i.l *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CONT.CAS.(CRL) 15/2007 VINAY SIKAND Petitioner Through: Mr. Lol<esh Kumar, Advocate versus TARUN AHLUWALIA Respondent Through: Mr. Rajpal Kasana, Advocate with respondent in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ARUNA SURESH ORDER % 06.04.2009 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. It appears to be a case where the petitioner and the respondent who are related to each other, are fighting an ego ^ battle. Both of them have to be blamed to a large extent because of the reason they are indulging in cash transactions. Had the parties transacted business with each other by advancing as also returning money by cheques, the inter se dispute which is emanating between the parties would not have surfaced. page 1 of 7 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified .A I 3. Briefly stated relevant facts are that the petitioner alleges return of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs) to the respondent by means of two receipts dated 2.8.2004 and 7.4.2005. He also alleges that the respondent has executed an affidavit on 7.4.2005 acknowledging receipt of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Fiv Lacs) from the petitioner. 4. The respondent denies having executed the two receipts and the affidavit. 5. We note that the two receipts record payment in cash. Had payment been returned by cheques, independent and irrefutable evidence would have come on record. 6. Be that as it may, since the respondent denies having executed the receipts and the affidavit, on 14.11.2006 an order was passed by this Court in CrI.M.C. No.1173/2006 requiring an enquiry to be conducted by the Metropolitan Magistrate where proceedings under Section 138 of the Nl Act, initiated by the respondent against the petitioner, are pending. Needless to state, in said proceedings, the petitioner claims having returned the money which he had received from the respondent by means of two payments i.e. Rs.2.5 lacs paid on 2 occasions and evidenced by the receipts. page 2 of 7 o. 11 7. The instant contempt proceedings appears to be a trigger of reaction to Annexure P-4, which is a letter dated 22.9.2007 bearing the signatures of the respondent. The same is addressed to the Chief iviinister Haryana and the Director General of Police Haryana. Request is made in the said letter to take action against Roshan Lai Aggarwal, Baldev Raj and Sukhpal Singh as also the petitioner. It is alleged in the complaint that the said 3 persons namely Roshan Lai Aggarwal, Baldev Raj and Sukhpal Singh have connived with the petitioner to forge the two receipts and the affidavits. 8. According to the petitioner, the complaint in question is nothing but a pressure tactic to harass the witnesses of the petitioner who have witnessed the return of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs) in cash. It is thus urged that by writing the complaint in question the respondent has interfered with the administration of justice, in that, proceedings are pending in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and said three persons have to appear as witnesses. 9. The respondent admits having written the letter dated 22.9.2007. The said letter is a complaint to the Chief Minister Haryana and the Director General of Police. However, page 3 of 7 d-- the counsel for the respondent states that the proceedings have been closed by the learned 10 when the respondent informed him that authenticity of the document would be decided by the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate Delhi. 10. Prima facie, the respondent has no business to write a letter/complaint. It is prima facie evident that the respondent wanted to intimidate Roshan Lai Aggarwal, Baldev Raj and Sukhpal Singh. Indeed, aware of the order dated 14.11.2006 passed in CrI.M.C. No.1173/2006 the dispute pertaining to the two receipts and the affidavit has to be decided by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. 11. We are prima facie satisfied that the respondent has tried to use some political links in the State of Haryana or some ^ connections with the local police there to intimidate three witnesses. 12. We find it strange that pertaining to a dispute pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate at Delhi, on proceedings initiated by the respondent himself, he has chosen to involve the local police in the State of Haryana. 13. We hold the respondent guilty of having interfered with the administration of justice and thereby liable for page 4 of 7 1^ having committed criminal contempt of the Court. 14. Having held the respondent guilty of having committed contempt of the Court, we issue notice to the respondent to show cause as to why he should not be punished for having committed criminal contempt of Court. 15. Learned counsel for the respondent makes a plea for mercy at this stage and states that punishment may be decided right away and that the respondent should be dealt with lightly because he is a layman. 16. Courts in India are choked with litigation because the citizens of this country carry on their affairs unmindful of the process of law. Each day we notice cash transactions between the parties ignoring the mandate of the Income Tax Act which requires commercial transactions involving payment of more than Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs) to be by means of cheques. 17. With immunity, witnesses speak lies. It is indeed a , nightmare for Judges to find oasis of truth in the dessert of lies brought on record. More often than not. Court decisions are based not on who is speaking the truth, but who is speaking a lesser lie. page 5 of 7 18. The system has been choked by such people who refuse to live by the law. 19. The petitioner and the respondent appear to be citizens in this category who chose to carry out their affairs unmindful of the law. 20. Noting the apology tendered by the respondent who is present in person in Court and recording his undertaking that he would not resort to any complaints; neither to the police or any Court pertaining to the two receipts and the affidavit and would abide by the decision taken by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate where his complaint under Section 138 Nl Act is \ pending, we impose the sentence of imprisonment upon the respondent till the rising of the Court. Additionally, the respondent is levied a fine of Rs.2,000/-; deposit being made in the name of the Registrar General of this Court. The fine would be deposited within a week and on deposit would be paid over to the petitioner. If within a week the fine is not paid, the respondent would undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 21. The respondent who is present in person is taken into custody till the rising of the Court. page 6 of 7 22. Copy of this order be supplied dasti to learned counsel for the parties. _ I- e n APRIL 06, 2009 mm PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. V- ARUNA SURESH, J. page 7 of 7