HC hauls up judicial officer for contempt proceedings against former Chandigarh SSP

Jagadale had challenged civil contempt proceedings order passed by a judicial magistrate first class, Chandigarh, on March 18 this year

Penal provisions of contempt have to be invoked with due circumspection, judicial restraint and sparingly, the Punjab and Haryana high court has said while giving relief to former Chandigarh senior superintendent of police (SSP) Nilambari Vijay Jagadale.

Nilambari Vijay Jagadale

Jagadale had challenged civil contempt proceedings order passed by a judicial magistrate first class, Chandigarh, on March 18 this year, for “violating court orders” passed on five occasions in 2017 and 2018. The police officer, who took over as the first woman SSP of the city in 2017, joined back services in Punjab after her tenure got over in August this year.

“Their (contempt provisions) undue and indiscriminate use, particularly against public officers in connection with their official work, tends to unnecessarily embarrass, humiliate and demoralise them, thereby adversely affecting the discharge of their public functions without enhancing the dignity, respect and image of the courts,” the bench of justice Arun Monga said, while allowing Jagadale’s plea.

The case

The case in which contempt proceedings were initiated is of cheating, filed by one Daya Nand Saini in 2008. It was being investigated by the economic offences wing (EOW) of Chandigarh Police. In March 2009, an incomplete challan was filed, but police assured court of submitting a supplementary challan, but failed to do so.

In 2017, Saini filed an application for further probe, and the trial court ordered police to act on it. In June, July and August of 2017 and in January and April of 2018, besides the officers concerned, the SSP too was asked by the judicial officer to personally look into the matter.

However, the SSP failed to respond, and in October 2018, Saini moved contempt plea against her and three other cops. A reply was filed, but the trial court was dissatisfied and initiated contempt proceedings in March 2020, said lawyer Gautam Dutt.

What HC said

The high court bench found that in November 2018, Saini had moved a plea before it, seeking a CBI probe. While disposing of the plea in September 2019, court was satisfied over the reasons given for delay in probe. It had come to light that the probe was stuck as record to be submitted for forensic examination was lying with the Chandigarh court. So, HC ordered that it be sent to forensic examination through a special messenger.

Despite this, the judicial officer still proceeded with initiating contempt proceedings in March 2020 even as the SSP was not responsible for the delay. There was also no specific direction to the SSP to probe the FIR, the HC noted, adding that even if the delay was due to the police department, it would not be more than superintendence lapse on her part.

The court also noted that when contempt application was moved in October 2018, court could not have taken its cognisance in 2020, as beyond one year, it is not permissible in law.

“To say the least, judicial discipline and propriety required the magistrate to give due weightage and respect to the view taken by this court. Instead, the magistrate ignored the view of this court, by observing, contrary to the record, that there was no evidence on the file to show that any difficulty was expressed by the petitioner to comply with his (magistrate’s) orders,” the high court said.

“His observations that rather it was for the first time that such a stand had been mentioned in the reply to the contempt petition; or the response was by an officer who was not facing contempt; or an incompetent officer had filed reply et alia (other contributors), fly in the face of the record,” the court further said.