Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a preponement application filed by an advocate under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, read with Section 15(6(b) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘SC/ST Act’) and Article 14 and 21 of Constitution, the Single Judge Bench of Harpreet Singh Brar, J., allowed the application, despite holding that there was no justification for the same. The Court also issued a show cause notice to the petitioner under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (‘CC Act’), holding that the allegations levelled by the petitioner in the present application were intended to bring disrepute to the justice administration system and such action amounted to interference in the judicial process.
Background
The application stated that if the petitioner’s case was not preponed, she would be forced to implead Justice Sandeep Moudgill, Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, and ASJ Baljinder Singh as parties in her petition before the Supreme Court to decide the main case as per the SC/ST Act. The application alleged deliberate denial of justice by delaying the petitioner’s case to harass her into withdrawing her complaints against an IPS officer.
The petitioner further contended that an order was passed in the present matter by a Co-ordinate Bench without her consent. However, in the said order, it was recorded that the petitioner, who was present in person, was satisfied and did not wish to press the petition or the complaint any further.
Analysis
Upon perusal of the headnote of the present application, the Court stated that the same indicated that the petitioner had attempted to browbeat the judges entrusted with the adjudication of her cases.
The Court noted that the main case was previously listed before a Co-ordinate Bench and consistently heard. However, vide order dated 26-05-2025, the matter was listed before another Bench as the earlier Bench had recused itself. Consequently, the matter was listed before this Bench on 29-05-2025 for the first time, wherein it was adjourned on the request of the petitioner. Subsequently, the matter was heard over summer break by the Vacation Bench. Thereafter, the main case was listed before this Bench on 14-07-2025. However, on the said day, the matter could not be taken up due to a heavy cause list of 191 cases, including those listed under the National Mediation Drive. Accordingly, the main case was adjourned to 31-10-2025.
The Court stated that on the day of the present hearing, there were about 245 cases. While the petitioner did not present any justifiable reasons to support her prayer for preponement, the main case was taken up on her insistence. She was also offered assistance by the Court by means of the High Court Legal Aid Services.
The Court further stated that a perusal of the record indicated no reasons that could justify such scandalous allegations made by the petitioner. Not only had she failed to explain how she was intentionally victimized in the matter at hand, she also made scandalous remarks attacking the integrity of the justice dispensation mechanism.
Thus, the Court held that it was constrained to note that the pleadings of the petitioner were, per se, contemptuous. The Court added that since the petitioner was not a layperson but a qualified Advocate, it could not be assumed that the said unceremonious behaviour stemmed from lack of knowledge. In this regard, the Court referred to M.Y. Shareef v. Nagpur High Court, (1954) 2 SCC 444, wherein the Supreme Court opined that even an Advocate who has signed the petition containing scandalous allegations against the Courts would also be liable to be held for contempt.
The Court held that it was clear that the petitioner’s reckless allegations were intended to bring disrepute to the justice administration system. The petitioner’s act was an attempt at intimidating the adjudicatory authority, which, prima facie, amounted to interference in the judicial process. Therefore, the Court issued a show cause notice under the CC Act against the petitioner.
“The unwarranted and unjustified challenge to the authority of the Courts undermines the dignity of the rule of law. Furthermore, such scandalous remarks have the potential of shaking the very edifice of the judicial system, which would inevitably shake the faith of the public in the institution.”
Lastly, the Court allowed the preponement application in the interest of justice, despite noting that there was no justification to prepone the main case.
Accordingly, the matter was listed for 29-08-2025.
[Ravneet Kaur v. State of Punjab, CRM-27143-2025 in CRM-M-28149-2024, decided on 22-07-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Petitioner in person
