Suraj Prakash Taneja vs State Nct Of Delhi And Anr
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~A-1 & A-2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of decision: 27 OCTOBER, 2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
# CNR No : DLHC010564642024
+ CRL.M.C. 6885/2024 &CRL.M.A. 14856/2026
SURAJ PRAKASH TANEJA .....Petitioner
Through:
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Aman Usman APP for the
R-1/State .
Mr. Kishore and Mr. Laxman, Advs
for R-2/Complainant.
SI Mohit Kumar, PS Tilak Nagar.
SI Rubie Singh
# CNR No : DLHC010564782024
+ CRL.M.C. 6899/2024 &CRL.M.A. 13419/2026
SHAKIL AHMAD @ SHAKEEL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kishore and Mr. Laxman, Advs.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Aman Usman APP for the
R-1/State .
SI Mohit Kumar, PS Tilak Nagar.
SI Rubie Singh
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHAZAAD
ZAKIR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
12:29:17
CRL.M.C. 6885/2024 etc. Page 1 of 13
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. On 13.10.2026, this Court held Ms. Shamshad guilty of committing
contempt of court under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
(hereinafter referred to as “ Contempt of Courts Act ”) for non-compliance of
the Order dated 02.09.2024 and for giving a false statement in Court.
2. Ms. Shamshad and her Counsel have been heard on the point of
sentence. Today, this Court has listed the matter for Orders on punishment
under the Contempt of Courts Act.
3. The facts, in brief, which are necessary for deciding the contempt
proceedings, are as under:
a) CRL.M.C. 6885/2024 had been filed by the Petitioner under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to
as “ Cr.P.C. ”) for quashing FIR No.133/2017 dated 20.03.2017,
registered at Police Station Tilak Nagar for offences punishable
under Sections 354 and 354B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter referred to as “ IPC ”).
b) CRL.M.C. 6899/2024 had been filed by the Petitioner under Section
482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of FIR No.139/2017 dated
21.03.2017, registered at Police Station Tilak Nagar for offences
punishable under Sections 354 and 506 IPC.
c) The Petitioner in CRL.M.C. 6885/2024, Mr. Suraj Prakash Taneja, is
the landlord and father of Respondent No. 2/Complainant, Ms.
Shilpa Taneja in CRL.M.C. 6899/2024, whereas the Petitioner in
CRL.M.C. 6899/2024, Mr. Shakil Ahmad, is the tenant and husband
of Respondent No. 2/Complainant, Ms. Shamshadin CRL.M.C.
6885/2024.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHAZAAD
ZAKIR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
12:29:17
CRL.M.C. 6885/2024 etc. Page 2 of 13
d) The said two FIRs were registered on the basis of two cross-
complaints filed by the respectiveComplainantsin a dispute between
the landlord and the tenant. Subsequently, both the Parties filed their
respective petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of
the FIRs on the ground that they have entered into a compromise.
e) On 02.09.2024, both the petitions came up for hearing before this
Court. This Court found that both the FIRs were falsely registered by
the Parties against each other. This Court observed that, of late, false
cases over trivial issues and with oblique motives were being filed
by the Parties against each other, particularly in relation to offences
involving outraging the modesty of women. This Court also
observed that the Police Officers spend their valuable time in
investigating such trivial or false cases, and thereafter in instructing
their Counsel and appearing before the Court during proceedings,
because of which they are unableto investigate bonafide cases
properly due to paucity of time and resources.
f) Relying upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Gian Singh
v. State of Punjab &Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303 , this Court, vide Order
dated 02.09.2024, quashed both the FIRs. However, this Court was
of the opinion that the Parties should not be left scot-free for filing
false cases and get away with these cases by entering intoa
compromise, which is an abuse of the process of law. The relevant
portion of the Order is reproduced as follows:
“9. However, this Court is of the opinion that the
Parties cannot be left scot free for filing false cases
and get away with these cases by entering into a
settlement which is the abuse of the process of law and
the same leads to wasting the precious judicial time.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHAZAAD
ZAKIR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
12:29:17
CRL.M.C. 6885/2024 etc. Page 3 of 13
10. Accordingly, The Petitioners, in both the
petitions, are directed to do community service at
LNJP Hospital, Delhi for a period of 15 days i.e. from
10.09.2024 to 25.09.2024 from 09:00 AM to 05:00 PM.
