P&H High Court Issues Contempt Notice To Public Prosecutor & Trial Judge For Ignoring HC Order, Continuing Case Which Had Already Been Quashed
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has sought an explanation from a Trial Court judge and a Public Prosecutor as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them for disregarding the High Court's order by continuing a criminal proceeding which had already been quashed.
Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma said, "it appears that the learned trial Court concerned, has prima facie wantonly disregarded the said directions, rather has proceeded to invite responses from the learned Public Prosecutor concerned, and subsequently has ordered for consideration, being made, on the application filed by the present applicant-petitioner, asking for implementation of the said directions. In consequence, the...wanton disregard to the explicit directions (supra) as made by this Court, upon the learned trial Judge concerned, thus prima facie constitutes contempt of Court. The Public Prosecutor concerned, is also prima facie complicit with (supra) in purportedly committing the contempt of Court. Therefore, both of them are required to furnish explanations, as to why further proceedings for contempt of Court be not initiated against them."
An FIR was lodged by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in 2016 against Vardhman Life Sciences, its Managing Director namely Suyog Jain and others accused of alleged loan default.
However, the FIR was quashed by the High Court, observing that the declarations that the Company committed 'fraud' were required to be quashed and set aside since they were violative of the principles of natural justice.
Jain submitted before the High Court that despite the quashing order being passed, the Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Chandigarh refused to close the matter and adjourned the proceedings on the request made by the Public Prosecutor.
The division bench noted that the Trial Court was directed to quash the proceedings and observed that both the trial Judge as well as the Public Prosecutor needed to explain their actions on the subsequent date of hearing.
Title: SUYOG JAIN V. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Mr. Puneet Bali, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Surjeet Bhadu, Advocate and Ms. Sanya Thakur, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner.