Crl.OCP No. 8 of 2004 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 30.3.2010 Court on its motion Versus Jaswant Sarpal CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Pradeep S. Punia, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana, as Amicus Curiae. Shri H.S. Brar, Additional AG, Punjab, As Amicus Curiae. Shri Jaswant Sarpal, respondent-contemner in person. HEMANT GUPTA, J (Oral) The present Criminal Contempt Petition was initiated on a Reference dated 24.1.2004 made by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, on the basis of a letter dated 23.1.2004 written by Shri K.K. Kareer, Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-cum- Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, for initiating contempt proceedings against the complainant-Jaswant Sarpal, for using contemptuous, foul and derogatory language in his letter dated 20.12.2003 written and circulated by the contemner. Crl.OCP No. 8 of 2004 [2] It may be noticed that the said communication was made by the learned Presiding Officer of the Court on receipt of letter dated 20.12.2003, while dealing with a private complaint filed in the year 1999 titled as “Ashwani Sarpal & Jaswant Sarpal sons of Darbari Lal Sarpal v. Amarjit Singh, the then Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar and 26 other respondents.” Out of the 27 respondents, 23 are the Government Officials, whereas 4 persons have been impleaded in the capacity of the landlord of the building situated in Mahan Singh Gate, Amritsar. In his letter dated 20.12.2003, the complainant has levelled allegations of impropriety against Shri K.K. Kareer, ACJM, Jalandhar and Shri Ram Kumar Singla, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, by using foul and derogatory language. It is mentioned therein that the said two Officers are slave Judges and are blot on the judicial structure and they should be immediately arrested. He has referred the Officers as inefficient and impotent Judges and burden on the State economy. Shri K.K. Kareer, has been referred to be of criminal mind, partial, incompetent, inefficient, corrupt, conspirator, expert for preparing fake and fabricating documents etc. The said complaint was placed before the Administrative Judge. The Administrative Judge in his note dated 7.4.2004 recorded that the allegations made in the complaint are irresponsible, scandalous and are intended to undermine the dignity of judicial administration. The complaint is apparently a contemptuous attempt on the part of the complainant and constitutes a criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act. In pursuance of the order passed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice on 9.4.2004, the matter was placed before the Bench. The Bench Crl.OCP No. 8 of 2004 [3] issued notice to the contemner on 26.4.2004 to show cause as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him. The contemner filed his reply dated 19.7.2004, wherein, inter-alia, he has mentioned that no lawyer is ready to handle his case and that out of depression, frustration and very sad state of mind, he has reacted in such a manner without any intention to harm or defame the judiciary. The Bench sought comments of Shri K.K. Kareer, vide order dated 19.7.2004. The learned Presiding Officer, in his comments dated 9.8.2004, has mentioned that Shri Jaswant Sarpal, was in the habit of making false and frivolous complaints against the Judicial Officers with a view to overawe them to secure favourable orders. The derogatory remarks against him in the letter dated 20.12.2003 were without any provocation, most unwarranted and uncalled for. It was pointed out that Shri Jaswant Sarpal himself has been prolonging the case by moving one or the other applications and that he has not examined his cited private witnesses. The respondent-contemner filed a counter reply dated 29.11.2004 to the comments submitted by Shri Kareer vide Crl. Misc. No. 36985 of 2005 dated 25.1.2005. He inter-alia, stated that Shri Kareer is having hand in gloves with the accused of the Court, District and State Authorities, and that he is totally disloyal to his oath for sincerity and honesty towards duty and post. He has further stated that he has no faith in the Judges of the both the Districts Amritsar and Jalandhar. The reply is full of scandalous allegations. On 22.7.2005, this Court gave an opportunity to the contemner to withdraw his allegations. However, the contemner- Jaswant Sarpal stated that he was not willing to withdraw the allegations. This Court on the next date of hearing i.e. 6.9.2005, Crl.OCP No. 8 of 2004 [4] once again gave opportunity for withdrawing the allegations so that his case could be considered sympathetically. The contemner once again aggressively refused to withdraw the allegations in any circumstances. Accordingly, this Court directed the District & Sessions Judge (Vigilance), Haryana, to record the evidence and submit his report within six months. The order dated 6.9.2005 reads as under:- “Before we started the proceedings today, we once again put it to the contemner that in case he was willing to withdraw the allegations made against the judicial officer concerned, we would still consider his case with sympathy. The contemner, however, aggressively replied that he was not willing to withdraw the allegations under any circumstances. At this, Mr. Dhruv Dayal, Advocate, who has been appointed by the Legal Services Authority, to assist the contemner, says that he is not willing to appear in this case on behalf of the contemner in this situation and he be permitted to withdraw from the proceedings. Allowed as prayed. At this stage, the contemner states that he would like the case to be transferred to the Ist Division Bench as the Chief Justice is the head of the judicial administration in the State. However, as the case has been listed as per roster, this prayer is declined. We also direct the District Judge, Vigilance, Haryana, to record the evidence in this case and submit his report within six months from today. The copies of the documents on record be supplied to the contemner within two weeks so that he can put forth his defence. The contemner to appear before the District Judge, Vigilance, Haryana, Chandigarh, on 21.9.2005.” The case be again put up after the receipt of the report.” Crl.OCP No. 8 of 2004 [5] Before the learned District & Sessions Judge (Vigilance), Haryana, the contemner appeared on 21.9.2005 and made the following statement:- “I am in possession of complaint dated 20.12.2003 running into 13 pages and do not need the copy of the same to be supplied. In addition, there is only a reference made by Shri K.K. Kareer, ACJM, Jalandhar. I am also in possession of reply submitted by Shri K.K. Kareer and also in possession of the counter reply submitted by me, along with six other applications dated 29.11.2004. I do not need these documents. There is no other document on the file.” Though the statement was recorded by the learned District & Sessions Judge (Vigilance), Haryana, but the contemner refused to append his signatures. The matter was adjourned to 29.9.2005 for filing defence by the contemner. The order sheet records that the contemner has noted the date and time fixed. The noting recorded by the learned District & Sessions Judge (Vigilance), Haryana, on 29.9.2005 reads as under:- “The contemner Sh. Jaswant Sarpal has not come present despite date and time of his choice being given and noted by him, to file his written defence. It appears that either he has no defence to file or he is not interested in filing the written defence. Superintendent of District Court, Jalandhar be summoned for 25.11.2005 at 11.00 a.m.” Subsequently, the statement of Superintendent, District Court, Jalandhar, was recorded on 20.12.2005 and the report dated 23.1.2006 was submitted by the learned District & Sessions Judge (Vigilance), Haryana, to this Court. The contemner moved Crl. Misc.No. 71640 of 2006 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dated 14.11.2006 for placing on record Crl.OCP No. 8 of 2004 [6] his complaint against the District & Sessions Judge (Vigilance), Haryana, for submitting a fake report dated 23.1.2006 and stating that his services should be terminated. The contemner was provided with the services of the Advocates of Legal Services Authorities, from time to time. Firstly, he was provided with the assistance of Shri A.P.S Shergill, Advocate, on 2.11.2004. But Shri Shergill, expressed his inability to appear on behalf of the contemner on 25.1.2005. On 24.3.2005, the contemner submitted that he should be provided free legal aid from outside the States of Punjab and Haryana. The said prayer was not accepted, but he was given an opportunity to select any counsel out of the list to be provided to him by the Punjab, Haryana, or U.T., Legal Aid Authorities. Shri Dhruv Dayal, Advocate, appointed by the Legal Services Authority, stated before the Court on 6.9.2005 that he was not willing to appear on behalf of the contemner before this Court and he be permitted to withdraw from the proceedings. He was allowed to do so. On 18.12.2006, Shri Vikas Bahl, Advocate, offered to appear on behalf of the contemner, but on 17.1.2007, Shri Bahl was permitted to withdraw from the proceedings as the contemner was not agreeing with his suggestion to tender an unqualified apology. It was on 30.7.2007, the contemner stated that he would like to argue his case himself as the Advocates appointed have withdrawn. However, later on 18.12.2008, Shri Sunil Pawar, Advocate, was assigned to provide legal assistance to Shri Jaswant Sarpal. A perusal of the record shows that neither Shri Pawar has put in his appearance on any date nor there is any order permitting him to withdraw from