High Court Slaps Rs 3 Lakh Fine on Petitioner for Misusing Contempt Proceedings Against Punjab Police
In a stern ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a contempt petition filed by Rajbir Singh Brar, imposing exemplary costs of Rs 3 lakh on him for what it termed a gross abuse of the judicial process. The court directed Brar to pay Rs 1 lakh each to three police officers, including Punjab Director General of Police (DGP) Gaurav Yadav, against whom the petition was filed.
Court Finds No Evidence of Willful Disobedience by Police Officials
Justice Sudeep ti Sharma, presiding over the case, found no merit in the allegations of willful disobedience by Punjab police officials regarding an earlier Division Bench order dated July 30, 2024. Brar, who appeared in person, had accused DGP Gaurav Yadav and other senior officers of deliberately violating court directions that mandated the registration of FIRs in cognizable offences as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Lalita Kumari and strict adherence to the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994.
The state, represented by Deputy Advocate General Ravneet S. Joshi, submitted a compliance affidavit demonstrating that the 2024 order specifically pertained to sex determination cases and had no connection to Brar's complaints about alleged embezzlement of school funds in Faridkot district. This affidavit played a crucial role in the court's decision, highlighting the lack of nexus between the original order and the contempt allegations.
Key Reasons for Dismissal of the Contempt Petition
The court outlined multiple grounds for dismissing the petition, emphasizing that contempt jurisdiction must be exercised with caution and only in cases of clear willful disobedience. Key reasons included:
- The directions from the Division Bench in CWP-2066-2018 (order dated July 30, 2024) have been duly complied with, as evidenced by the compliance affidavit and record materials.
- The order in CWP-2066-2018 focused on implementing the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994, and was unrelated to Brar's allegations of embezzlement, forgery, and other issues raised in the contempt petition.
- Brar failed to produce any material to establish willful or deliberate disobedience by the respondents, including police officers.
- In FIR No. 21 of 2025, an SIT investigation was conducted, witnesses were examined, a challan was presented against one accused, and further investigation is ongoing, indicating active compliance rather than disobedience.
- Brar is not the de facto complainant in FIR No. 21 of 2025 and was attempting to steer the investigation using contempt as a pressure tactic, which falls outside the scope of contempt jurisdiction.
- The reliefs sought, such as registration of FIRs against specific officers and investigations by independent agencies, were deemed misconceived and beyond the purview of contempt proceedings.
- Brar had previously filed a similar contempt petition (COCP-5433-2025) and withdrew it with liberty to seek alternate remedies; filing another petition on similar grounds was treated as an abuse of process.
Rationale for Imposing Exemplary Costs of Rs 3 Lakh
The court imposed costs of Rs 3,00,000 on Brar, payable in equal shares of Rs 1,00,000 to each respondent, to be recovered as arrears of land revenue in case of default. This decision was based on several factors:
- From the compliance affidavit and case file, the court found that Brar has a habit of filing frivolous contempt petitions and targeting officials by name, constituting a gross abuse of the legal process.
- Such vexatious petitions contribute to judicial pendency and waste limited judicial time and resources intended for genuine grievances.
- The petition was described as a glaring misuse of the judicial process, falling within the category of vexatious litigation warned against in precedents like Dalip Singh, Subrata Roy Sahara, and K.C. Tharakan.
- In Payal Chaudhary v. KAP Sinha (COCP-3579-2025), the High Court held that litigants who pollute the stream of justice with frivolous litigation are not entitled to relief and may face exemplary costs.
- The Supreme Court's order in Sandeep Todi v. Union of India (W.P. (C) No. 240 of 2025) was cited to underline that courts should not permit withdrawal of frivolous petitions without imposing heavy costs as a deterrent.
- The court reasoned that if costs can be imposed on officials in genuine cases of disobedience, a litigant who has manifestly abused the process should equally bear exemplary costs payable to affected officials.
- To send a strong deterrent message and preserve the sanctity of judicial proceedings, the court imposed the costs, aiming to curb similar abuses in the future.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's commitment to preventing misuse of contempt proceedings and ensuring that judicial resources are reserved for legitimate cases, thereby upholding the integrity of the legal system.
