Illegal detention and false affidavits in pending proceedings amounted to criminal contempt; apologies were partly rejected and compensation denied.

Illegal police detention was established on the basis of the CBI enquiry, contemporaneous statements, affidavits and corroborative circumstances, and the contrary police version was found false. Filing false affidavits and making false statements on oath in pending judicial proceedings was held to obstruct the due course of justice, so criminal contempt was made out against the concerned police officials and the taxi driver. The principal officers' apologies were rejected as belated and insincere, while the senior State functionaries' apologies were accepted because their lapse arose from a mistaken understanding of the order and system. Compensation was refused despite State responsibility for the unlawful acts of its officers.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Dhananjay Sharma and the taxi driver were illegally waylaid and detained by the Haryana Police on 15 January 1994 till 17 January 1994; (ii) whether the false affidavits and false statement on oath filed before the Court by police officials and the taxi driver amounted to criminal contempt; (iii) whether the apologies tendered by the officials deserved acceptance and whether compensation was payable.

Issue (i): Whether Dhananjay Sharma and the taxi driver were illegally waylaid and detained by the Haryana Police on 15 January 1994 till 17 January 1994.

Analysis: The material collected through the CBI enquiry, the contemporaneous statements, the affidavits, and the corroborative circumstances established that the detenues were intercepted on the Hissar-Delhi road, taken to the police station, and kept in illegal custody until 17 January 1994. The contrary versions advanced by the police officials were found to be false, and the affidavit of the advocate present at the spot was accepted as true.

Conclusion: The detention was illegal and the petitioner's version on the incident was accepted.

Issue (ii): Whether the false affidavits and false statement on oath filed before the Court by police officials and the taxi driver amounted to criminal contempt.

Analysis: Filing false affidavits and making false statements in judicial proceedings was held to obstruct the due course of justice and interfere with the administration of justice. The conduct of the responsible police officials in filing false denials, and of the taxi driver in giving false evidence and then retracting before the CBI, was treated as a serious interference with the judicial process. The Court also found that two officers had tutored the taxi driver and had tampered with evidence during the pendency of the proceedings.

Conclusion: Criminal contempt was made out against the concerned police officials and the taxi driver.

Issue (iii): Whether the apologies tendered by the officials deserved acceptance and whether compensation was payable.

Analysis: The apologies of the principal offending officers were rejected as belated and not genuinely repentant, while the apologies of the senior State functionaries were accepted because their lapse was attributed to a wrong understanding of the order and the prevailing system. Although the State was found responsible for the unlawful acts of its officers, compensation was declined because the detenues themselves had not remained free from falsehood and exaggeration in the proceedings.

Conclusion: Apology was rejected for the offending officers and accepted for the senior State functionaries, and no compensation was awarded.

Final Conclusion: The judgment affirmed illegal police detention, punished the responsible officers for criminal contempt, discharged the rule in favour of the senior State officials and refused monetary compensation.

Ratio Decidendi: False affidavits, false statements on oath, and tutoring a witness in pending judicial proceedings amount to criminal contempt because they obstruct the due course of justice and undermine the administration of justice.

---