Abdul Gani Bhat vs Chairman,Islamia Colge.G.Brd. & Anr

Supreme Court25 January 2011Asok Kumar Ganguly · G.S. Singhvi

SCC(2011) 12 SCC 640
AIRAIR 2012 SC Supp 123

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

An order directing the Registrar of the Supreme Court to file a criminal complaint under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis that statements made in a written statement or reply filed before the Court are false, as alleged by one party, cannot be issued merely on the assertion that those statements are false according to that party's version, absent other valid grounds or justification for such action.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

I.A. Nos.3-4 in SLP(C) Nos.1995-1996 of 2006

Abdul Gani Bhat ...Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

Chairman, Islamia College Governing Board and others ...Respondent(s)

O R D E R

These applications have been filed by the petitioner with

the following prayer:

"It is therefore prayed that the SLP 2995-96 of 2006 may be decided properly in light of the averments made herein and in light of the facts and averments made in the contempt petition 86-87 of 2009 and necessary clarifications and directions may graciously be passed."

In Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.1995-1996 of 2006,

the petitioner had challenged order dated 21.11.2005 passed by

the Division Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in LPA

No. 200/2005. The same was disposed of by this Court on

24.3.2006 by recording the following order:

"Heard the petitioner, who is appearing in-person.

It has been submitted that the petitioner wants to

argue his case in person in LPA No.200 of 2005, which is pending in the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Srinagar. If such a prayer is made before the High Court, we have no doubt the same shall be considered and the petitioner shall be allowed to appear in- person.

The special leave petition is accordingly disposed of."

In these I.As., the applicant has claimed that the

aforesaid order was defective inasmuch as the LPA was not

pending before the High Court. He has then averred that when

the order passed by this Court was placed before the High Court

through IA (C) LPWA No. 326/2006, the same was dismissed by the

Division Bench of the High Court by making derogatory

observations against him and a cost of Rs.5,000/- was imposed.

Thereafter, he filed Contempt Petition Nos.86-87/2009 before

this Court, which were dismissed on 22.1.2010 on the ground

that even though various allegations had been levelled against

the contemnor, no prayer was made against him.

We have heard Shri Abdul Gani Bhat, who appeared in

person and carefully perused the record. In our opinion, order

dated 24.3.2006 cannot be termed as defective because the same

was passed in the presence of the petitioner. If no matter was

pending before the High Court, the petitioner, who was present

in person should have brought it to the notice of the bench

which passed the order. In any case, after a time gap of almost

4 years, we do not find any valid ground much less justification

to recall that order and decide the special leave petitions

afresh.

The applications are accordingly dismissed.

........................J. (G.S. SINGHVI)

........................J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY) NEW DELHI, JANUARY 25, 2011.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

I.A. Nos. 3-4 in

Contempt Petition (C) Nos.86-87 of 2009 in SLP(C) Nos. 1995-1996 of 2006

Abdul Gani Bhat ...Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

Chairman, Islamia College Governing Board and others ...Respondent(s)

O R D E R

These applications have been filed by the petitioner

seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the alleged

contemnors.

The petitioner had challenged order dated 21.11.2005

passed by the Division Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court

in LPA No. 200/2005 by filing Special Leave Petition Nos.1995-

1996 of 2006, which was disposed of by this Court on 24.3.2006

by recording the following order:

"Heard the petitioner, who is appearing in-person.

It has been submitted that the petitioner wants to argue his case in person in LPA No.200 of 2005, which is pending in the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Srinagar. If such a prayer is made before the High Court, we have no doubt the same shall be considered and the petitioner shall be allowed to appear in- person.

5 The special leave petition is accordingly disposed of."

In these I.As., the applicant has claimed that the

aforesaid order was defective inasmuch as LPA was not pending

before the High Court. He has then averred that when the order

passed by this Court was placed before the High Court through IA

Bench of the High Court by making derogatory observations

against him and a cost of Rs.5,000/- was imposed. Thereafter,

he filed Contempt Petition Nos. 86-87/2009 which were dismissed

on 22.1.2010 on the ground that even though various allegations

had been levelled against the contemnor, no prayer was made

against him.

We have heard Shri Abdul Gani Bhat, who appeared in

person and carefully perused the record. In our view, there is

no valid ground much less justification for initiating

proceedings against the respondents because a similar prayer

made by him in Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos.86-87 of 2009 has

already been rejected.

The applications are accordingly dismissed.

........................J. (G.S. SINGHVI)

........................J.

(ASOK KUMAR GANGULY) NEW DELHI, JANUARY 25, 2011.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRLMP No.21733-21734 of 2010 in SLP(C) Nos.1995-1996 of 2006

Abdul Gani Bhat ...Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

Chairman, Islamia College Governing Board and others ...Respondent(s)

O R D E R

These petitions have been filed by Shri Abdul Gani Bhat

for directing the Registrar of this Court to file complaint

before the appropriate forum against the respondents for having

made false statements before this Court.

The petitioner has referred to order dated 24.3.2006

passed in SLP(C) Nos. 1995-1996/2006, which were directed

against order dated 21.11.2005 passed by the Jammu and Kashmir

High Court in LPA No.200/2005. He has then averred that in the

reply filed by respondent No.2, a number of false statements

were made on the issue of payment of subsistence allowance, his

designation in the College as Physical Instructor instead of

Physical Director, Physical Education, the alleged filing of

dozens of cases against the college authorities and indulging in

luxury litigation. He has also pleaded that the averments

contained in paras 8 and 9 of the reply were also patently false

and misleading and has prayed that action may be initiated

against the respondents under Section 340 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure.

We have heard Shri Abdul Gani Bhat, who appeared in

person and carefully perused the record. In our view, there is

no valid ground much less justification for issue of a direction

to the Registrar to initiate proceedings against the respondents

by filing complaint merely because some of the statements made

in the written statement were, as per the petitioner's version,

false.

The applications are accordingly dismissed.

........................J. (G.S. SINGHVI)

........................J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY) NEW DELHI, JANUARY 25, 2011.

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free