Punjab and Haryana High Court seeks explanation from trial judge, PP for disregarding HC order

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently asked a trial judge and a Public Prosecutor (PP) in Chandigarh to explain why contempt of court proceedings should not be initiated against them for disregarding an order by the High Court for closure of proceedings in a criminal case [Suyog Jain vs Reserve Bank of India And Others]..The division bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma said that prima facie the trial court had “wantonly disregarded” the High Court’s directions.“In consequence, the above wanton disregard to the explicit directions (supra) as made by this Court, upon the learned trial Judge concerned, thus prima facie constitutes contempt of Court. The Public Prosecutor concerned, is also prima facie complicit with (supra) in purportedly committing the contempt of Court. Therefore, both of them are required to furnish explanations, as to why further proceedings for contempt of Court be not initiated against them,” the Court ordered..The explanation was sought by the Court in a matter related to a First Information Report (FIR) registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in 2016 against Vardhman Lifesciences, its Managing Director Suyog Jain and others related to alleged loan default.On May 27, the High Court had held that declaration of fraud of the accounts of the company without following the principles of natural justice was bad in law. Thus, it also quashed the FIR..Jain in an application told the High Court when the decision was brought to the knowledge of the Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Chandigarh refused to close the matter and adjourned the proceedings on the request made by the PP.The trial court then proceeded to summon the complainant for recording of the statement. .Meanwhile, on an application moved by Jain, the High Court again clarified that since the FIR was quashed, the pending proceedings before the trial judge also stand quashed.When the same was brought to the notice of the trial court, the judge closed the trial against Jain but not for the remaining accused. This was after CBI said the case had been quashed in respect of Jain only.“This is shocking and surprising to see that the CBI, despite of giving a no objection before this Hon’ble Court, is raising frivolous objections to create ambiguity before the Ld. Trial Court. So much so, Ld. Trial Court has not applied its legal mind to the judgment … and thereafter, clarification order … but has chosen to continue with the proceedings of the FIR,” Jain told the High Court while seeking further clarification of earlier orders. .The Court has now directed the Special Judicial Magistrate and the PP to furnish their explanation on July 31..Senior Advocate Puneet Bali with advocates Surjeet Bhadu and Sanya Thakur represented the applicant-petitioner..[Read Order]