Private Party Can't Seek Punishment For Contempt Of Court Without Prior Written Consent Of Advocate General: Jharkhand High Court Reaffirms

The Jharkhand High Court dismissed a contempt petition filed by an advocate, observing that it was not maintainable under the Contempt of Courts Act as the petitioner lacked locus and failed to fulfil mandatory requirements for initiating such proceedings.

Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, in its decision, observed, “It is well settled if a private party seeks punishment for contempt of Court, he can file a petition only under Section 15 of the said Act with prior written consent of the learned Advocate General. In the case in hand, no such prior written consent has been obtained by Mr. Abhishek Krishna Gupta, Advocate appearing in person and in view of that, he has not fulfilled mandatory requirement for invoking contempt jurisdiction of the Court.”

The advocate-petitioner alleged that another advocate, practicing before the High Court, had misrepresented facts to obtain an order in an earlier petition while obtaining the order. The petitioner contended that the advocate had secured an order directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to file a counter-affidavit in a matter where the investigation was allegedly completed, and a charge sheet had been filed. The petitioner argued that such suppression warranted the initiation of contempt proceedings.

The Court in its Judgement, stated, “The petitioner appearing in person is not party in his personal capacity to the said order against which the present contempt case has been filed and this petition has been presented in his personal capacity, whereas, in the order no liberty was given to any third party to file contempt case and, hence, the petition brought by Mr. Abhishek Krishna Gupta is not maintainable.”

Drawing from precedents, the Court stated that the weapon of contempt is not to be used in abundance or misused. Normally, the Court continued stating, it cannot be used for execution of the decree or implementation of an order for which alternative remedy in law is provided for.

“The discretion given to the Court is to be exercised for maintenance of the Court's dignity and majesty of law. Further, an aggrieved party has no right to insist that the Court should exercise such jurisdiction as contempt is between a contemner and the Court,” the Court held.

Imposing costs on the petitioner, the Court initially directed, “this contempt petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) to be deposited by the petitioner with the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA) within four weeks.”

However, acknowledging the petitioner's intent to appeal to the Supreme Court, the Court granted an extension, stating, “At this stage, Mr. Abhishek Krishna Gupta, Advocate appearing in person submits that he will prefer S.L.P. against this order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in view of that, further time may kindly be allowed to him.”

Accordingly, the contempt petition was dismissed.

Case Title: Abhishek Krishna Gupta vs The State of Jharkhand and Anr

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 190

Click Here To Download Judgement