the case. It appears that his fate is no different than the other Advocates appointed earlier that he does not seem to be intending Crl.OCP No. 8 of 2004 [7] to defend Shri Jaswant Sarpal. On February 10, 2010, the contemner again stated before this court that he would like to argue his case himself. It may also be noticed that the Court has initially appointed Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab, as Amicus Curiae to assist the court. The contemner levelled allegations against her in his communication dated 3.9.2005. Subsequently, Shri Anmol Rattan Sidhu, the then Additional Advocate General, Haryana, was requested to assist the Bench as Amicus Curiae. Shri Sidhu was requested to frame the charges against the contemner under Section 15(3) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short `the Act’) on 17.1.2007. An application dated 2.3.2007 was filed by Shri Sidhu along with the proposed charges against the contemner. But the contemner moved an application dated 24.9.2007 bearing Crl. Misc. No. 97519 of 2007 for placing on record his letter dated 9.8.2007, complaining against the conduct of Shri Sidhu, besides stating that the Division Bench, consisting of Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.S. Gill and Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal, was not entitled to continue with the hearing of the case. He stated that he has lost faith in all the Judges of the District Courts and the Judges of this Court. The said application was found to be contemptuous on the face of it. The Division Bench in its order dated 28.11.2007 recorded that the contemner has cast aspersions not only on the Court, but the Hon’ble Chief Justice, Hon’ble Judges of this Court, Judges of the District Courts and Shri Anmol Rattan Sidhu. The said order reads as under:- “Application moved today by Mr. Jaswant Sarpal (Contemner) is prima-facie and on the face of it contemptuous. He has cast aspersions not only on the Court, but also on the Hon’ble Chief Justice, Crl.OCP No. 8 of 2004 [8] Hon’ble Judges of this Court, Judges of the District Courts and Mr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. This type of intemperate language, which demeans the dignity of the Court, cannot be tolerated, whatever the grievance of the petitioner. We asked the petitioner/contemner to withdraw this application (P1), but he has in a defiant tone and loud voice stated that he will not feel sorry for the allegations levelled in it and will not withdraw it (P1). There is no need to go any further in this petition. Probably, the contemner thinks that he can say whatever he likes against any Hon’ble Judge and then get away with it. There are sufficient grounds to charge the contemner. We asked the contemner as to whether he has anything to say about the charge to be framed against him, but he stated that he has nothing to say and the Court is at liberty to award him any punishment. Contemner Jaswant Sarpal is taken into custody under Section 14(4) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The contemner is at liberty to furnish bail bonds and one surety of the like amount of Rs.10,000/- to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer If he does not furnish the bail bonds and the surety, the Arresting Officer shall release him on bail. Mr. Mahabir Singh, Sub Inspector, Police Station, Sector 3, Chandigarh, is directed to take the contemner into custody and hand him over to the Superintendent, Burail Jail, U.T., Chandigarh, if he does not furnish the bail bonds and the surety as stated above. The matter be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for appropriate orders, so that the Contempt Petition could be taken up by another Bench. Crl.OCP No. 8 of 2004 [9] Adjourned to 9.1.2008. Copy of this order be given to Mr. Mahabir Singh, Sub Inspector, Police Station Sector 3, Chandigarh, under the hand and seal of the Special Secretary of this Court.” The contemner was released on bail on his furnishing of bail bonds. He has not challenged the order of conviction dated 28th November 2007 passed by the court. Therefore, he is sentenced to undergo 3 months of simple imprisonment in terms of the said order passed. Shri Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Assistant Solicitor General, Union of India prayed for being excused from further representing the High Court as Amicus Curiae on 18.11.2008. His request was accepted and Shri Rajesh Bhardwaj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court. In another communication dated 17.2.2009, the contemner sought suitable action against Shri Rajesh Bhandari (Bhardwaj sic?), Additional AG, Punjab (who earlier agreed to act as Amicus Curiae), for making false averments in judicial proceedings. On 18.12.2008, the contemner stated that he has not received the copy of the charge sheet which was filed before this Court and sought time to argue on the proposed charges. Copy of the proposed charges was supplied to the contemner. Subsequently on 17.2.2009, this Court framed the following charge against the contemner:- “That you, Jaswant Sarpal son of Darbari Lal, resident of House No. 2220/2, Gali Arian, Inside Mahan Singh Gate, Amritsar, circulated a letter dated 20.12.2003 wherein you not only used foul, derogatory and unparlimentary contemptuous Crl.OCP No. 8 of 2004 [10] language but also levelled serious allegations of impropriety against Shri K.K. Kareer, the then Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar and Shri Ram Kumar Singla, the then Civil Judge (Junior Division) Amritsar, coming within the definition of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Thus, it is apparently an intentional and deliberate contemptuous attempt on your part to scandalize, lower the authority of the court and interfere in the due course of administration of justice and results in undermining the dignity of judicial administration, thus it constitutes a criminal contempt/offence and punishable under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for which you are liable to be tried and punished.” On the aforesaid date, the statement of the contemner was recorded that he has heard and understood the charge and pleads not guilty but he has refused to sign the said statement, which fact is recorded in the separate order of said date. Another order was passed on the aforesaid date, granting time to the contemner to file his affidavit in support of his defence as notice was served on the contemner along with the copy of motion on the basis of which proceedings were commenced, copies of affidavits on which motion is founded and copy of the reference of the Subordinate Court as well as copy of the inquiry report and the evidence recorded by the Inquiry Officer. In deference to the aforesaid order, the respondent-contemner filed an affidavit dated 18.4.2009. The contents of the said affidavit read as under:- “1. While passing order/charge sheet dt. 17.2.09, it seems this Hon’ble High Court Justice knowingly, willfully & interestingly neglected the previous order of Sh. Vijender Jain, Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice & Justice Sh. Rajiv Bhalla dt. 17.1.07 and charge sheet dt. 2.3.07 which had been passed only the ground “contemner is not agree with the suggestion to tender an unconditional apology”. A case in which two orders and two charge sheets had been issued this Crl.OCP No. 8 of 2004 [11] Hon’ble High Court Justice Sh. K.S. Grewal & Justice Sh. Sham Sunder have not yet cleared which among both the orders & charge sheet on different dates (2.3.07 & 17.2.09) is correct and valid. Please clear it so that reply can be filed. 2. That above said facts and circumferences as appeared in the court file would make it obediently cleared that their lordship are anxious to make an end to my life/destruction of my total family by anyway, in case of any misshaping liabilities to be fixed is made evident before hand.” The contents of the affidavit are incorrect. In order dated 17.1.2007, Shri Sidhu was directed to frame charges. It was on 17.2.2009, the charges were framed. The application filed by the contemner for taking action against Shri Rajesh Bhardwaj, Additional AG, Punjab, was ordered to be filed on the said date. The members of the Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.S. Garewal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, vide their order dated 20.4.2009, ordered the matter to be placed before some other Bench in view of the averments contained in para No. 2 of the affidavit (reproduced above). Subsequently, the presence of the respondent-contemner was secured through bailable warrants. On 10.2.2010, this Court sought the record of criminal complaint titled as “Ashwani Sarpal and another v. Amarjit Singh and others” to examine whether such complaint is abuse of process of law and thus, liable to be quashed. The said order reads as under:- “The present contempt petition has been registered on the basis of Reference made by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, on 24.01.2004 wherein it has been alleged that in complaint dated 20.12.2003 Mr. Jaswant Sarpal respondent Crl.OCP No. 8 of 2004 [12] (hereinafter to be referred as “the contemner”) has used highly derogatory language against Shri K.K. Kareer, Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar. This Court, after taking notice of the complaint, vide order dated 06.09.2005 has directed learned District Judge, Vigilance, Haryana to record the evidence and submit his report. Such order was passed as the contemner expressed his unwillingness to withdraw his allegations under any circumstance. In pursuance of such order, District & Sessions Judge (Vigilance) Haryana, has submitted his report dated 23.01.2006, a copy of