Criminal Law Journal 1960-2008

2002 CRI. L. J. 1904

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
M. F. SALDANHA AND N. K. PATIL, JJ.
Cri. CCC No. 37 of 2001, D/- 11 -1 -2002.
Pukraj D. Jain and others, Petitioners v. Dr. Gopalakrishna G. and others, Respondents.
Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971), S.2(c), S.12 - Criminal contempt - Questioning validity of final
order passed by High Court and filing litigation before lower Court - Itself is an act of criminal contempt
- Accused liable for conviction - However looking to age and status of accused and in view of apology
tendered by them Court instead of sentencing them to jail imposed fine of Rs. 501/-.
Questioning the validity of the final order passed by the High Court itself is an act of Contempt. Once the final
order is passed, if the party considers that the order is wrong or unjustified that order will have to be challenged
before a higher forum and set aside. No private person or member of the Bar has the authority to contend or
conclude that the final order passed by the High Court is not a valid order or that it can be disobeyed. Where
accused pleaded that learned single Judge had no jurisdiction to pass final order and instituted proceedings
before lower Court by very institution of this proceeding constitutes gross abuse to legal process and is
tantamount to criminal contempt. Accordingly, both accused were liable to be convicted but in view of their
apology, the immediate and total amends and the fact that they are aged 84 and 62 years respectively Court
instead of sentencing them to jail custody imposed a fine quantified at Rs. 501/- each.
(Paras 4, 5, 7)

P. D. Surana, for Petitioners; N. P. Singri, HCGP, Govt. Pleader (for No. 3), for Respondents.

Judgement
M. F. SALDANHA, J. :- We have heard the learned counsel representing the contesting parties and the learned
Government Advocate for the State. It was on our direction that the petitioners' learned Advocate has impleaded
the State as a formal party and carried out the formal amendment. Copies of the proceedings may be furnished to
the learned Government Advocate subsequently.
2. The charge against the accused in this case arises from the allegation that after the High Court finally disposed
of the dispute relating to the premises which are the subject matter of this contempt proceeding that the
contemnor took up the contention that the High Court order was an incorrect and non-est order and that
consequently they are within their rights to reagitate the matter before the trial court. A suit was accordingly
instituted and the complainant alleges that the institution of those proceedings constitute abuse of the legal
process. The earlier Division Bench issued notice to the respondents who have appeared. Respondent No. 1 is an
elderly Doctor and respondent No. 2 is his son who is a practicing Advocate. They are represented by their
learned Advocate Sri. Tilgul. They have filed their reply in which various contentions have been adopted
including the aspect of non-obtaining the sanction from the learned Advocate

(c) Copyright with All India Reporter Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur

Criminal Law Journal 1960-2008

@page-CriLJ1905
General and maintainability of proceedings etc. Had the proceeding been effectively contested we would have
had to examine each of these contentions and record our findings. As the case now stands it is pointed out to us
that on a reconsideration, the respondents have withdrawn the suit in question and it is also confirmed by the
learned counsel that the decree passed by the court has been executed, that the possession has been obtained by
the complainants and that the requisite payments have also been made. The submission is that the respondents
have retraced their steps, they have also tendered an unconditional apology to the court and the basic plea
put-forward is that there is no need to continue with the proceedings under these circumstances in so far as the
respondents have made amends for their faults, that their apology be accepted, and the proceedings be closed.
3. While opposing this submission, the petitioners' learned counsel vehemently submitted that various litigations
have been pending between the parties, that the filing of the suit before the lower Court was totally unjustified
and on the filing of the suit the act of contempt is complete and that they should not be allowed to get away by
merely tendering an apology as this will create a dangerous precedent for the future as the Courts are virtually
choked up with frivolous and vexatious litigations instituted with an oblique motive as in this case.
4. We do not dispute the fact that there is considerable substance in this argument. We also take the judicial
notice of the fact that instances are rampant where final orders and decrees of the Courts are not respected and
are sought to be frustrated, obstructed or nullified through the restarting of another frivolous litigations. The only
reason why this Court is required to take a relatively lenient view in the present instance is because immediately
on the Contempt proceedings being instituted the respondents have made immediate amends. Secondly, Sri
Tilgul's submission is that it was on the basis of the legal advice obtained by the respondents, namely that the
subject matter of the proceedings being more than 3 lakhs that the learned single Judge of this Court who had
finally decided the RFA did not have the jurisdiction to hear the appeal, that the proceedings were instituted
before the Trial Court. We are of the view that this explanation is weak and totally untenable because it is
tantamount to questioning the validity of the final order passed by the High Court which itself is an act of
contempt. We need to clarify that once the final order is passed, if the party considers that the order is wrong or
unjustified that order will have to be challenged before a higher forum and set aside. No private person or
member of the Bar has the authority to contend or conclude that the final order passed by the High Court is not a
valid order or that it can be disobeyed. Let it also be very clearly understood by members of the Bar that some
wrong notions prevail that lawyers are immune from contempt action, which is a total misnomer. Reading
between the lines, we have no hesitation in holding that in this as in numerous other instances where muscle
power is resorted to and parties take the law into their own hands, that it is on the basis of legal advice. Had the
lawyers responsible for the Contempt in this case been parties before us in this proceeding we would have had
no hesitation in sentencing them and we take it that this case will serve as a stern warning to all those who have
no respect for the Courts and the rule of law.
5. Regardless of this position, and regardless of the fact that the petitioners learned Advocate has strongly
opposed the closing of the proceedings, we are of the view that having regard to the age and status of the parties
and several other aspects of the litigation, that it is inadvisable to proceed further with the present proceeding,
particularly since sufficient amends have been made. We make it clear that we are acting with a degree of
reluctance because our magnanimity and benevolence is not to be misunderstood. We are aware of the
impression that wrongly prevails in many quarters that howsoever grave the Contempt, the guilty party will
always get away with an apology. The legal position is otherwise and the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that
apologies should not be accepted in gross cases as also in instances where the apology is belated or conditional.
6. The petitioners' learned Advocate brought to our notice the fact that there are certain other litigations that are
going on between the parties and it was his submission that if this Court were to accept the apology and if this
Court were to agree to close the proceeding there must be a final conclusion of all the litigations. We have

(c) Copyright with All India Reporter Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur

Criminal Law Journal 1960-2008

@page-CriLJ1906
carefully examined this submission, we have heard both the learned Advocates and we decline to pass any
directions in this regard for the simple reason that an earlier contempt proceeding was taken out against the
present respondents before the Division Bench in respect of the litigation pertaining to another part of the
premises and the Division Bench through a detailed judgment has held that no contempt is made out and
dropped those proceedings. In this back ground, it would be improper for us to make any observations or issue
any directions in respect of that litigation.
7. In principle we disapprove of the filing of the subsequent litigation and hold that the very institution of this
proceeding constitutes gross abuse of legal process and is tantamount to criminal contempt. Accordingly, both
accused stand convicted but in view of their apology, the immediate and total amends and the fact that they are
aged 84 and 62 years respectively we refrain from sentencing them to jail custody but impose a fine quantified at
Rs. 501/- each. We need to make it very clear that only because of the special facts and circumstances of this
case that we have taken a lenient view. We also need to make it very explicit that since the filing of dishonest,
vexatous and frivolous litigation is rather rampant, that this Court will take a very rigorous view in appropriate
cases of this type even if necessary by making an example of a few of the culprits, as a deterrent.
8. In the result, the petition succeeds. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to pay fines quantified at Rs. 501/each within a period of four weeks from today and to deposit the fine amounts with the Office of this Court in
default to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months each.
Petition allowed.

(c) Copyright with All India Reporter Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur