The MM requested an Action Taken Report. By the order dated 24th July, 2023, the MM dismissed the complaint. 

A review of this order revealed that after recording the allegations made by the contemnor, the MM sought an action taken report from the concerned SHO. According to the report, the SHO had contacted the wife via her mobile phone on 17th May, 2021, and 15th July, 2021, during which she explicitly stated that the alleged incident, which formed the basis of the complaint, had never occurred.

The court observed that the Contemnor had attempted to challenge the action taken report by relying on a recorded telephonic conversation conducted without his wife's consent. The Metropolitan Magistrate noted the absence of allegations that would justify invoking Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and dismissed the application on July 24, 2023, as the wife had not filed any complaint.

The Contemnor contested this dismissal before the Sessions Judge, who, on October 10, 2023, rejected the revision petition, highlighting that the wife had not pursued any legal action and that the complaint was based on hearsay. On January 23, 2024, the Single Judge reviewed the facts, observations, and findings of the lower courts and concluded that the Contemnor lacked the standing to file the complaint.

The Single Judge noted that on May 6, 2024, the Contemnor had posted comments on Cisco Webex during a hearing, despite his matter not being listed. The Contemnor withdrew the review petition with permission to approach the Supreme Court.

The Contemnor’s response to a show-cause notice dated May 14, 2024, contained further defamatory remarks against judicial officers, which the Single Judge characterized as contemptuous on May 15, 2024. The judge remarked that the Contemnor had a pattern of filing unwarranted complaints against judges who issued unfavorable orders, leading to the case being referred as criminal contempt.

During the proceedings on September 26, 2024, it was evident that the Contemnor engaged in numerous unfounded legal actions and scandalous accusations aimed at targeting his wife and members of the judiciary, displaying a complete disregard for the judicial process and showing no remorse. His conduct, intended to discredit the judiciary, could not be condoned.

Referring to precedent, the Court found the Contemnor guilty of criminal contempt, noting that such actions obstructed the administration of justice. He was sentenced to four months of simple imprisonment and fined Rs. 2,000, with an additional 15 days' imprisonment for non-payment of the fine. 

For Respondents: Additional Public Prosecutor Aman Usman and Amicus Curiae Advocate Varun Goswami with Advocates Hritik Chaudhary, Sahil Agarwal and Rajesh Singh
Case Title: Court On Its Own Motion v Sanjeev Kumar (2024:DHC:8587-DB)