$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CONT.CAS(C) 567/2018 & CM APPL. 46239/2021
MANJU YADAV @ RICHA YADAV ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pradeep Kumar Arya, Mr. Raj
Karan Sharma, Mr. Aditya Kumar
Yadav, Mr. Gaurav Chaudhary, Mr.
Arpit Bamal, Mr. Varun Jawla, Mr.
Vaibhav Chaudhary and Mr. Sachin
Balhara, Advocates.
versus
RAJESH YADAV & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. S.K. Dureja, Advocate.
th
% Date of Decision: 30 April, 2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
J U D G M E N T
MINI PUSHKARNA, J: (ORAL)
1. The present contempt petition has been filed alleging willful
th
disobedience of the order dated 14 February, 2017 passed by this Court in
Crl. M.C. No. 163/2017, for quashing of FIR under Sections 498A/406/34
IPC, whereby the respondent had agreed to - to the
pay a sum of ₹50,00,000/
petitioner as part of the full and final settlement.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that pursuant to
the comprise arrived between the parties - was
, an amount of ₹ 25,00,000/
paid to the petitioner by way of cheques by the respondent, which were duly
received by the petitioner. Subsequently another amount of -
₹ 25,00,000/
was payable by the respondent to the petitioner at the time of quashing of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CONT.CAS(C) 567/2018 Page 1 of 6
By:AMAN UNIYAL
Signing Date:09.05.2024
11:39:48
the FIR.
3. It is submitted that pursuant to the same, the FIR against the
respondents herein was quashed. However, further payment -
of ₹ 25,00,000/
by the respondent was made by cheques to the petitioner-wife, which stood
dishonored. Thus, the present contempt petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that since the
amount that was payable to the petitioner, was not paid, the petitioner has
th
already revived the aforesaid FIR. Thus, he submits that the order dated 14
February, 2017, which had recorded the settlement between the parties,
stands modified, to the extent that the FIR against the petitioner also has
been revived.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent further submits that
- had been dishonored, however,
though the earlier cheque for ₹ 25,00,000/
the respondent in order to show his bona fide had brought a demand draft to
th
the Court. However, as recorded in the order dated 30 May, 2023, the
petitioner refused to accept the said amount.
6. Thus, he submits that the present petition is not maintainable on
th
account of order dated 14 February 2017 losing its legal effect.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the act of
the respondent in trying to handover a cheque of - to the
₹ 25,00,000/
petitioner at a such a belated stage, cannot be considered to be honoring the
settlement between the parties. He submits that the said settlement between
the parties was entered way back in the year 2017, and therefore, the
petitioner cannot be obliged to accept the same -, as
amount of ₹ 25,00,000/
was agreed in the year 2017. Thus, he submits that at this stage, the
petitioner cannot -, as further amounts have
accept the sum of ₹ 25,00,000/
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CONT.CAS(C) 567/2018 Page 2 of 6
By:AMAN UNIYAL
Signing Date:09.05.2024
11:39:48
accrued in favour of the petitioner during the intervening period from the
year 2017 to the present day.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
th
9. This Court notes the order dated 10 April, 2023, wherein it is clearly
th
recorded that the respondent has brought a demand draft dated 18 March,
202 ,00,000/- drawn in the name of the petitioner herein.
3 for a sum of ₹ 25
th
The order dated 10 April, 2023 reads as under:
CONT.CAS(C) 567/2018 & CM APPL. 46239/2021 (for urgent
“
hearing)
1. The learned counsel for the Respondents has brought to Court a
Demand Draft dated 18.03.2023 bearing no. 206743 for a sum of Rs.
25 lakhs/- drawn in the name of the Petitioner herein.
2. He prays that with the receipt of the said payment the Petitioner
may also be directed to withdraw the other proceedings initiated by
her i.e., (i) the petition under Section 125 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 in Rohini District Court, Delhi; (ii) the petition
under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005; (iii) the complaint under
Section 498(A), Section 406 and Section 34 of Indian Penal Code,
1860; and (iv) complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881.
3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that he seeks time to
take instructions from the Petitioner.
4. The original Demand Draft dated 18.03.2023 has been perused
and handed back to the Respondents to bring to Court on the next date
of hearing.
5. The learned counsel for the Parties state that they will hold a
meeting as per their mutual convenience during the next week to bring
about an amicable resolution of the matter for all proceedings.
6. At request of the Petitioner, list on 30.05.2023 at 03:30 PM.”
th
10. Subsequently, again when the matter was listed for hearing on 30
May, 2023, the respondent had brought the demand draft for a sum of
₹
th
25,00,000/- again, which is clearly recorded in the order dated 30 May,
th
2023. The order dated 30 May, 2023, reads as under:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CONT.CAS(C) 567/2018 Page 3 of 6
By:AMAN UNIYAL
Signing Date:09.05.2024
11:39:48
“1. The learned counsel for the Respondent has once again brought to
Court the demand draft for a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/-, the details
whereof were noted in order dated 10.04.2023. He has offered the
said amount in full and final settlement.
2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner states on instructions that the
Petitioner is unwilling to accept the said amount in full and final
settlement as the payment is being made belatedly. He states that
Petitioner wishes to pursue the proceedings initiated by the Petitioner
against the Respondent.
