Can a Civil Dispute Become a Criminal FIR?

On 12 November 1987, one Dharam Pal complained to Ch. Devi Lal, then Chief Minister of Haryana, against Ch. Bhajan Lal, then Union Minister for Environment and Forests. He alleged that Bhajan Lal had built up properties worth crores, out of line with his known income. He said they stood in the names of family members, relations and people close to him, were undervalued, and were all benami in character. A case was registered at Sadar Police Station under Sections 161 and 165 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

The investigation had barely begun when Bhajan Lal filed Writ Petition No. 9172 of 1987 in the Punjab and Haryana High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. He wanted the FIR quashed and the investigating officials stopped. The High Court first granted an ex parte stay and later made it absolute. After hearing the parties, it held that the allegations did not constitute a cognizable offence. It granted the relief and made the complainant, Dharam Pal, bear the costs of the writ petition.

The State appealed through SLP (Civil) No. 14014 of 1988, which became Civil Appeal No. 5412 of 1990. On 21 November 1990, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment quashing the FIR, calling it "not being legally and factually sustainable in law". It still quashed the commencement and the entire investigation, because the SHO was not clothed with valid legal authority under Section 5A(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It also set aside the High Court's order awarding costs, with a direction that the costs be paid to Bhajan Lal by Dharam Pal. The State got liberty to direct a fresh investigation through a competent police officer.

While that appeal was pending, S.A. Khan, a Deputy Inspector General of Police, filed Contempt Petition No. 7 of 1989 in September 1989. He said that in his official capacity he was supervising the investigation and attending the Supreme Court to assist the Advocate General of Haryana. According to Khan, Bhajan Lal had issued public statements to create a bias in his favour and to make the public believe he was innocent, so that the Court would not take the corruption charges seriously. His petition also spoke of "coercive and threatening measures" and of "intimidation and blackmail". After his suspension order of 5 July 1991, he filed I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 of 1991 on 12 August and 21 August.

The statement at the centre of it all appeared in the Indian Express of 30 July 1989. It reported that Bhajan Lal accused the DIG of implicating his people in false cases. The report said he vowed to make the officer rub his nose on the ground, at the meeting ground, for forgiveness. It added that Bhajan Lal had "perhaps" been provoked by reports that the officer was distributing copies of two magazines carrying corruption stories. The Court said only one portion of the statement could be called contemptuous, if at all, and that the rest was the view of the reporter.

The petition asked the Court to act under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Appearing for the State of Haryana, Kapil Sibal argued that it was not maintainable, and gave four reasons:

• Khan was neither the investigating officer nor a party to the criminal proceedings.
• On 30 July 1989 the FIR had already been quashed by the High Court, and the Supreme Court had granted no stay.
• Apart from the newspaper report, nothing showed that Bhajan Lal made the statement.
• Khan was not competent to file the petition because he was not a party to the proceedings.

R.K. Garg, for Khan, argued that Bhajan Lal's failure to deny the published statement was itself enough to show contempt. He relied on In Re P.C. Sen.

K. Parasaran, for Bhajan Lal, argued that a statement of fact in a newspaper is hearsay and inadmissible without proof from other evidence. According to him, In Re P.C. Sen could not help Khan, because there evidence had been led before the Court to prove the speech was in fact broadcast by the Chief Minister on All India Radio. To support his submission that a news item cannot be the basis for starting contempt proceedings, he cited Samant N. Balakrishna v. George Fernandez and Laxmi Raj Shetty v. State of Tamil Nadu. These two cases appear in the judgment as part of his argument. The Court's own reasoning, set out below, rests on the fact that no evidence had been led.

Bhajan Lal's own affidavit said the statements attributed to him rested on newspaper reports that were mere hearsay and could not be relied on to start such proceedings.

The Bench dismissed the contempt petition and both applications. It found that no evidence had been led to prove the statement of facts in the newspaper report, and it refused to issue a suo moto notice. The Court's conclusion on this point reads:

• The Court closed the shortcut of treating a press cutting as proof. The person asking for action must prove the statement of facts reported.
• It also closed the shortcut of treating silence as admission. Bhajan Lal's failure to deny the statement did not relieve the applicant of that burden.

The Court added two more points. The news item did not spell out any reference to the corruption case pending before the Supreme Court. And when the statement was made, the High Court had already quashed the FIR and investigation, with no Supreme Court stay.

• Records this dispute generated. The FIR and the original complaint, the writ petition and High Court judgment, the Supreme Court judgment of 21 November 1990, the newspaper report, any suspension order, and every affidavit filed by both sides.
• Forum used in this litigation. Bhajan Lal approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court by writ petition under Articles 226 and 227. The State then went to the Supreme Court, and the contempt petition and applications were filed in the Supreme Court.
• What the Court found missing. No evidence had been led to prove the statement of facts in the newspaper report. The Court held that this obligation lay on the applicant.
• The shortfall that sank this petition. The applicant relied on a press cutting and on Bhajan Lal's silence, and the Court held that silence does not remove the duty to prove the statement. The judgment states no limitation period or filing deadline for any of these steps.