The Petitioners shall report to the Medical
Superintendent, LNJP Hospital, Delhi on 10.09.2024.
The Petitioners shall report to the duty assigned to
them by Medical Superintendent, LNJP Hospital, Delhi
at 09:00 AM everyday for a period of 15 days. After
completion of 15 days community service, a certificate
from the Medical Superintendent, LNJP Hospital,
Delhi be also filed to show compliance of the order of
this Court.
11. The Respondent No.2/Complainants, in both the
petitions, are directed to do community service at
Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi for a period of 15 days i.e.
from 10.09.2024 to 25.09.2024 from 09:00 AM to
05:00 PM. The Petitioners shall report to the Medical
Superintendent, Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi on
10.09.2024. The Petitioners shall report to the duty
assigned to them by Medical Superintendent,
Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi at 09:00 AM everyday for a
period of 15 days. After completion of 15 days
community service, a certificate from the Medical
Superintendent, Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi be also
filed to show compliance of the order of this Court.
12. In case of any absenteeism/default or any
misbehaviour on the part of the Petitioners and the
Respondent No.2/Complainants during the period in
which they have been directed to perform the
community service, the same shall be conveyed
immediately to the concerned SHO/IO, who shall in
turn inform the learned APP for the State, for bringing
the same to the notice of this Court and for seeking
recall of the order passed today.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHAZAAD
ZAKIR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
12:29:17
CRL.M.C. 6885/2024 etc. Page 4 of 13
g) The Order dated 02.09.2024 was not complied with for about one
and a half years, and the matter was listed before this Court
on11.05.2026. On that date, this Court passed the following Order:
“2. It now transpires that Mr. Shakil Ahmad
(Petitioner in CRL.M.C. 6899/2024), Ms. Shilpa
Taneja (Complainant in CRL.M.C. 6899/2024) and
Ms. Shamshad (Complainant in CRL.M.C. 6885/2024)
have not done community service as directed by this
Court vide Order dated 02.09.2024. It is very
unfortunate that the Police has not taken necessary
action of reporting non-compliance of the Orders of
this Court.
3. It is stated that Ms. Shilpa Taneja (Complainant
in CRL.M.C. 6899/2024) has been admitted in Mata
Chanan Devi Hospital, Janakpuri, New Delhi.
4. Mr. Shakil Ahmad and Ms. Shamshad are
directed to be present in Court physically on
18.05.2026 at 10:30 AM to show cause as to why this
Court should not recall the Order and take steps under
the Contempt of Courts Act against them for wilful
violation of the Orders of the Court.
5. Similarly, Ms. Shilpa Taneja is directed to be
present in Court physically on 28.05.2026 at 10:30 AM
to show cause as to why this Court should not recall
the Order and take steps under the Contempt of Courts
Act against her for wilful violation of the Orders of the
Court.”
h) When the matter came up for hearing on 18.05.2026, this Court
directed both Mr. Shakil Ahmad and Ms. Shamshad to report to
Medical Superintendent, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New
Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “ RML Hospital ”), for the purpose of
performing community service for a period of 15 days between the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHAZAAD
ZAKIR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
12:29:17
CRL.M.C. 6885/2024 etc. Page 5 of 13
date of the Order, i.e., 18.05.2026 and 01.07.2026. Similarly, on
29.05.2026, this Court also directed Ms. Shilpa Taneja to report to
the Medical Superintendent, RML Hospital, for the purpose of
performing community service for a period of 15 days between the
date of the Order, i.e., 29.05.2026and 01.07.2026.
