The Punjab and Haryana High Court issued a stern warning to a litigant, Mr. Chandu Lal, for using inappropriate and disrespectful language against three sitting High Court judges and a District Judge from Gurgaon. The court observed that although the petitioner lacked legal knowledge, his conduct was unacceptable and would not be tolerated in the future.
"In view of the lack of legal knowledge on part of the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that contempt proceedings need not be initiated against him. Be that as it may, the petitioner is cautioned with respect to his conduct and in no uncertain terms, he is forewarned that the same would not be tolerated in the future." — Justice Harpreet Singh Brar
Read Also:- Rajasthan High Court Upholds Compensation to Daily Wage Worker Missing from Official Records
Mr. Chandu Lal, who appeared in person, had filed a petition requesting an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). He alleged that the legal heirs of Maya Devi had forged her will by using fake thumb impressions. He further claimed that an Advocate was involved in this act and had also tampered with court records during proceedings in the Civil Court.
While hearing the matter, Justice Brar noted that the petitioner had not followed the proper legal procedure. Instead of filing an application under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) before the competent Magistrate, he had approached the High Court directly without providing a valid reason.
Read Also:- Kerala High Court: Clear Divide Between Residential and Commercial Use Difficult Amid Urban Growth
"The jurisdictional Magistrate is well equipped to deal with such type of matters, the petitioner has not been able to provide a satisfactory response regarding approaching this Court directly..." — High Court Observation
The judge further highlighted that Mr. Chandu Lal made serious and baseless allegations against the Advocate and accused him of manipulating official court records. These claims were made without providing any supporting evidence.
"Not only has the petitioner failed to indicate how he has been victimized in the matter at hand, he has also made scandalous remarks concerning the integrity of the justice dispensation mechanism." — Punjab & Haryana High Court
The court emphasized that there was no valid reason for the petitioner’s accusations, and his remarks against judicial officers were both scandalous and contemptuous. Upon reviewing the case file and statements, Justice Brar found that the petitioner had made grave allegations without just cause.
"No justifiable cause on the basis of which scandalous and contemptuous allegations are leveled by the petitioner." — Justice Brar
In conclusion, while the court decided not to initiate contempt proceedings due to the petitioner’s lack of legal understanding, it firmly warned him to refrain from such behavior in the future. The plea was ultimately dismissed.
Parties Involved:
- Petitioner: Mr. Chandu Lal (in person)
- Amicus Curiae: Mr. Arnav Sood (Advocate)
- Case Title: Chandu Lal v. Smt. Maya Devi (deceased) through LRs
