High Court Imposes Heavy Costs for Misuse of Contempt Jurisdiction
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has taken a stern stance against what it termed a gross abuse of the judicial process, dismissing a contempt petition and imposing exemplary costs of Rs 3 lakh on the petitioner. Justice Sudeep ti Sharma delivered the ruling, directing Rajbir Singh Brar to pay Rs 1 lakh each to three police officers, including Punjab Director General of Police Gaurav Yadav.
Petition Dismissed as Frivolous and Vexatious
In a detailed order, the court found no evidence 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 directions related to registering FIRs in cognizable offences as per the Supreme Court's Lalita Kumari ruling and compliance with the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994.
The state government, represented by Deputy Advocate General Ravneet S. Joshi, submitted a compliance affidavit demonstrating that the 2024 order specifically concerned sex determination cases and had no connection to Brar's complaints about alleged embezzlement of school funds in Faridkot district.
Key Reasons for Dismissal
The court outlined multiple grounds for dismissing the contempt petition:
- The Division Bench's directions in CWP-2066-2018 (order dated July 30, 2024) had been duly complied with, as evidenced by the compliance affidavit and material on record.
- The order specifically addressed implementation of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994, and bore no relation to the allegations of school fund embezzlement and forgery raised in the contempt petition.
- The petitioner failed to produce any material establishing willful or deliberate disobedience by the respondents.
- Regarding FIR No. 21 of 2025, an SIT investigation had been conducted, witnesses examined, a challan presented against one accused, and further investigation was ongoing—indicating active compliance rather than disobedience.
- The petitioner was not the de facto complainant in FIR No. 21 of 2025 and was attempting to steer the investigation through contempt as a pressure tactic, which falls outside contempt jurisdiction.
- The reliefs sought—including registration of FIRs against specific officers and investigation by CBI or independent agencies—were in the nature of mandamus and wholly misconceived for contempt proceedings.
- The petitioner had previously filed COCP-5433-2025 on similar grounds, withdrawing it with liberty to seek alternate remedies; filing another contempt petition on the same lines constituted an abuse of process.
- Contempt jurisdiction must be exercised with great caution and only where willful and intentional disobedience is clearly established; it cannot be used to harass officials or settle personal scores when records show compliance.
Rationale for Imposing Rs 3 Lakh Costs
The court imposed costs of Rs 3,00,000 on the petitioner, payable in equal shares of Rs 1,00,000 to each respondent, recoverable as arrears of land revenue in case of default. The reasoning included:
- From the compliance affidavit and case file, the court found the petitioner habitually filed frivolous contempt petitions targeting officials by name, amounting to gross abuse of legal process.
- Such frivolous and vexatious petitions add to case pendency and waste limited judicial time and resources meant for bona fide grievances.
- The petition was described as a glaring misuse of 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 emphasize 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 costs of Rs 3,00,000 on the petitioner.
The ruling underscores the judiciary's commitment to preventing misuse of contempt proceedings and ensuring that judicial resources are reserved for legitimate grievances.
