LexAMIT CHANCHAL JHA versus REGISTRAR HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B (2014] 12 S.C.R. 424. AMIT CHANCHAL JHA v. REGISTRAR HIGH COURT OF DELHI (Criminal Appeal Nos. 864-865 of 2012) DECEMBER 12, 2014 · [T.S. THAKUR AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.] · Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: s.2(c)- Criminal contempt - Allegation that appe1/ant-advocate abused a lady advocate C during judicial proceedings - Matter taken up by the Bench in chamber - Appellant admitting the charge - Convicted for criminal contempt and punished to undergo imprisonment for 7 days and debarred from appearing in court for 3 months and matter directed to be reported to the Bar Council of India for D taking appropriate action - Held: Appellant taking vacillating stand - Apology tendered by appellant not sincere enough to be accepted so as to set aside the conviction - No reason to interfere with the impugned orders except to set aside the direction to refer the matter to the BC/. E Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The stand of the appellant has been vacillating. He first made a statement before the Bench of the High Court on 13th January, 2012 admitting the F charge. He sought to partly withdraw the said stand by filing an application for recall. Thereafter, in his petition in this Co.urt, he tried to contradict not only the lady advocate but also the High Court. Thereafter, when the case came up for hearing and on joint request of the G counsel for the parties, the matter was adjourned, an affidavit was filed withdrawing all the allegations against respondent no.2. He however, did not withdraw the allegations against the High Court attributing incorrect H 424 AMIT CHANCHAL JHA v. REGISTRAR HIGH COURT 425 OF DELHI recording of facts in the order of the Bench and the Joint A Registrar. [Para 15] [631-H; 632-A-B] R.K. Anand vs. Registrar, Delhi High Court (2009) 8 SCC 106:2009 (11) SCR 1026; Sanjiv Datta, Dy. Secy., Ministry oflnformation & Broadcasting, In re. (1995) 3 SCC .619: 1995 B (3) SCR 450; Bar Council of Maharashtra vs. M. V. Dabholkar (1976) 2 sec 291: 1976 (2) SCR 48 - relied on. 2. The power of contempt should not be lightly initiated by the .court, particularly against a lawyer but the fact would remain that exercise of such power becomes C necessary in the interest of public and also in the interest of due administration of justice. In view of this, no ground to interfere with the impugned orders except to set aside the direction to refer the matter to the Bar Council of India. · [Paras 18, 21] [436-E-F; 440-F-G] . D Pritam Pal vs. High Court of M.P. 1993 (Supp) 1 SCC 529 - relied on. Pravin C. Shah vs. K.A. Mohd. Ali (2001) 8 SCC 650: 2001(3) Suppl. SCR 675 - held applicable. E Case Law Reference: 2009 (11) SCR 1026 relied on Para 16 1995 (3) SCR 450 relied on Para 17 1976 (2 'SCR 48 relied on Para 17 1993 (Supp) 1 sec 529 relied on Para 18 2001 (3) Suppl. SCR 675 held inapplicable Para 19 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos. 864~865 of 2012. F G From the Judgment & Order of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi dated 13.01.2012 in Crl. Cont. No. 0112012 and H 426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 12 S.C.R. A 16.01.2012 in Crl. Misc. No. 753/2012. B M.N. Krishnamani, A. Sharan, Vivek Singh, Rajeev Yadav, Aseem Chandra, Avinash Tirpathi, Raghvendra Tiwari for the Appellant. Huzefa A. Ahmadi, Geeta Luthra, G. Ramakrishna Prasad, Filza Moonis, Purnima Bhat for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by C ADARSH KUMAR GOEL J .. 1. These appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 13th January, 2012 in Criminal Contempt No.1 of 2012 and order dated 16th January, 2012 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.753 of 2012 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. 1 · D 2. The appellant is an advocate practicing in Delhi High Court. On 13th January, 2012 he allegedly abused a lady advocate (identity not being mentioned) during the judicial proceedings before an Additional District Judge, posted as Joint Registrar in the High Court. The Joint Registrar noticed E that the lady lawyer was crying and she said that she was slapped by the appellant. The appellant also complained that he was also slapped. The Joint Registrar asked the lady advocate to sit in his chamber so that normalcy could be restored. The matter was mentioned by a group of lawyers F before the Acting Chief Justice. The matter was taken up by the Bench in chamber and the Joint Registrar produced the c
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.