Anand Kohli & Anr. v. Sunaina Singh

Delhi High Court · 10 Nov 2022 · 2022:DHC:4748
Sachin Datta
CONT.CAS(C) 4/2021
2022:DHC:4748
criminal conviction_upheld

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court held the respondent guilty of contempt for dishonouring post-dated cheques given pursuant to a court order and sentenced her to three months' imprisonment.

Full Text
Translation output
Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/004748
CONT.CAS(C) 4/2021
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 10.11.2022
CONT.CAS(C) 4/2021 and C.M. Appl. No. 45514/2022, C.M.
Appl. No. 44639/2022 ANAND KOHLI & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Sidharth Yadav, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Ankit Chadha, Advocate.
VERSUS
SUNAINA SINGH ..... Respondent
Through: Ms.Preeti Singh, Mr.Sunklan Porwal, Ms. Saumya Dwivedi and
Ms.Kumkum Mandhaya, Advs. with respondent-in-person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA SACHIN DATTA, J.
JUDGMENT

1. Vide order dated 07.10.2022, the respondent was held guilty of committing Contempt of Court under Section 2(b) read with Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The background of the case, and the conduct of the contemnor/respondent was also taken note of in the aforesaid order. In fact, the egregious conduct of the respondent has been taken note of in various orders passed in these proceedings from time to time.

2. Vide order dated 23.03.2022, the present contempt petition was disposed of by this Court with the following directions:-

“2. Today the Contemnor is present in the Court. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Contemnor that the Contemnor has handed- over a cheque of ₹1,00,000/- dated 23.03.2022 along with 11 post- dated cheques of ₹2,00,000/- each to the learned counsel for the Petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner acknowledges the receipt of the cheques. XXX XXX XXX 8. It is made clear that even if a single cheque, handed-over by the Contemnor to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, gets dishonoured for want of money, the Petitioner will be at liberty to revive the contempt petition and the Contemnor would be liable for aggravated contempt which would entail punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.”

3. Admittedly, the post dated cheques submitted by the respondent to the petitioners have been dishonoured. The order dated 23.03.2022 was categorical to the effect that even if a single cheque handed over by the contemnor/respondent to learned counsel for the petitioner gets dishonoured for want of money, the respondent would be liable for aggravated contempt which would entail punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

4. In view of the dishonour of the cheques, and non-payment of the requisite amount by the respondent to the petitioners, the application filed by the petitioners for restoration of the instant petition was allowed vide order dated 03.06.2022, and the instant petition was restored to its original number.

5. It was only after several opportunities were granted to the respondent thereafter to pay the requisite amount, and the respondent having failed to do so, that this Court finally, vide order dated 07.10.2022, held the respondent guilty of having committed Contempt of Court under Section 2(b) read with Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. A review petition i.e. Review Petition No. 277/2022 was filed by the respondent seeking review of the order dated 07.10.2022. However, vide a separate order passed today, the said review petition has been dismissed

6. Even after the aforesaid order dated 07.10.2022 was passed, various opportunities were given to the respondent to purge her contempt. Vide order dated 14.10.2022, last opportunity was granted to the respondent/contemnor to purge her contempt and pay the outstanding amount of Rs.18,50,000/- to the petitioners, however, the requisite payment has not been made by the respondent to the petitioners.

7. Instead, the respondent has taken divergent pleas from time to time to avoid the consequences of the contempt. As mentioned hereinabove, a review petition i.e. Review Petition No. 277/2022 was filed seeking review of order dated 07.10.2022 which has been dismissed vide a separate order passed today. The respondent has also sought to avoid the consequences of her contempt on the basis of the averments made in application filed on behalf of the petitioner, being C.M. Appl. No. 45514/2022, wherein the petitioners have sought that contempt proceedings be also initiated against Sh. Shailesh Singh, husband of the respondent, who allegedly aided and abetted the contempt on the part of the respondent. While the culpability of Sh. Shailesh Singh for aiding and abetting the contempt on the part of the respondent, will be examined separately, the respondent cannot be spared of the consequence of non-compliance and willful disobedience of the order dated 23.03.2022. As already noticed, the said order dated 23.03.2022 makes it clear that in the event of even a single post dated cheque handed over by the respondent to the learned counsel for the petitioner being dishonoured, the contemnor/respondent would be liable for “aggravated contempt”.

8. Accordingly, having taken into account the facts and circumstances, and the conduct of the respondent, the respondent is sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of three months for committing Contempt of order dated 23.03.2022 passed by this Court.

9. The respondent/contemnor (Sunaina Singh) is directed to be taken in custody forthwith.

10. Registry is directed to prepare the necessary warrants forthwith. CM APPL.45514/2022 At request of learned senior counsel for the petitioners, renotify on 22.11.2022.

SACHIN DATTA, J NOVEMBER 10, 2022 AK/CL