Punjab & Haryana High Court Imposes ₹3 Lakh Cost On Litigant For Filing Frivolous Contempt Plea

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with its earlier directions, holding that the plea was frivolous, vexatious and a gross abuse of the process of law, and imposed exemplary costs of ₹3,00,000 on the petitioner, payable to the official respondents.At the outset, the Court warned the petitioner—who appeared in person—that costs of ₹1,00,000 would be imposed if the contempt petition was found to be frivolous. In response, the petitioner insisted that costs of ₹2,00,000 be imposed instead if the petition lacked merit.Justice Sudeepti Sharma said, "the time has come when not only deterrent costs must be imposed upon the official respondents but also upon the frivolous litigants. If, in cases of genuine disobedience, costs can be imposed upon officials and recovered from their salaries, there is no reason why, in cases of manifest abuse of process such as the present one, the erring petitioner should not be saddled with exemplary costs payable to the affected officials."With a view to sending a strong deterrent message and to preserve the sanctity of judicial proceedings, the Court deemed it appropriate to impose costs of Rs.3,00,000 upon the petitioner.The contempt petition alleged wilful disobedience of an order passed by a Division Bench in CWP-2066-2018, wherein the Punjab Government was directed to, register FIRs in cases disclosing commission of cognizable offences in terms of Lalita Kumari v. State of UP, and ensure strict compliance with the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994.In response, the State filed a detailed compliance affidavit by Gaurav Yadav, IPS, Director General of Police, Punjab, placing on record the steps taken by the police authorities.The subject matter of the contempt petition had no nexus with the directions issued in the main case and FIR, 04.02.2025 had already been registered at Police Station Sadar, Faridkot, on allegations of embezzlement and forgery, it added.A Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted, investigation was conducted in a fair and impartial manner, and a challan had been presented against one of the accused, while further investigation was ongoing against an absconding accused.The petitioner was not the de facto complainant in the FIR and was repeatedly attempting to steer the investigation on his own terms.The affidavit further highlighted that similar petitions filed earlier by the petitioner—including contempt and criminal miscellaneous petitions—had either been withdrawn or dismissed.After examining the record, the Court held that the directions of the Division Bench had been duly complied with, and no material was placed on record to establish wilful or deliberate disobedience by the respondents.The Court observed that the petitioner was in the habit of filing frivolous contempt petitions, repeatedly naming and targeting public officials without basis, thereby contributing to unnecessary litigation and judicial backlog.The bench said that the contempt jurisdiction is required to be exercised with great caution and circumspection and only in cases where willful and intentional disobedience of an order of the Court is clearly made out. The jurisdiction cannot be invoked to settle scores or to unnecessarily harass officials, particularly when the record reflects compliance with the directions issued by this Court, it added.The Court relied upon Supreme Court decisions including Dalip Singh v. State of UP, Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India, K.C. Tharakan v. State Bank of India, and Sandeep Todi v. Union of India, underscoring the need to curb frivolous litigation through deterrent costs.Terming the petition a glaring instance of misuse of the judicial process, the High Court dismissed the contempt petition and imposed costs of ₹3,00,000 on the petitioner.The amount is to be deposited with the Department of Home, Punjab, and disbursed equally among the three respondent officials. In case of default, the amount shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue.Mr. Rajbir Singh Brar, petitioner in-person.Mr. Ravneet S. Joshi, DAG, Punjab, for the respondent.Title: Rajbir Singh Brar v. Gaurav Yadav and othersClick here to read order

Punjab & Haryana High Court Imposes ₹3 Lakh Cost On Litigant For Filing Frivolous Contempt Plea

Aiman J. Chishti

Tags