which was supplied to the contemner on 24.10.2006. The record further shows that on 30.07.2007 the contemner has stated that he would like to argue his case himself as four Advocates, appointed to represent the contemner, have withdrawn. On 28.11.2007, the contemner filed an application (P-1) and stated before the Court, in a defiant tone and loud voice, that he will not feel sorry for the allegations levelled in it and will not withdraw it. The contemner was ordered to be taken into custody under section 14(4) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 but it was ordered that he be released on furnishing bail bond and one surety of the like amount of Rs.10,000/- to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. On December 18, 2008, the contemner sought time to argue on the proposed charges. On February 17, 2009, this Court framed charges but the contemner refused to sign. Subsequently affidavit dated 18.04.2009 was filed by the contemner. In para No.1 of the said affidavit, he has averred that there are two orders and two charge sheets and it is not clear which of the order and charge sheet is correct. Reference was made to orders dated 02.03.2007 and 17.02.2009. It was also averred that the Judges are anxious to make an end to his life / destruction of his total family by any way. He has further averred that in case of any mishappening, the liability is to be fixed before hand. A perusal of the record shows that on 02.03.2007, Mr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Additional Crl.OCP No. 8 of 2004 [13] Advocate General, Haryana, has filed an application with proposed charge-sheet as Annexure P-1. The record further shows that on July 22, 2005, after the contemner expressed his unwillingness to withdraw the allegations, Mr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Additional Advocate General was appointed as amicus curiae to assist the Court. It was on November 18, 2008, Mr. Sidhu expressed his inability to assist this Court as amicus curiae after the contemner made an application dated 22.09.2007 and appended a letter Annexure P-1 levelling reckless allegations against the Judges of this Court and Mr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, the then Additional Advocate General, Haryana. The contemner has also moved an application on 18.09.2008 for taking action against Mr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu. The genesis of the complaint made by the contemner from time to time is his private complaint No. 359 against the then Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar and other officers for the offences punishable under sections 379, 380, 382, 427 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, now pending and fixed for 20.02.2010 before Ms. Gurmeet Kaur, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar. Mr. Sarpal states that he does not want to add anything orally than what has been stated by him in the reply. However, before we consider the entire matter, we deem it appropriate to requisition the record of private complaint titled Ashwani Sarpal and others vs. Amarjeet Singh and others, filed by him to examine whether such complaint is an abuse of process of law and is liable to be quashed. List on 02.03.2010 for arguments. Let all the complainants be also remain present before this Court on the date fixed. A copy of the order under the signatures of Court Secretary of this Court be supplied to Mr. Jaswant Sarpal contemner for compliance of the order passed today.” Crl.OCP No. 8 of 2004 [14] It has to be noticed that during the proceeding on 10.2.2010, the contemner filed an affidavit dated 10.2.2010 levelling allegations against the members of this Bench and on that basis vide a separate order of the said date, a show cause notice was issued as to why, he should not be punished for making wild allegations. Contempt Petition bearing Crl. O.C.P. No. 6 of 2010 has been registered on the basis of the said order, which shall be dealt with separately. On 2.3.2010, the record of criminal complaint filed by the contemner and his brother was received. However, Ashwani Sarpal (co-complainant), was not present. The contemner sought time to make available his brother, who is residing with him in the same house, before this court in support of the complaint filed. The parties have sought time on the said date to examine, whether the complaint is abuse of process of law and thus, liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Liberty was given to the parties to inspect the record received from the trial Court. On 22.3.2010, the contemner again sought some time to facilitate the appearance of his brother as he was stated to be out of station. The case was adjourned for today to facilitate the presence of his brother and co-complainant Ashwani Sarpal on the question whether the complaint is liable to be quashed or not. Today,