'Lowered Dignity Of Institution': Gujarat High Court Issues Contempt Notice To Litigant Claiming Courts Disregard SC Orders
The Gujarat High Court issued contempt notice to a litigant who had claimed that the general opinion was while Supreme Court passes orders and shows proactiveness to address public safety issues, other constitutional courts "flagrantly disregard the law".
The court was hearing a plea by Vishwas Sudhanshu Bhamburkar, who appeared as party-in-person, challenging Magistrate Court's order declining to refer his complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC; and had instead fixed the matter for examination of the complainant under Section 200 CrPC. The petitioner had sought registration of an FIR alleging use of forged NOCs obtained by certain builders for construction near Surat airport in contravention to the prescribed standards, claiming that non-registration of an FIR in a cognizable offence is against Supreme Court's decisions.
Justice MR Mengdey in his order observed:
"The petitioner while addressing this Court during the course of hearing of the present petition which had taken place on 16.01.2026 had contended that and raised a question as to whether the Hon'ble judges be permitted to continue the injustice being inflicted upon the citizen under the cover of alternate remedy. He further contended that “I'm sorry to say but the general opinion is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court passes orders which it is unable to get executed. Lalita Kumari for example. He, thereafter, contended that “So it is rather distressing that while one constitutional court shows the proactiveness to address the issues pertaining to public safety, another constitutional court flagrantly disregards the law thereby ensuring that not even an F.I.R. is lodged.”
"From the aforesaid it appears that a disgruntled litigant after having failed to obtain favourable orders from the institution is out to defame the august institution. By making the averments in the petition as well as the remarks made by the petitioner during the course of hearing before this court are made with an intention to lower the dignity of the institution at large. This conduct on the part of the petitioner is nothing short of contempt of Court of not only this court but also of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well of the learned trial court. Therefore, a notice is directed to be issued against the petitioner Vishwas Sudhanshu Bhamburkar calling him to explain as to why the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act should not be initiated against him".
Background
The petitioner alleged that certain builders obtained No Objection Certificates (NOCs) from the Airports Authority of India (AAI) for construction near Surat Airport by submitting forged documents regarding site elevation and WGS-84 coordinates, and thereafter constructed buildings at different locations. According to him, offences including Sections 467(forgery),420 (cheating) and 120B (conspiracy) IPC were made out. He also filed a PIL in 2019 which is pending.
The petitioner approached Dumas Police Station of Surat City by filing an application on 11.04.2021. The application was ordered to be filed since cognizable offence was not disclosed. The petitioner thereafter approached the Commissioner of Police, Surat City by filing application under Section 154(3) of the Cr.P.C.
He approached the High Court seeking directions to register an FIR. However, the high court disposed of the plea relegating the petitioner to take recourse to alternative remedy by filing appropriate application before the Magistrate. The Supreme Court also declined to interfere with the high court order.
Pursuant to the liberty granted, the petitioner filed an application under Section 156(3) CrPC before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Magistrate court declined to direct an investigation but sough to examine the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and had summoned the petitioner. Against this order the petitioner moved the high court.
The petitioner claimed that his plea arises from the failure of the police authorities to register an F.I.R. despite clear disclosure of cognizable offences in his complaint dated 14.01.2020 addressed to the Commissioner of Police, Surat. He claimed that Supreme Court's Constitution Bench judgment in Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. which mandates registration of F.I.R. once information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and that no preliminary inquiry is needed into veracity of information.
Despite this, he contended, the police neither registered an F.I.R. nor acted in accordance with law, even though their internal communications and the closure report themselves acknowledge disclosure of cognizable offences. He submitted that “I am sorry to say but the general opinion is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court passes orders which it is unable to get executed.”
Findings
The court noted that the Magistrate had observed that in the affidavit filed by AAI in the pending PIL, there was no averment that builders had put forged documents and got NOC for the building construction. The Magistrate found that no cognizable offence was made out and he did not exercise powers under Section 156(3) CrPC.
"Even during the course of hearing of the present petition, the petitioner has miserably failed to point out which documents were forged and produced before the Airport Authority for obtaining the NOC...Further in Para -8 of the affidavit, it is mentioned by the Airport Authority that the NOC obtained by the builders were wrong coordinates and site elevation provided by them at the relevant point of time and the construction of building has deviated from actual data provided to the respondent complainant," the court noted.
It thus said that “nowhere in the affidavit” was it mentioned that forged documents were submitted for obtaining NOCs. It held that the Magistrate was “right and justified in holding that no cognizable offence was made out from the facts narrated by the petitioner”.
On the petitioner's contention that Magistrate could not treat the application as a complaint, the Court referred to Section 190(1)(c) CrPC said that the provision authorizes the Magistrate to take cognizance of an offence upon information received from any person other than the police officer or upon his own knowledge.
An information received on the basis of an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C would definitely fall under Section 190 (1) (c) and even if the Magistrate does not direct investigation under Section 156(3), the other course of treating the application as a complaint is always available to him, the court said. It thus said that the Magistrate in his order had done no wrong and it cannot be termed to be contempt of the Supreme Court. On the petitioner's prayer for sending Magistrate for "training since he seems unaware of law of the land" the court said:
To this the court said, "The petitioner herein appears to have assumed advisory jurisdiction unto himself over this Court. The petitioner while arguing the matter before this court referred to paragraph 5 of the order of the coordinate bench of this court in Special Criminal Application No. 5144 of 2021 and submitted that this court had found a cognizable offence being made out. In fact, the coordinate bench had noted the submissions of the petitioner in the said paragraph. There is no such finding recorded in the order. From the tenor of the present petition as well as manner in which arguments are made by the petitioner Party-in-Person before this Court, this Court is of the view that the petitioner Party-in-Person is more required to be imparted training of law and not the learned Magistrate. The prayer in question is, therefore, thoroughly misconceived and cannot be granted...".
The Court further observed that the present petition was a successive attempt to reopen issues that had already been carried up to the Supreme Court, and termed the plea as “frivolous, misconceived and abuse of process of law.”
The court thus issued notice to the petitioner to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him. The Registry was also directed to revisit the competency certificate permitting the petitioner to appear in person.
Dismissing the petition the court imposed cost of ₹25,000 on the petitioner.
Case: Vishwas Sudhanshu Bhamburkar v State of Gujrat and Ors
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 8358 of 2023