SATWANT SINGH versus MALKEET SINGH

Citation: [2017] 6 S.C.R. 488 · Decided: 20-07-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2017] 6 S.C.R. 488 
SATWANT SINGH 
v. 
MALKEET SINGH 
(Civil Appeal No. 3001 of 2008) 
JULY20,2017 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.) 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - s.2(b) - Civil contempt -
Appellant-contemnor, the investigating officer arrested respondent 
C 
on a charge which was added subsequently u/s.307 IPC after the 
grant of anticipatory bail - Appellant punished for contempt of 
court's order - On appeal, held: Appellant tendered an apology 
explaining that he had only carried out the instructions of the 
superior officer and he bona fide understood the order passed by 
the Court to mean that the respondent was entitled to protection 
D 
u/s.438, Cr.PC. only in respect of those offences reflected in the 
order and s.307, JPC having been added subsequently there was 
no impediment in proceeding with the investigation after arresting 
the respondent on that count - In the facts of the instant case, it is 
a plausible explanation to show that there was no wilful or deliberate 
E attempt to violate the Court order - Apology is one of the defences 
in the case of a civil contempt and the Court is bound to explain as 
to why the apology should not be accepted - The sincere and 
unconditional apology tendered by the appellant is accepted - The 
conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant is set aside -
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.438- Penal Code, 1860 -
F 
s.307. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The addition of charge was based on a 
subsequent investigation on the direction issued by the Senior 
Superintendent of Police after disposal of the Section 438 petition 
G by the High Court and the arrest also was carried out on his 
instruction. It is significant to note that when the FIR was 
originally registered Section 307 had been included. It was 
deleted based on the instruction of a superior officer. After such 
deletion only, the respondent approached the High Court. 
H 
[Para 3) [489-G-H; 490-A-B] 
488 
SATWANT SINGH v. MALKEET SINGH 
489 
2. In the facts of the present case, it is a plausible A 
explanation to show that there was no wilful or deliberate attempt 
to violate the Court order. No doubt, it would have been certainly 
more appropriate to apprise the Court on this development and 
seek modification. On the facts of this case, however, there was 
no intentional move to overstep the order of the Court. Apology 
B 
is one of the defences in the case of a civil contempt and th.e 
Court is bound to explain as to why the apology should not be 
accepted. The apology tendered by the appellant has to be 
accepted. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant 
is set aside, accepting his sincere, genuine and unconditional 
apology in writing before this Court and the High Court. [Paras 
C 
4-7] [ 490-D, E-G] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3001 
of 2008. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.05.2007 in CACP 
D 
No. 7 of2007 in COCPNo. 833 of2006 and 13.07.2007 in R.A. No.78-
CII of2007 in CACP No. 7 of2007 in COCP No. 833 of2006 of the 
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. 
Sudhir Walia, Ms.Niharika Ahluwalia, Dr. Abhishek Atrey, Advs. 
for the Appellant. 
Vikas Mahajan, Vishal Mahajan, Vinod Sharma, Bhaskar Y. 
Kulkarni, Advs. for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
E 
KURIAN, J. 1. This is a case where the appellant was punished 
p 
for civil contempt as defined under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of 
Courts Act, 1971. 
2. Both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench have 
taken the view that once the respondent had been granted interim bail 
under Section 438, Cr.P.C. as per order dated 17.02.2006, his arrest on 
G 
26.05.2007 on a charge which has been later on added under Section 
307, IPC constitutes contempt. 
3. We find that this addition of charge is based on a subsequent 
investigation on the direction issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police 
H 
490 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 6 S.C.R. 
A 
after disposal of the Section 438 petition by the High Court and the 
arrest also was carried out on his instruction. It is significant to note that 
when the FIR was originally registered Section 307 had been included. 
It was deleted based on the instruction of a superior officer. After such 
deletion only, the respondent approached the High Court. 
B 
c 
4. We find that the appellant had tendered an apology explaining 
his conduct before this Court in the Civil Appeal. We also find that the 
appellant h

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.