i) On 02.07.2026, Ms. Shamshad and Mr. Shakil came to the Court and
stated that they had performed community service for 15 days at the
RML Hospital, from 12.06.2026 to 27.06.2026. However, in view of
the fact that there was nocommunication on this account from the
Medical Superintendent, RML Hospital, this Court listed the matter
for 17.07.2026, awaiting the Report from the Medical
Superintendent, RML Hospitaland dispensed with the personal
appearance of Ms. Shamshad and Mr. Shakil.
j) On 17.07.2026, since the Report from the Medical Superintendent,
RML Hospital was awaited, this Court directed that a copy of the
Order be immediately transmitted to RML Hospital, so that the
Order can be complied with.
k) Thereafter, a Report dated 30.07.2026 was received from RML
Hospital, which is being reproduced as under:
“ Subject: Compliance/ non-compliance Report
regarding Community Service in CRL.M.C. No.
6899/2024 and CRL.M.C. No. 6885/2024 titled Shakil
Ahmad @Shakeel Vs State NCT of Delhi and Suraj
Prakash Taneja Vs State NCT of Delhi and ANR and
CRL M.A 14856/2026 in CRL M.C 6885/2024 titled
Suraj Prakash Taneja Vs State NCT of Delhi and
Shakil Ahmad @ Shakeel Vs State NCT of Delhi and
ANR
Sir,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHAZAAD
ZAKIR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
12:29:17
CRL.M.C. 6885/2024 etc. Page 6 of 13
I am directed to refer to the orders passed by the
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CRL.M.C. No.
6899/2024 and CRL.M.C. No. 6885/2024 dated
18.05.2026, and the subsequent order in CRL.M.C. No.
6885/2024 dated 28.05.2026, and to submit the
following compliance report for the kind information of
the Hon'ble Court:
1. Sh. Shakil Ahmad, the petitioner, has duly
complied with the directions of the Hon'ble Court
by performing community service for a period of
15 days, from 12.06.2026 to 27.06.2026, in the
Department of Forensic Medicine, Dr. Ram
Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi. The said
community service has been certified titled Shakil
Ahmad @Shakeel Vs State NCT of Delhi and
Suraj Prakash Taneja Vs State NCT of Delhi and
ANR and a copy of his attendance is enclosed
herewith at Annexure-I.
2. It is further to inform you that as per the
information received from the Department of
Forensic Medicine, Ms. Shamshad, the
complainant W/o. Mr. Shakil Ahmad did not
report to the Department of Forensic Medicine to
perform the aforesaid community service as
directed by the Competent Authority in
compliance with the order of the Hon'ble Court.
3. Ms. Shilpa Taneja, the complainant has complied
with the directions of the Hon'ble Court by
performing community service for a period of 15
days, from 18.06.2026 to 01.07.2026, in the
Department of Accident & Emergency, Dr. Ram
Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi. It is
submitted that she performed two shifts on
28.06.2026 to complete the prescribed period of
15 days. The same has been certified by the
Department of Accident & Emergency, and a copy
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHAZAAD
ZAKIR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
12:29:17
CRL.M.C. 6885/2024 etc. Page 7 of 13
of her attendance is enclosed herewith at
Annexure-II.
4. As per the reports received from the concerned
Departments, the community service rendered by
Sh. Shakil Ahmad and Ms. Shilpa Taneja was
found to be satisfactory. ”
l) The aforesaid Report clearly shows that Ms. Shamshad has not
performed community service and a false statement was given by her
before this Court on 02.07.2026 that she has performed the
community service. This Court, vide Order dated 18.08.2026, issued
bailable warrants against Ms. Shamshad to ensure her presence on
the next date of hearing to show cause as to why proceedings under
the Contempt of Courts Act be not initiated against her. The matter
was listed before the Court on 13.10.2026,and the following Order
was passed:
“1. On 18.08.2026 bailable warrants were issued
against Ms. Shamshad to ensure her presence on the
next date of hearing to show cause as to why
proceedings under the Court of Contempt Act 1971 be
not initiated against her.
2. Ms. Shamshad is present in Court today.
3. Heard Ms. Shamshad and her Counsel.
4. There is no explanation forthcoming from her as
to why she has not complied with the Order dated
02.09.2024 and has not reported to the concerned
Department for performing her community service for
15 days as directed by this Court and also as to why a
false statement was given to the Court on 02.07.2026
that she has complied with the Order dated
02.09.2024.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHAZAAD
ZAKIR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
12:29:17
CRL.M.C. 6885/2024 etc. Page 8 of 13
5. This Court is of the view that non-compliance of
the Order dated 02.09.2024 and giving false statement
in Court is a complete disobedience of the Court and
Ms. Shamshad is guilty of committing contempt of
court under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971.
6. Ms. Shamshad and her Counsel have also been
heard on sentencing.
7. List on 27.10.2026 at 10:30 AM for orders on
punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
8. Ms. Shamshad is directed to be physically
present in the Court on the next date of hearing.”
4. Ms. Shamshad and her Counsel have been heard on the issue of
contempt and the punishment to be imposed under the Contempt of Courts
Act.
5. It is well settled that the purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold
the majesty and dignity of the Court of Law. The Apex Court in Jhareswar
Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly, (2002) 5 SCC 352 , has observed as
under:
" 11 . The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold
the majesty and dignity of the courts of law, since the
respect and authority commanded by the courts of
law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen
and the democratic fabric of society will suffer if
respect for the judiciary is undermined.
(Emphasis Supplied)
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHAZAAD
ZAKIR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
12:29:17
CRL.M.C. 6885/2024 etc. Page 9 of 13
6. Further, the Apex Court in Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj, (2014) 16
SCC 204 , while explaining the contours of contempt jurisdiction,has
observed as under:
“11. The contempt jurisdiction conferred on to the
law courts power to punish an offender for his wilful
disobedience/contumacious conduct or obstruction to
the majesty of law, for the reason that respect and
authority commanded by the courts of law are the
greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen that his
rights shall be protected and the entire democratic
fabric of the society will crumble down if the respect
of the judiciary is undermined. Undoubtedly, the
contempt jurisdiction is a powerful weapon in the
hands of the courts of law but that by itself operates
as a string of caution and unless, thus, otherwise
satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, it would neither be
fair nor reasonable for the law courts to exercise
jurisdiction under the Act. The proceedings are
quasi-criminal in nature, and therefore, standard of
proof required in these proceedings is beyond all
reasonable doubt. It would rather be hazardous to
impose sentence for contempt on the authorities in
exercise of the contempt jurisdiction on mere
probabilities.
12. Thus, in order to punish a contemnor, it has to be
established that disobedience of the order is “wilful”.
The word “wilful” introduces a mental element and
hence, requires looking into the mind of a
person/contemnor by gauging his actions, which is an
indication of one's state of mind. “Wilful” means
knowingly intentional, conscious, calculated and
deliberate with full knowledge of consequences
flowing therefrom. It excludes casual, accidental,
bona fide or unintentional acts or genuine inability.
Wilful acts does not encompass involuntarily or
negligent actions. The act has to be done with a “bad
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHAZAAD
ZAKIR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
12:29:17
CRL.M.C. 6885/2024 etc. Page 10 of 13
purpose or without justifiable excuse or stubbornly,
obstinately or perversely”. Wilful act is to be
distinguished from an act done carelessly,
thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. It does not
include any act done negligently or involuntarily. The
deliberate conduct of a person means that he knows
what he is doing and intends to do the same.
