/2023 INSC 0537/ /2023 INSC 0438/ NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA INHERENT JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NOS. 340­342 OF 2022 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1341­1343 OF 2019 Meenal Bhargava                    … Petitioner versus Naveen Sharma & Ors.             ... Respondents J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T ABHAY S. OKA, J . 1. By   judgment   and   order   dated   16 th   January   2023,   we held   the   respondent   no.1   (contemnor)   guilty   of   contempt. We   have   recorded   detailed   findings   in   the   said   judgment and   order.     Before   we   passed   the   said   Order,   the   learned counsel  for   the   contemnor   was   fully  heard   and  in   fact,  the Contempt Petition (C) Nos.340-342/2022 Page 1 of 9 contemnor   was   also   present   through   video   conferencing. We   postponed   the   sentencing   part   only   with   the   object   of giving   last   opportunity   to   the   contemnor   to   make   amends. However,   we   find   that   the   contemnor   has   not   shown   any signs   of   remorse.     On   the   contrary,   the   submissions   made on   his   behalf   clearly   show   that   the   contemnor   has   scant respect for the Orders of this Court. 2. We are not reproducing all the findings recorded in the earlier   order.     In   terms   of   the   undertaking   given   by   the contemnor and the orders of this Court passed from time to time, he was under an obligation to bring back the child to India   on   1 st   July   2022.     We   also   noted   the   conduct   of   the contemnor in paragraph 12, which shows that he never had any intention of bringing the child back to India. 3. The   learned   counsel   for   the   contemnor   invited   our attention   to   the   proceedings   of   the   Circuit   Court   of   Cook County,   Illinois   (for   short   “the   Circuit   Court”)   of   24 th January   2023.   He   pointed   out   that   the   said   proceedings record   that   one   Mr   Wasko   has   been   appointed   as   the Guardian   Ad   Litem   by   the   said   Court   in   the   USA.     He submitted   that   as   the   child   was   subjected   to   sexual   abuse while he was staying with the petitioner in India, a forensic Contempt Petition (C) Nos.340-342/2022 Page 2 of 9 investigation is in progress in the United States of America (USA),   and   therefore,   the   child   cannot   be   brought   back   to India   unless   the   investigation   is   over.   Learned   counsel pointed out the submissions made by Mr. Wasko before the said Court.   He submitted that the contemnor has acted in the best interests of the minor child and that he has acted in   a   bonafide   manner   to   protect   the   interests   of   the   minor child.     He  submitted   that   now  that   Guardian   Ad   Litem   has been appointed, the contemnor cannot bring back the child to India so long as the appointment continues to exist. 4. Learned   senior   counsel   appearing   for   the   petitioner has   invited   our   attention   to   the   various   aspects   of   the conduct of the contemnor  and pointed out that, in fact, he is guilty of even criminal contempt. 5. Following   factual   aspects   indicate   the   extent   of   the contumacious conduct  of the contemnor:­ (i) A finding has been recorded in our earlier order that the   contemnor   never   intended   to   bring   back   the child to India; (ii) The   child   holds   a   USA   passport.     The   contemnor has   not   even   applied   for   renewal   of   the   passport though   the   passport   expired   long   back.     In   one   of Contempt Petition (C) Nos.340-342/2022 Page 3 of 9 the   earlier   hearings,   he   pleaded   that   since   an investigation   is   pending   in   USA   about   the   sexual abuse of the child, he could not apply for renewal of his passport.  However, he has not placed on record any   constraint   put   on   him   either   under   any   law   of USA   or   an   order   of   the   competent   Court   which prevented   him   from   applying   for   renewal   or extension of the passport of the minor;  (iii) The   contemnor   never   applied   to   this   Court   for   a grant   of   extension   of   time   to   bring   back   the   child. For the first time, by filing a counter affidavit to the contempt   petition,   he   tried   to   seek   an   extension   of time without giving any justification;  (iv) The   contemnor   always   acted   contrary   to   the statement made by him on more than one occasion that   he   has   subjected   himself   to   the   jurisdiction   of this   Court.     He   pleaded   in   the   Courts   in   USA   that he   has   not   subjected   himself   to   the   jurisdiction   of this Court; and  (v) Even after the expiry of three months from the date of the order holding him guilty of contempt, he has not shown any remorse in any manner.  Contempt Petition (C) Nos.340-342/2022 Page 4 of 9 6. Now   we   deal   with   the   claim   of   the   contemnor   that   he acted in the best interests of the minor.  The proceedings of the   Circuit   Court  dated   24 th   January   2023   are   relevant   for the   purpose.     The   Court   noted   that   the   minor   son   was talking   about   his   ancestral   house   being   sold.     The   Court observed   that   it   was   a   gross   error   on   the   part   of   the contemnor   to   talk   to   the   child   about   pending   litigations either   in   India   or   Canada.     The   Judge   of   the   Circuit   Court directed   the   contemnor   that   he   was   “truly   and   utterly” prohibited from discussing the litigations in India, USA and Canada   with   his   minor   son.     