The Punjab and Haryana High Court issued a stern warning to a litigant in the Chandu Lal v. Maya Devi case for using contemptuous language against judges, emphasizing courtroom decorum and proper legal procedures.

Punjab and Haryana High Court Warns Litigant for Contemptuous Remarks Against Judges

In a recent development, the Punjab and Haryana High Court issued a stern warning to a litigant in the case of Chandu Lal v. Smt. Maya Devi (deceased) through LRs. The petitioner made inappropriate and derogatory statements about three sitting High Court judges and a District Judge in Gurgaon during the court proceedings.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar’s Statement on Court Decorum

According to Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, the court decided not to initiate formal contempt proceedings against the petitioner, citing his lack of legal expertise. However, the litigant received a clear warning: such behavior would not be tolerated in the future.

“This Court is of the considered opinion that contempt proceedings need not be initiated against him due to the petitioner’s lack of legal knowledge,” remarked Justice Brar.

Allegations of a Forged Will and CBI Investigation Request

The petitioner had filed the plea seeking an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the alleged forgery of the will of Maya Devi. He claimed that her attorneys had fabricated the will using fake thumb impressions, and accused them of tampering with civil court records, with the help of an advocate.

Court Recommends Jurisdictional Magistrate for Legal Remedy

The High Court emphasized that the proper legal remedy would have been to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., rather than filing a direct petition with the High Court.

The bench noted that the petitioner could not justify why he bypassed this essential step in the legal process.

Scandalous Allegations Without Evidence

Justice Brar further observed that the petitioner, who appeared in person, had used offensive language and made unsubstantiated allegations against court officials, including accusations of document tampering.

The court highlighted the lack of evidence and pointed out that the petitioner failed to explain how he had been personally harmed in the matter. His accusations were labeled “scandalous and contemptuous,” and the plea was ultimately dismissed.

Conclusion: A Reminder of Respect and Legal Process

This case serves as a strong reminder about the importance of respecting judicial authority and following proper legal channels. The High Court’s warning underlines the necessity for litigants to exercise decorum and present credible, well-substantiated claims while addressing the judiciary.