The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Harjeet Singh Mendiratta seeking quashing of criminal proceedings, holding that material facts about an earlier identical quashing petition had been withheld from the Court.
Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora delivered the judgment on August 14, 2026. The Court also directed that the conduct of advocate Ms. Kalpana be examined by the Bar Council of Delhi and ordered registration of suo motu criminal contempt proceedings.
Background of the Case
The matter arose from a long-running family property dispute involving Harjeet Singh Mendiratta and his sister Sonia Mendiratta. Criminal proceedings had originated from complaints filed in 2006 and 2007 and were later registered as Complaint Case No. 463048/2016.
In 2012, Mendiratta had already approached the Delhi High Court through CRL.M.C. No. 3870/2012 seeking quashing of the same criminal complaint and summoning order. That petition was dismissed on December 18, 2012, primarily on the ground of delay and laches.
Despite this history, the subsequent writ petition contained a declaration stating that no similar petition had previously been filed before the High Court or the Supreme Court. The Court noted that the earlier proceeding and its dismissal were not disclosed when the new petition was instituted.
The filing advocate, Ms. Kalpana, was also the petitioner’s wife and Special Power of Attorney holder. The Court therefore found that she had personal knowledge of the earlier litigation.
Court’s Observation
The High Court rejected the explanation that the non-disclosure was merely an inadvertent mistake or a lapse of memory.
Justice Arora observed that an advocate appearing before a constitutional court is not merely a representative of the client but also an officer of the Court. Such an advocate has a duty to ensure that material facts are properly verified and fairly disclosed.
The Court held that the false declaration could not be treated as an isolated error, particularly in light of the earlier litigation history. It also considered the fact that Ms. Kalpana had declined to submit a written unconditional apology despite the opportunity granted to her.
The judgment further noted that several earlier proceedings had recorded concerns regarding repeated revisions and transfer petitions filed in connection with the same dispute. According to the Court, the cumulative record showed a continuing pattern of conduct that tended to interfere with the administration of justice.
The Court also referred to the professional duties prescribed under the Bar Council of India Rules, including the obligation of advocates to prevent unfair practices and refrain from fomenting litigation.
Action Against Advocate
The High Court concluded that the conduct disclosed a case requiring examination under the law of criminal contempt as well as the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Bar Council of Delhi.
It directed the Registry to send the judgment and complete record to the Bar Council of Delhi within two weeks for consideration of disciplinary proceedings against Ms. Kalpana under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
The Registry was also directed to register a suo motu criminal contempt proceeding and place the matter before the appropriate Division Bench through the Chief Justice. The matter was directed to be placed on September 1, 2026.
Until those proceedings conclude, Ms. Kalpana was restrained from acting, appearing, filing pleadings, signing vakalatnama or otherwise representing Mendiratta as an advocate in proceedings connected with the dispute. Mendiratta was left free to engage another advocate.
Decision
The Court also noted that the underlying criminal complaint had already been dismissed by the trial court on February 12, 2026. However, it held that the subsequent dismissal of that complaint did not erase the alleged suppression committed while invoking the High Court’s jurisdiction.
The writ petition was therefore dismissed. Mendiratta was directed to pay costs of Rs. 1 lakh to the Delhi High Court Bar Clerk’s Association and another Rs. 1 lakh to Shaurya Foundation Trust within two weeks.
All pending applications were also disposed of.
Case Details:
Case Title: Harjeet Singh Mendiratta v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.
Case Number: W.P.(CRL) 3144/2024
Judge: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Decision Date: August 14, 2026
 and Advocates-300x169.webp)
-300x169.webp)
