Case: Suyog Jain vs Reserve Bank of India And Others
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently requested an explanation from a trial judge and a Public Prosecutor (PP) in Chandigarh on why contempt of court proceedings should not be initiated against them for ignoring the High Court's order to close proceedings in a criminal case. The Division Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma observed that the trial court had, on a prima facie basis, “deliberately ignored” the High Court’s directions.
“In consequence, the above wanton disregard to the explicit directions (supra) as made by this Court, upon the learned trial Judge concerned, thus prima facie constitutes contempt of Court. The Public Prosecutor concerned, is also prima facie complicit with (supra) in purportedly committing the contempt of Court. Therefore, both of them are required to furnish explanations, as to why further proceedings for contempt of Court be not initiated against them,” the Court ordered.
The explanation was sought by the Court in a case involving a First Information Report (FIR) filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in 2016 against Vardhman Lifesciences, its Managing Director Suyog Jain, and others for alleged loan default.
On May 27, the High Court had ruled that declaring the company's accounts fraudulent without adhering to the principles of natural justice was unlawful, and thus quashed the FIR.
Jain informed the High Court that despite this decision, when it was communicated to the Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Chandigarh refused to close the matter and adjourned the proceedings based on the Public Prosecutor's request.
The trial court then proceeded to summon the complainant for recording of the statement.
Subsequently, Jain filed another application, and the High Court clarified that since the FIR had been quashed, the pending proceedings before the trial judge also stood quashed.
When this was brought to the trial court's attention, the judge closed the trial against Jain but not for the remaining accused, after the CBI stated that the case had been quashed only in regard to Jain.
Jain expressed to the High Court, “This is shocking and surprising to see that the CBI, despite giving a no objection before this Hon’ble Court, is raising frivolous objections to create ambiguity before the Ld. Trial Court. So much so, Ld. Trial Court has not applied its legal mind to the judgment … and thereafter, clarification order … but has chosen to continue with the proceedings of the FIR,” while seeking further clarification of earlier orders.
The Court has now directed the Special Judicial Magistrate and the Public Prosecutor to provide their explanations by July 31.
Senior Advocate Puneet Bali, along with advocates Surjeet Bhadu and Sanya Thakur, represented the applicant-petitioner.
TAGS: CBI Contempt fraud Case Punjaband Haryana High Court Loan FIR
