Criminal Contempt Can Be Initiated Against Person Who Had Knowledge That His Conduct Was Oriented Towards Interfering In Administration Of Justice: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court was considering a matter where the complainant was held guilty of committing contempt of Court under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
While allowing a woman having minor children to purge her contempt by performing community service, the Delhi High Court has held that to bring out the case of interference in the administration of justice, the Contemnors actually must know that their conduct is oriented towards interfering in the administration of justice and without such knowledge, he cannot be punished for criminal contempt.
The High Court was considering a matter where the complainant was held guilty of committing contempt of Court under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for non-compliance of an Order dated September 2, 2024 and for giving a false statement in Court.
The Single Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad observed, “A perusal of the aforesaid judgments shows that the purpose of the Contempt of Courts Act is to uphold the majesty of law and to punish an offender for his wilful disobedience or obstruction to the majesty of law, for the reason that respect and authority commanded by Courts are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen that his rights would be protected and the fabric of the society will crumble down if the respect for the judiciary is undermined. To bring out the case of interference in the administration of justice, the Contemnors actually must know that their conduct is oriented towards interfering in the administration of justice. Without such knowledge, a person cannot be punished for criminal contempt.”
Additional Public Prosecutor Aman Usman represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The matter revolved around the petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) for quashing of FIR registered under Sections 354 and 354B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Another FIR was registered under Sections 354 and 506 IPC. The Petitioner is the landlord and father of second Respondent/Complainant, Shilpa Taneja, whereas the Petitioner in another petition, Shakil Ahmad, is the tenant and husband of the second Respondent/Complainant, Ms. Shamshadin.
The said two FIRs were registered on the basis of two cross complaints filed by the respective complainants in a dispute between the landlord and the tenant. Subsequently, both the Parties filed their respective petitions under Section 482 CrPC eeking quashing of the FIRs on the ground that they had entered into a compromise. On September 2, 2024, both the petitions came up for hearing. The Court found that both the FIRs were falsely registered by the Parties against each other. The Court quashed the FIRs and asked the litigants to perform the community service.
When the matter came up for hearing on May 18, 2026, the Court directed both Shakil Ahmad and Ms. Shamshad to report to Medical Superintendent, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi (RML Hospital), for the purpose of performing community service for a period of 15 days. Later it was brought to the notice of the Court that Ms. Shamshad had not performed community service and a false statement was given by her before the Court that she had performed the community service.
Reasoning
The Bench, at the outset, stated, “It is well settled that the purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the Court of Law.”
The Bench noted that Ms. Shamshad expressed remorse in the Court and stated that she will not repeat this kind of act in future. She had also tendered her unconditional apology to the Court.
Considering the fact that Ms. Shamshad had tendered her unconditional apology and she is a young lady having minor children, the Bench held that sending her to prison would not be in the interest of the future of her children. The Bench thus concluded the matter by giving Ms. Shamshad, one last opportunity, to purge her contempt by performing 30 days’ community service at RML Hospital.
Cause Title: Suraj Prakash Taneja v. State NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:9576)
Appearance
Respondent: Additional Public prosecutor Aman Usman, Advocates Kishore and Laxman, SI Mohit Kumar