The Punjab and Haryana high court has imposed a fine of ₹50,000 on a Kaithal resident, whose counsel when faced with dismissal of petition told the court that he “had been instrumental in making many a judge.”
The court also imposed ₹50,000 on the man fine for ‘concealment of facts’.
The order was passed by high court bench of justice Arun Monga, who was hearing a plea from Shiv Kumar Chauhan, seeking direction to deputy commissioner and superintendent of police to initiate action for committing a fraud by trust members of a private school in the district. As per the plea, the petitioner was removed ‘fraudulently’ by the trust members as secretary in 2016 but police did not act on his complaints.
On November 3, when the court was about to pass dismissal order and impose a cost of ₹ 50,000 on the petitioner, his lawyer Sushil Gautam, the court says “very rowdily exuberates that paying costs is not an issue and he is even ready to pay ₹1 lakh towards the same”.
“He also boisterously claims that he has been instrumental in making many a judges and how can his arguments/contentions, therefore, be rejected by this court to dismiss the instant petition,” says the order.
{{/usCountry}}“He also boisterously claims that he has been instrumental in making many a judges and how can his arguments/contentions, therefore, be rejected by this court to dismiss the instant petition,” says the order.
{{/usCountry}}The judge observed that the bench could have passed more strict order but it is taking a lenient view and preferring self-restraint from taking any further action and enhanced the fine on petitioner to ₹1 lakh in view of the lawyer’s behaviour.
As per order, during the hearing it had come to light that two civil suits are pending on the controversy before a court but the petitioner could not satisfactorily state as to why this fact was not disclosed in the plea.
It also said prima facie the dispute seems to be civil in nature and institution of the criminal proceedings is being sought for “collateral pressure and for settling private scores/gains”.
The petitioner should have first approached the trial court for redressal of his grievance before coming to the high court, it added.
The court recorded that the petitioner indulged in “subtle concealment” of facts and does not inspire any confidence for its intervention and therefore the fine was imposed to be deposited in Covid-19 fund of UT administration.
Gautam said, “I am yet to get a copy of the order. If advised so by my client, I would file an appeal against it and make a complaint against relevant people.”