ROHIT v. Manishankar Pandey

Mr. Abhyuday Singh, Advocate Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

20.03.2025

1. Heard Mr. Abhyuday Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent No.2. 2

2. The present contempt petition under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Rule 351 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 2007 has been filed by the petitioner with a request and a prayer for taking suo moto cognizance in initiating Criminal Contempt Proceedings against respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Contemnor’)

3. The facts leading to preferring of the instant petition is that on

28.06.2018, the petitioner herein made a written complaint against three persons namely, Abhya Singh, Head Editor, Vijaya Pathak and the Contemnor alleging that they have published fake news in the Jagat Vision Magazine in the month of May 2018 against him. On the basis of said complaint, the police of Police Station- Ambikapur registered the FIR on 28.06.2018 against the Contemnor as well as other co-accused persons bearing Crime No. 317/2018 for ofences punishable under section 120-B, 153-B, 468, 469, 471, 500,501, 503 and 505 Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved by the same, the Contemnor had filed a petition under Section 482 being Cr.M.P. 807/2021 for quashment of the said FIR submitting therein that the petitioner herein is a habitual offender and number of criminal cases were registered against him in many Police Stations. It was further submitted that the Superintendent of Police, District Surguja has also taken action against him under Section 5(2) of the State Security Act 1980 to expel him from the District Surguja as well as adjoining 58 districts vide Annexure P-3. On 01 May 2018, the Monthly Magazine 3 (Patrika) of Jagat Vision was published by the publisher with regard to criminal case of the petitioner herein with proof along with some other news regarding the government and other society. According to the him, no false or fake news was Published in Jagat Vision Magazine on 01 May 2018.

4. The CRMP No. 807 of 2021 was listed before this Court on

06.11.2024, on which date, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the materials available on record and on the submission being made by learned State counsel that a closure report has been prepared by the Investigating Officer on

11.06.2024, disposed of the said petition with a direction to the Investigating Officer to submit the final report under Section 173(2) of CrPC before the competent Court, if any, within a period of three weeks from that day. Now, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner with a request and a prayer for taking suo moto cognizance in initiating Criminal Contempt Proceedings against Contemnor.

5. Mr. Abhyuday Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Contemnor in paragraph No. 3 of the CRMP No. 807 of 2021 has made false and fabricated submission that the petitioner herein is a habitual offender, number of criminal cases were registered against him at many police station and it was further submitted that the Superintendent of Police, District Surguja has also taken action against the petitioner herein under Section 5(2) 4 of the State Security Act, 1980 to expel the District Surguja and beyond the adjoining Districts. In support of the said contention, a purported letter issued by the Superintendent of Police, Surguja has also been attached from Page No. 18 to 23 of the said petition. He further submitted that the said letter has no dispatch number/ letter number, without date and also without any signature of the Superintendent of Police, Surguja, yet the said letter has been fabricated on the letterhead of the Superintendent of Police, Surguja and has been attached in support of submission of the action against the petitioner. To confirm the veracity of the said documents, the petitioner herein filed applications under Right to Information Act, 2005 and the petitioner was informed that no such letter could be found within the records present with the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Surguja. Thus, the Annexure presented before the Hon’ble Court is a forged and fabricated document. Copy of information dated 14.11.2024 is filed as Annexure-P/2.

6. Mr. Singh further contended that in reply to the request for documents pertaining to any proceeding or any action taken against the petitioner under the State Security Act, 1980 by the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Surguja, it has been informed that no action has been taken or ever has been proposed against the petitioner by the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Surguja. Thus, the Information Officer failed to furnish any record of any action taken against the 5 petitioner under State Security Act, 1980 or any law expelling him from the District. Copy of the information dated 27.08.2018 is filed Annexure-P/3. The petitioner has also obtained the copy of the entire register of the Penal Revenue Cases of the District Sarguja, which enlists the names of all the offenders who have been expelled from the district, entailing from 1978. The name of the petitioner is not on the register, which furthermore demonstrates the fact that the Petitioner has never been expelled from the district under any offense. Copy of Register is filed as Annexure-P/4.