3. In these circumstances, the demand draft has been returned to the
Respondent with permission to encash the said amount.
4. List for hearing on 28.11.2023.”
11. Perusal of the aforesaid clearly shows that though initially, respondent
was in violation of the settlement between the parties, subsequently, the
respondent had brought a demand draft for a sum - payable to
of ₹ 25,00,000/
the petitioner, in terms of the settlement. However, the petitioner refused to
accept the said amount, on the ground that since the said amount had been
brought by the respondent belatedly, the petitioner was unwilling to accept
it.
12. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner seeks an enhanced amount under
the settlement. However, the same would not be a ground for continuation of
the present contempt petition. Once the respondent had offered the payment
of Rs. 25,00,000/- to the petitioner and had shown his intent towards
complying with the terms of the settlement by bringing the bank demand
drafts for the said amount, this court is of the view that the respondent has
purged the contempt.
13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it cannot be held that
the respondent has committed any contempt of this Court.
14. Law in this regard is very clear that in order to hold a party guilty of
committing any contempt, there has to be a willful disobedience. Once the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CONT.CAS(C) 567/2018 Page 4 of 6
By:AMAN UNIYAL
Signing Date:09.05.2024
11:39:48
petitioner has shown his bona fide and has made endeavor to comply with
the settlement agreement and the order passed in Crl. M.C. No. 163/2017, it
cannot be said that there is any willful non-compliance on part of the
respondent.
15. Thus, Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kishan Versus Tarun Bajaj
and Others, (2014) 16 SCC 204, has held as follows:
“xxx xxx xxx
12. Thus, in order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that
disobedience of the order is “wilful”. The word “wilful” introduces a
mental element and hence, requires looking into the mind of a
person/contemnor by gauging his actions, which is an indication of
one's state of mind. “Wilful” means knowingly intentional, conscious,
calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of consequences flowing
therefrom. It excludes casual, accidental, bona fide or unintentional
acts or genuine inability. Wilful acts does not encompass involuntarily
or negligent actions. The act has to be done with a “bad purpose or
without justifiable excuse or stubbornly, obstinately or perve
rsely”.
Wilful act is to be distinguished from an act done carelessly,
thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. It does not include any act
done negligently or involuntarily. The deliberate conduct of a person
means that he knows what he is doing and intends to do the same.
Therefore, there has to be a calculated action with evil motive on his
part. Even if there is a disobedience of an order, but such
disobedience is the result of some compelling circumstances under
which it was not possible for the contemnor to comply with the order,
ation will
the contemnor cannot be punished. “Committal or sequestr
not be ordered unless contempt involves a degree of default or
S. Sundaram Pillai v. V.R. Pattabiraman [S.
misconduct.” (Vide
Sundaram Pillai v. V.R. Pattabiraman, (1985) 1 SCC 591] , Rakapalli
Raja Ram Gopala Rao v. Naragani Govinda Sehararao [Rakapalli
Raja Ram Gopala Rao v. Naragani Govinda Sehararao, (1989) 4 SCC
255 : AIR 1989 SC 2185] , Niaz Mohammad v. State of Haryana [Niaz
Mohammad v. State of Haryana, (1994) 6 SCC 332 : AIR 1995 SC
308] , Chordia Automobiles v. S. Moosa [Chordia Automobiles v. S.
Moosa, (2000) 3 SCC 282] , Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam
Godha [Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha, (2003) 11
SCC 1] , State of Orissa v. Mohd. Illiyas [State of Orissa v. Mohd.
Illiyas, (2006) 1 SCC 275 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 122 : AIR 2006 SC 258]
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CONT.CAS(C) 567/2018 Page 5 of 6
By:AMAN UNIYAL
Signing Date:09.05.2024
11:39:48
and Uniworth Textiles Ltd. v. CCE [Uniworth Textiles Ltd. v. CCE,
(2013) 9 SCC 753] .)
xxx xxx xxx”
16. It is undisputed that if a party complies or endeavors to comply with
the order passed by Courts, though belatedly, such person cannot be held to
be in willful or deliberate non-compliance of the order passed by the Court.
17. Thus, Supreme Court in the case of SRI L.V. Subrahmanyam, IAS,
Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Department, Government of
Andhra Pradesh Versus The Registrar General, High Court of Judicature
at Hyderabad, for the State of Telangana and for the State of Andhra
Pradesh and Another in Civil Appeal Nos. 1644-1645/2024 vide order
th
dated 5 February, 2024, has held as follows:
“xxx xxx xxx
5. We are of the view that mere delay in complying with the order,
unless there is a deliberate or wilful act on the part of the alleged
contemnors would not attract the provisions of Contempt of Courts
Act. The proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act are quasi
judicial in nature and therefore as the Court comes to a conclusion
that the act was neither deliberate or wilful, it could not have
convicted the appellants for Contempt of Courts Act.
xxx xxx xxx”
18. Accordingly, the present contempt proceedings cannot continue
against the respondents, in the facts and circumstances of the case.
19. In view thereof, the present contempt petition is dismissed.
MINI PUSHKARNA, J
APRIL 30, 2024/
MR
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CONT.CAS(C) 567/2018 Page 6 of 6
By:AMAN UNIYAL
Signing Date:09.05.2024
11:39:48