Therefore, there has to be a calculated action with
evil motive on his part. Even if there is a disobedience
of an order, but such disobedience is the result of
some compelling circumstances under which it was
not possible for the contemnor to comply with the
order, the contemnor cannot be punished.
“Committal or sequestration will not be ordered
unless contempt involves a degree of default or
misconduct.”
xxx
15. It is well-settled principle of law that if two
interpretations are possible, and if the action is not
contumacious, a contempt proceeding would not be
maintainable. The effect and purport of the order is
to be taken into consideration and the same must be
read in its entirety. Therefore, the element of
willingness is an indispensable requirement to bring
home the charge within the meaning of the Act. [See
SushilaRaje Holkar v. Anil Kak [SushilaRaje Holkar
v. Anil Kak, (2008) 14 SCC 392 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S)
497] and Three Cheers Entertainment (P) Ltd. v.
CESC Ltd. [Three Cheers Entertainment (P) Ltd. v.
CESC Ltd., (2008) 16 SCC 592 : AIR 2009 SC 735] ]
"
(Emphasis Supplied)
7. The judgment of Ram Kishan (supra) has also been further followed
by the Apex Court in U. N. Bora v. Assam Roller Flour Mills Association,
(2022) 1 SCC 101 .
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHAZAAD
ZAKIR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
12:29:17
CRL.M.C. 6885/2024 etc. Page 11 of 13
8. A perusal of the aforesaid judgments shows that the purpose of the
Contempt of Courts Act is to uphold the majesty of law and to punish an
offender for his wilful disobedience or obstruction to the majesty of law, for
the reason that respect and authority commanded by Courts are the greatest
guarantee to an ordinary citizen that his rights would be protected and the
fabric of the society will crumble down if the respect for the judiciary is
undermined. To bring out the case of interference in the administration of
justice, the Contemnors actually must know that their conduct is oriented
towards interfering in the administration of justice. Without such
knowledge, a person cannot be punished for criminal contempt.
9. There is no reason/explanationprovided by Ms. Shamshad as to why
she did not comply with the Orders of this Court. In fact, Ms. Shamshad has
given a false statement before the Court on 02.07.2026 that she has
performed community service, and her lawyer also accepted the ipse dixit of
his client in advancing the said submission before the Court. As per the
learned Counsel for Ms. Shamshad, he made the said submission,believing
his client to be truthful. The young Counsel is warned to be more careful in
future in accepting the ipse dixit of his client without verifying the facts and
submitting it before the Court.
10. Ms. Shamshad expresses remorse in the Court and states that she will
not repeat this kind of act in future, and she has also tendered her
unconditional apology to the Court.
11. In view of the fact that Ms. Shamshad has tendered her unconditional
apology and that she is a young lady having minor children, this Court is of
the opinion that sending her to prison would not be in the interest of the
future of her children. Moreover, an unconditional apology has also been
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHAZAAD
ZAKIR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
12:29:17
CRL.M.C. 6885/2024 etc. Page 12 of 13
tendered by the learned Counsel for Ms. Shamshad.
12. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to permit Ms. Shamshad,
as one last opportunity, to purge her contempt by performing 30 days’
community service from 01.11.2026 to 30.11.2026 at RML Hospital. She is
directed to be present in Court on 07.12.2026 along with a certificate of
completion of community service issued by the Medical Superintendent,
RML Hospital, clearly stating the days on which Ms. Shamshad has done
the community service.
13. The Medical Superintendent, RML Hospital, is requested to issue a
certificate of completion of community service to Ms. Shamshad, only after
she performs the community service for a period of 30 days from
01.11.2026 to 30.11.2026 satisfactorily.
14. The contempt proceedings initiated against Ms. Shamshadshall stand
closed.
15. List on 07.12.2026 to show compliance with the Order.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
OCTOBER 27, 2026
S. Zakir
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHAZAAD
ZAKIR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
12:29:17
CRL.M.C. 6885/2024 etc. Page 13 of 13