Maj Pankaj Rai vs Ramcharan Thiagarajan Facs

N. Ananda, J.—This contempt petition filed under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has come up for preliminary hearing. The contempt petition was initiated after obtaining sanction from the Advocate General.

It is the grievance of complainant that respondent (accused) had filed certain fabricated and forged documents as annexures in W.P. No. 11207/2013 and he had also made certain false averments in the writ petition. The respondent (accused) has abused the process of law and he had made misleading or wrong statement to obtain a favourable order and he had interfered with due course of judicial proceedings.

We have heard Sri. Christopher Noel, learned counsel for complainant and Sri. C.V. Nagesh, learned Senior Counsel for respondent (accused).

It is the grievance of complainant that respondent (accused) had made false averments in W.P. No. 11207/2013 and he had annexed certain forged documents with a view to mislead the court to obtain a favourable order thereby, respondent (accused) had abused the process of law and interfered with due process of judicial proceedings.

We have gone through the order passed by this court in W.P. No. 11207/2013 dated 03.04.2014. This court had formulated following points for determination:

1) Whether the MCI possessed the jurisdiction to impose the punishment on the petitioner in the appeal filed by the third respondent?

2) Whether there is a remedy of appeal available to the petitioner against the impugned order ?

3) Whether the order of MCI can be sustained as being in accordance with principles of law and justice?

In our considered opinion, points no. 1 and 2. formulated as aforestated relate to jurisdiction of MCI and availability of remedy of appeal to the respondent (accused) and point no. 3 relates to procedure followed by MCI. in the order made in W.P. No. 11207/2013 dated 03.04.2014, we do not find any reference to the alleged forged documents.

In W.P. No. 11207/2013 dated 03.04.2014 this court has found fault with the Medical Council of India for recording findings without assigning reasons. The order passed by MCI against respondent-contemnor was quashed and the matter was remanded to MCI for reconsideration and pass appropriate orders within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of the order in W.P. No. 11207/2013.

We have been informed by the learned counsel for parties that the matter is still pending consideration before the Medical Council of India (MCI).

The learned counsel for complainant relying on the judgment of Supreme Court reported in Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh, Finance and Planning Department and Other Vs. P. Eswar Reddy and Others, would submit that respondent (accused) had made false, misleading and wrong statements deliberately and willfully to obtain favourable order, thereby, respondent (accused) committed criminal contempt within the definition of Section 2(c)(ii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

The learned counsel for complainant has drawn our attention to certain documents to contend that these documents were forged with a view to obtain favourable order.

As per the averments of complaint, these documents were forged before they were filed in the court. In W.P. No. 11207/2013, this court had no jurisdiction to refer the matter for prosecution of respondent (accused) for alleged offence of forgery. The complainant has initiated a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., against respondent for alleged offence of forgery. In this contempt petition, this court cannot record findings on genuineness or otherwise of the documents produced in W.P. No. 11207/2013. As regards false averments made in the writ petition, the learned counsel for complainant would submit that both the parties were heard before MCI. In W.P. No. 11207/2013 the petitioner (respondent herein) had averred that MCI has violated the principles of natural justice.

In W.P. No. 11207/2013 this court referring to the judgment of Supreme Court reported in Mrs. Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, has held that withholding reasons amounted to denial of opportunity of hearing. Therefore, complainant cannot be heard to say that averments made in W.P. No. 11207/2013 relating to denial of opportunity were misleading statements.

After going through the order made in W.P. No. 11207/2013 and alleged misleading averments made in W.P. No. 11207/2013, we are satisfied that alleged misleading averments are the grounds of writ petition and they have no bearing on the decision of W.P. No. 11207/2013. In the circumstances, it is not possible to record a prima-facie finding that respondent (accused) had willfully made misleading or wrong statements to obtain favourable orders and he had abused the process of law.

We do not find prima-facie case to frame charges against the respondent (accused). Therefore, the contempt proceedings are dropped and the respondent (accused) is discharged.