7. Mr. Singh also contended that from the aforesaid documents it is amply clear that the petitioner has never been expelled from District Sarguja and no such recommendation has ever been made against the Petitioner. However, the Contemnor in CRMP No. 807/2021 has forged the document and thus has presented the same before the Hon'ble Court, with a mala fide intent of thwarting the administration of justice. The Contemnor took recourse to fraud to deflect the course of judicial proceedings. The same has been done with oblique motive of interfering with the administration of justice. If a forged and fabricated document is filed in Court to get some relief, the same would amount to interference with the administration of justice and the conduct is punishable as contempt of Court. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chandra Shashi Vs. Anil Kumar Verma, 6 reported in (1995) 1 SCC 421 and Perry Kansagra, In RE (suo motu contempt petition), reported in (2023) 16 SCC 631.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

9. From perusal of the record it transpires that while hearing the CRMP No. 807 of 2021 filed by the Contemnor, the petitioner herein was heard through the counsel engaged by him and he has neither raised objection with regard to the authenticity of the documents annexed along with the said petition nor has filed any reply to the avernments made in the said petition, and the said petition was simply disposed of on the basis of submission given by learned State Counsel that a closure report has been prepared by the Investigating Officer on 11.06.2024, directing the Investigating Officer to submit the final report under Section 173(2) of CrPC before the competent Court, if any, within a period of three weeks from that day, without giving any finding or prejudicial order against the petitioner herein with regard to the allegations made by the Contemnor taking support of the alleged forged document or false submissions, if any.

10. If any false and forged document has been submitted by Contemnor before this Court, the petitioner had the liberty to take recourse to Section 340 of CrPC at that point of time, but he did not avail the said remedy and also not filed any return in the said petition though notice was served to him on 06.09.2021. Further, it transpires that the closure report has already been submitted by 7 the Investigating Officer before the competent Court in pursuance to the FIR lodged by the petitioner against the Contemnor, the petitioner has further liberty to challenge the same, before the appropriate Court / forum, if he is so aggrieved. But, the petitioner, without availing the aforementioned liberties available to him, directly approached this Court by way of present petition with a request for taking suo moto cognizance in initiating Criminal Contempt Proceedings against the Contemnor, which according to us is a misuse of process of law and further wastage of precious time of the Court for his oblique motive.

11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pandurang Vithal Kevne Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr., (decided on 20.12.2024 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 56230 of 2024) has strongly condemned litigants who use the justice system for their benefit and thereby attempt to pollute the streams of justice. It was observed as under: “22. Considering that precious time of this Court and the High Court was wasted by the petitioner, in our opinion the petitioner deserves to be burdened with heavy cost, to give clear message to the unscrupulous litigants like the petitioner for not daring to play with the Judicial System. Such type of litigants are not only polluting the stream of justice but putting hurdles in its dispensation to others. The precious judicial time which the petitioner has wasted, could very well be used for taking up the cases of other litigants who are waiting for justice. In 8 fact these types of litigants are choking the system of the court, which is resulting in delays in decision of other cases. It is also the duty of the Courts at different levels to curb such type of litigation so that more time is available for dealing with genuine litigation.

23. In the light of facts and circumstances as aforesaid, we are inclined to impose a cost of ₹ 1,00,000 /- (Rupees One Lakh) against the petitioner to be deposited with the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority within four weeks. On failure, recovery be effected from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue.”

12. It is necessary to observe that the proceedings in Court of law are initiated for adjudication of disputes and to provide justice to the parties, by which trust and confidence of the litigants reposed on this great institution can be maintained. In case one of the parties misuse the said process or attempt to obtain an order by justified trick in and strategem, the Courts would be justified in imposing the costs for igniting such vexatious litigation. In our considered opinion, for misuse of process of law and further wasting the precious time of the Court, this Court intended to impose an exemplary cost of Rs.5,00,000/- (Five Lacs) on the petitioner, but on a request being made by learned counsel for the petitioner for not imposing such a huge amount as cost to the petitioner, as he is a poor person and is unable to pay such a huge amount and prays for apology for the same, we refrain from doing so. However, the Court deems it proper to impose an exemplary cost 9 of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) upon the petitioner and put him to strict caution and to remain careful in future not to misuse the process of law and not to waste the precious time of the Court. The aforesaid cost imposed upon the petitioner shall be deposited by him before the Registry of this Court within a period of one month from today and the same shall be transmitted to the Children Observation Home, Bilaspur, failing which, the same shall be recovered from the petitioner by the Registrar General of this Court in accordance with law.

13. In view of the foregoing reasons, we dismiss this petition by imposing the cost as indicated above. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra