1992 (12) TMI 234 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Initiation of suo moto criminal contempt proceedings against Ch. Bhajan Lal.
2. Setting aside the suspension order of Shri S.A. Khan.
3. Maintainability of the contempt petition by Shri S.A. Khan.

Summary:

1. Initiation of suo moto criminal contempt proceedings against Ch. Bhajan Lal:
Contempt Petition No. 7 of 1989 was filed by Shri S.A. Khan, DIG of Police, requesting the Court to initiate suo moto proceedings for criminal contempt against Ch. Bhajan Lal. The alleged contemptuous statement was reported in the Indian Express dated 30th July 1989, where Bhajan Lal purportedly threatened Khan for implicating his people in false cases. The Court noted that the statement attributed to Bhajan Lal was based on a newspaper report, which is considered hearsay and inadmissible in evidence without proof by evidence aliunde. The Court emphasized that the absence of any denial by Bhajan Lal does not absolve the applicant from proving the statement of facts as appeared in the Press report. Consequently, the Court found no compelling reason to issue suo moto notice for contempt of court and dismissed the petition.

2. Setting aside the suspension order of Shri S.A. Khan:
I.A. No. 1/91 and I.A. No. 2/91 were filed by Shri S.A. Khan seeking to set aside the suspension order dated 5.7.1991. The Court noted that these applications were filed in Civil Appeal No. 5412/90, which had already been disposed of on 21st November 1990. The Court did not find any reason to interfere with the suspension order as the applications were inextricably mixed up with the facts and prayers of the contempt proceedings.

3. Maintainability of the contempt petition by Shri S.A. Khan:
The Court addressed the maintainability of the contempt petition, noting that Khan was neither the investigating officer in the case registered against Bhajan Lal nor a party to the criminal proceedings. Additionally, the Court observed that on the date of the alleged contemptuous statement, the FIR had already been quashed by the High Court, and there was no stay of the High Court's order by the Supreme Court. The Court concluded that the petition was not maintainable as Khan lacked locus standi.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 of 1991 and Contempt Petition No. 7 of 1989, finding no compelling reasons to issue suo moto notice for contempt of court and determining that the petition was not maintainable. No costs were awarded.