Delhi High Court initiates contempt of court against man who flashed gun at court commissioner

The Delhi High Court recently initiated criminal contempt of court proceedings against a man who flashed a pistol to allegedly threaten a court-appointed local commissioner (LC) when the latter was carrying out an inspection [Bina and Ors. v. Ashok Bansal].

Justice Subramonium Prasad noted that as per a report submitted by LC Nandini Bali, one Nitin Bansal, who is the son of the respondent, took out a pistol and kept it on the table to threaten and coerce her.

The Court opined that such conduct was prima facie a case of interference with the administration of justice and amounted to criminal contempt of court.

"In view of the report of the Local Commissioner and the statement of the ASI of PS Bhupani, who stated that when he entered the office room, the pistol (Air Gun) was present on the table, this Court is of the opinion that prima facie a case of interference with administration of justice is made out which amounts to criminal contempt. Mr. Nitin Bansal has prevented an officer of the Court, who had gone for carrying her duties assigned by the Court", the Court said in its October 28 order.

The case arose after one Bina filed a plea under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking an interim order against the respondent, one Ashok Bansal to prevent him from disposing of 30,000 tons of industrial coal material which was allegedly acquired by the petitioners' husband through his firm.

On May 31, 2024, the Court had issued an order restraining Ashok Bansal from handling or dealing with the said coal while the matter was adjourned to a later date.

Subsequently, on the petitioner's allegation that the respondent was violating the Court's May 31 order, the Court appointed advocate Nandini Bali as local commissioner to inspect whether the alleged violations had taken place.

On September 17, Bali filed an inspection report which stated that the respondent had violated the Court's May 31 order and committed contempt of court.

The Court noted that according to the report, during the inspection, one Nitin Bansal became aggressive and took out a weapon (pistol/gun) and kept it on the office table to allegedly threaten Bali.

Thus, the Court directed Nitin Bansal to be present before the Court on the next date of hearing and also directed him to file an affidavit explaining how he could take out a firearm when the commission was being executed as per the orders of the Court.

Subsequently, Bansal filed an affidavit claiming that the gun in question was in fact a non-lethal Air Gun (toy gun) intended to scare animals such as monkeys and stray dogs in the premises as the factory is situated in a remote area. The affidavit further stated that the air gun was lying on the table before the arrival of the LC.

However, the Court did not accept Bansal's submission as stated in his affidavit and held that the act of keeping a weapon on the table is sufficient to intimidate any person.

As regards, the argument that pistol in question was only a toy gun meant to scare animals, the Court questioned as to how a toy gun without pellets can scare animals and monkeys.

"Even assuming that the stand of the Respondent is correct that the pistol in question was already present on the table then also, in the considered opinion of this Court, there was no necessity for the pistol to be kept on the table at the time when the Local Commissioner was visiting the premises because keeping a weapon on the table in itself is sufficient to intimidate any person. Further, the affidavit filed by Mr. Nitin Bansal states that the pistol in question is only a toy gun which is kept in the premises to scare animals and monkey. This Court fails to understand as to how a toy gun without pellets can scare animals and monkeys," the Court stated.

Thus, it directed the Registrar General of the Court to refer the matter to the Chief Justice of the Court for the initiation of contempt of court proceedings against Nitin Bansal.

Further, it ordered the counsel for the respondents to file a reply answering the willful violation of the orders passed by the Court on the next date fixed on October 29.

Advocates Anuj Saxena, Anuj Ruhela and Prakash Sharma appeared for Bina.

Advocates HR Khan, Nihal Ahmad and Tushar Swami represented Bansals.

[Read Order]