We   have   also   noted   that   the child   talked   about   the   sale   of   the   property   of   his grandmother when in one of the video conference hearings, the child appeared with the contemnor. It is obvious that it is   the   contemnor   who   must   have   apprised   the   child   about the litigation. 7. The   property   of   the   contemnor’s   mother   was   required to   be   sold   due   to   the   gross   default   committed   by   the contemnor. The contemnor  is least bothered about the fact that   his   mother   lost   her   property   due   to   his   default. However,   apart   from   committing   impropriety   by   informing the   child   about   the   details   of   the   pending   litigations,   he tried   to   prejudice   the   minor’s   mind   by   telling   him   that   his Contempt Petition (C) Nos.340-342/2022 Page 5 of 9 ancestral   property   is   being   sold   at   the   instance   of   the mother.   8. The contemnor has shown scant respect to the judicial proceedings   pending   in   this   Court.     He   has   defied assurance given to this Court that he has submitted himself to the jurisdiction of this Court.   As noted in paragraph 15 of   the   earlier   order,   the   contemnor   went   to   the   extent   of opposing   the   request   for   mirroring   the   order   of   this   Court, which   resulted   in   the   denial   of   the   said   request   by   the concerned   Foreign   Court.   In   fact,   due   to   the misrepresentation   made   by   the   contemnor,   the   Foreign Court   has   not   honoured   the   principle   of   comity   of   Courts. The act of denying the fact that he voluntarily submitted to the   jurisdiction   of   this   Court   and   his   conduct   of   opposing the   request   for   the   grant   of   mirroring   order   amounts   to interference   with   the   administration   of   justice   and obstructing the administration of justice.   9. Another   disturbing   feature   of   the   conduct   of   the contemnor   has   been   noted   on   page   41   of   the   proceedings dated   24 th   January   2023   of   the   Circuit   Court.     The contemnor submitted before the Circuit Court that the said Court should make sure that there is an order passed that Contempt Petition (C) Nos.340-342/2022 Page 6 of 9 the questions and answers in the proceedings should not be used in any proceedings in India.   In fact, he tried to warn Mr.  Wasko,   who   was   appointed   as   Guardian   ad   litem ,   that based   on   the   proceedings,   he   can   be   summoned   by   Indian Courts.     The   contemnor   reiterated   that   he   wants   to   be careful as the proceedings have been used in Indian Courts. The contemnor knows that his conduct of defying the orders of   this   Court   and   showing   disrespect   to   the   orders   of   this Court   can   be   established   from   the   proceedings   in   the Circuit Court.   His attempt before the Circuit Court was to ensure   that   his   contumacious   conduct,   as   reflected   in   the Circuit   Court’s   proceedings,   should   not   be   made   available to   this   Court.   In   short,   his   attempt   was   to   suppress   the proceedings.  10. The acts and omissions of the contemnor, as reflected in what we have discussed above, amount to both civil and criminal contempt. This calls for a strict action against him. 11. This   Court   in   the   case   of   In   Re   :   Perry   Kansagra 1 , while   relying   upon   decisions   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of Pallav   Sheth   v.   Custodian 2   and   Re   :   Vijay   Kurle   and 1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1516 2 (2001) 7 SCC 549 Contempt Petition (C) Nos.340-342/2022 Page 7 of 9 Others 3   held that in view of Article 129 of the Constitution of   India,   the   power   of   this   Court   to   punish   a   person   for contempt   is   not   constrained   by   the   provisions   of   the Contempt   of   Courts   Act,   1971.     In   fact,   this   Court   has observed that the power of this Court to punish a person for contempt   is   unrestricted   by   the   Contempt   of   Courts   Act, 1971. 12. Considering his contumacious conduct, we propose to direct   the   contemnor   to   pay   a   fine   of   Rs.   25   lakhs   and   to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for committing   civil   and   criminal   contempt.     In   default   of payment   of   the   fine,   he   will   have   to   undergo   a   further sentence of simple imprisonment for two months.  13. Accordingly, we issue the following directions: i) The   contemnor   is   sentenced   to   undergo   simple imprisonment   for   six   months.     He   shall   pay   a   fine   of Rs. 25 lakhs within a period of six months from today. The fine amount shall be deposited with the Registry of this Court.  On the failure of the contemnor to pay the fine   within   the   stipulated   time,   he   shall   undergo   a 3 2020 SCC OnLine SC 407 Contempt Petition (C) Nos.340-342/2022 Page 8 of 9 further   sentence   of   simple   imprisonment   for   two months.  ii) After   the   fine   amount   is   deposited   in   this   Court,   the same   shall   be   released   to   the   petitioner,   who   will   be under   an   obligation   to   use   the   said   amount   only   for the welfare and benefit of the minor son. iii) We   direct   the   Government   of   India   as   well   as   the Central   Bureau   of   Investigation   to   take   all   possible and   permissible   steps   to   secure   the   presence   of   the contemnor   in   India   with   a   view   to   ensure   that   he undergoes the sentence and pays the fine.  14. For   reporting   compliance,   the   case   shall   be   listed   in the first week of August, 2023.   ..……....….……………J.              (Sanjay Kishan Kaul) ......………….…………J.  (Abhay S. Oka) New Delhi; May 16, 2023.    Contempt Petition (C) Nos.340-342/2022 Page 9 of 9