Full Judgment Text
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INHERENT JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NOS. 340342 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 13411343 OF 2019
Meenal Bhargava … Petitioner
versus
Naveen Sharma & Ors. ... Respondents
J U D G M E N T
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
th
1. By judgment and order dated 16 January 2023, we
held the respondent no.1 (contemnor) guilty of contempt.
We have recorded detailed findings in the said judgment
Signature Not Verified
and order. Before we passed the said Order, the learned
Digitally signed by
Anita Malhotra
Date: 2023.05.16
17:54:21 IST
Reason:
counsel for the contemnor was fully heard and in fact, the
Contempt Petition (C) Nos.340-342/2022 Page 1 of 9
contemnor was also present through video conferencing.
We postponed the sentencing part only with the object of
giving last opportunity to the contemnor to make amends.
However, we find that the contemnor has not shown any
signs of remorse. On the contrary, the submissions made
on his behalf clearly show that the contemnor has scant
respect for the Orders of this Court.
2. We are not reproducing all the findings recorded in the
earlier order. In terms of the undertaking given by the
contemnor and the orders of this Court passed from time to
time, he was under an obligation to bring back the child to
st
India on 1 July 2022. We also noted the conduct of the
contemnor in paragraph 12, which shows that he never had
any intention of bringing the child back to India.
3. The learned counsel for the contemnor invited our
attention to the proceedings of the Circuit Court of Cook
th
County, Illinois (for short “the Circuit Court”) of 24
January 2023. He pointed out that the said proceedings
record that one Mr Wasko has been appointed as the
Guardian Ad Litem by the said Court in the USA. He
submitted that as the child was subjected to sexual abuse
while he was staying with the petitioner in India, a forensic
Contempt Petition (C) Nos.340-342/2022 Page 2 of 9
investigation is in progress in the United States of America
(USA), and therefore, the child cannot be brought back to
India unless the investigation is over. Learned counsel
pointed out the submissions made by Mr. Wasko before the
said Court. He submitted that the contemnor has acted in
the best interests of the minor child and that he has acted
in a bonafide manner to protect the interests of the minor
child. He submitted that now that Guardian Ad Litem has
been appointed, the contemnor cannot bring back the child
to India so long as the appointment continues to exist.
4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner
has invited our attention to the various aspects of the
conduct of the contemnor and pointed out that, in fact, he
is guilty of even criminal contempt.
5. Following factual aspects indicate the extent of the
contumacious conduct of the contemnor:
(i) A finding has been recorded in our earlier order that
the contemnor never intended to bring back the
child to India;
(ii) The child holds a USA passport. The contemnor
has not even applied for renewal of the passport
though the passport expired long back. In one of
Contempt Petition (C) Nos.340-342/2022 Page 3 of 9
the earlier hearings, he pleaded that since an
investigation is pending in USA about the sexual
abuse of the child, he could not apply for renewal of
his passport. However, he has not placed on record
any constraint put on him either under any law of
USA or an order of the competent Court which
prevented him from applying for renewal or
extension of the passport of the minor;
(iii) The contemnor never applied to this Court for a
grant of extension of time to bring back the child.
For the first time, by filing a counter affidavit to the
contempt petition, he tried to seek an extension of
time without giving any justification;
(iv) The contemnor always acted contrary to the
statement made by him on more than one occasion
that he has subjected himself to the jurisdiction of
this Court. He pleaded in the Courts in USA that
he has not subjected himself to the jurisdiction of
this Court; and
(v) Even after the expiry of three months from the date
of the order holding him guilty of contempt, he has
not shown any remorse in any manner.
Contempt Petition (C) Nos.340-342/2022 Page 4 of 9
6. Now we deal with the claim of the contemnor that he
acted in the best interests of the minor. The proceedings of
th
the Circuit Court dated 24 January 2023 are relevant for
the purpose. The Court noted that the minor son was
talking about his ancestral house being sold. The Court
observed that it was a gross error on the part of the
contemnor to talk to the child about pending litigations
either in India or Canada. The Judge of the Circuit Court
directed the contemnor that he was “truly and utterly”
prohibited from discussing the litigations in India, USA and
Canada with his minor son. We have also noted that the
child talked about the sale of the property of his
grandmother when in one of the video conference hearings,
the child appeared with the contemnor. It is obvious that it
is the contemnor who must have apprised the child about
the litigation.
The property of the contemnor’s mother was required
7.
to be sold due to the gross default committed by the
contemnor. The contemnor is least bothered about the fact
that his mother lost her property due to his default.
However, apart from committing impropriety by informing
the child about the details of the pending litigations, he
tried to prejudice the minor’s mind by telling him that his
Contempt Petition (C) Nos.340-342/2022 Page 5 of 9
ancestral property is being sold at the instance of the
mother.
8. The contemnor has shown scant respect to the judicial
proceedings pending in this Court. He has defied
assurance given to this Court that he has submitted himself
to the jurisdiction of this Court. As noted in paragraph 15
of the earlier order, the contemnor went to the extent of
opposing the request for mirroring the order of this Court,
which resulted in the denial of the said request by the
concerned Foreign Court. In fact, due to the
misrepresentation made by the contemnor, the Foreign
Court has not honoured the principle of comity of Courts.
The act of denying the fact that he voluntarily submitted to
the jurisdiction of this Court and his conduct of opposing
the request for the grant of mirroring order amounts to
interference with the administration of justice and
obstructing the administration of justice.
9. Another disturbing feature of the conduct of the
contemnor has been noted on page 41 of the proceedings
th
dated 24 January 2023 of the Circuit Court. The
contemnor submitted before the Circuit Court that the said
Court should make sure that there is an order passed that
Contempt Petition (C) Nos.340-342/2022 Page 6 of 9
the questions and answers in the proceedings should not be
used in any proceedings in India. In fact, he tried to warn
Mr. Wasko, who was appointed as Guardian ad litem , that
based on the proceedings, he can be summoned by Indian
Courts. The contemnor reiterated that he wants to be
careful as the proceedings have been used in Indian Courts.
The contemnor knows that his conduct of defying the orders
of this Court and showing disrespect to the orders of this
Court can be established from the proceedings in the
Circuit Court. His attempt before the Circuit Court was to
ensure that his contumacious conduct, as reflected in the
Circuit Court’s proceedings, should not be made available
to this Court. In short, his attempt was to suppress the
proceedings.
10. The acts and omissions of the contemnor, as reflected
in what we have discussed above, amount to both civil and
criminal contempt. This calls for a strict action against him.
1
This Court in the case of
11. In Re : Perry Kansagra ,
while relying upon decisions of this Court in the case of
2
Pallav Sheth v. Custodian and Re : Vijay Kurle and
1
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1516
2 (2001) 7 SCC 549
Contempt Petition (C) Nos.340-342/2022 Page 7 of 9
3
Others held that in view of Article 129 of the Constitution
of India, the power of this Court to punish a person for
contempt is not constrained by the provisions of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In fact, this Court has
observed that the power of this Court to punish a person for
contempt is unrestricted by the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971.
12. Considering his contumacious conduct, we propose to
direct the contemnor to pay a fine of Rs. 25 lakhs and to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for
committing civil and criminal contempt. In default of
payment of the fine, he will have to undergo a further
sentence of simple imprisonment for two months.
Accordingly, we issue the following directions:
13.
i) The contemnor is sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for six months. He shall pay a fine of
Rs. 25 lakhs within a period of six months from today.
The fine amount shall be deposited with the Registry of
this Court. On the failure of the contemnor to pay the
fine within the stipulated time, he shall undergo a
3 2020 SCC OnLine SC 407
Contempt Petition (C) Nos.340-342/2022 Page 8 of 9
further sentence of simple imprisonment for two
months.
ii) After the fine amount is deposited in this Court, the
same shall be released to the petitioner, who will be
under an obligation to use the said amount only for
the welfare and benefit of the minor son.
iii) We direct the Government of India as well as the
Central Bureau of Investigation to take all possible
and permissible steps to secure the presence of the
contemnor in India with a view to ensure that he
undergoes the sentence and pays the fine.
14. For reporting compliance, the case shall be listed in
the first week of August, 2023.
..……....….……………J.
(Sanjay Kishan Kaul)
......………….…………J.
(Abhay S. Oka)
New Delhi;
May 16, 2023.
Contempt Petition (C) Nos.340-342/2022 Page 9 of 9