Why court ordered petitioner to pay Rs 1 lakh each to three cops, including Punjab DGP

The state, represented by Deputy Advocate General Ravneet S. Joshi, filed a compliance affidavit showing that the 2024 order related specifically to sex determination cases and had no connection to Brar’s complaints about alleged embezzlement of school funds in Faridkot district.

Reasons for dismissing the contempt petition

• The directions issued by the Division Bench in CWP-2066-2018 (order dated 30.07.2024) have been duly complied with, as reflected in the compliance affidavit and material on record.
• The order in CWP-2066-2018 related to implementation of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994, and had no nexus with the allegations raised in the present contempt petition (embezzlement of school funds, forgery of records, etc.).
• The petitioner produced no material to establish any willful or deliberate disobedience of the Division Bench’s directions by the respondents.
• In FIR No. 21 of 2025, an SIT investigation was conducted, witnesses were examined, a challan was presented against one accused, and further investigation is ongoing, indicating active compliance rather than disobedience.
• The petitioner is not the de facto complainant in FIR No. 21 of 2025 and is attempting to steer the investigation on his own terms by using contempt as a pressure tactic, which falls outside contempt jurisdiction.
• The reliefs sought (registration of FIRs against specific officers, CBI or independent agency investigation, etc.) are in the nature of mandamus and are wholly misconceived and beyond the scope of contempt proceedings.
• The petitioner had earlier filed COCP-5433-2025 on similar grounds and withdrew it with liberty to seek alternate remedies and modification of the earlier order; filing another contempt petition on the same lines was treated as an abuse of process.
• Contempt jurisdiction must be exercised with great caution and only where willful and intentional disobedience is clearly made out; it cannot be used to harass officials or settle personal scores when the record shows compliance.

Reasons for imposing costs of Rs 3,00,000

• From the compliance affidavit and case file, the Court found that the petitioner is in the habit of filing frivolous contempt petitions and targeting officials by name, amounting to a gross abuse of the process of law.
• Such frivolous and vexatious petitions add to pendency and waste limited judicial time and resources meant for bona fide grievances.
• The petition was described as a glaring misuse of the judicial process, falling within the category of vexatious litigation warned against in Dalip Singh, Subrata Roy Sahara, and K.C. Tharakan.
• In Payal Chaudhary v. KAP Sinha (COCP-3579-2025), the High Court, relying on these precedents, held that litigants who pollute the stream of justice with frivolous litigation are not entitled to relief and may be saddled with exemplary costs.
• The Supreme Court’s order in Sandeep Todi v. Union of India (W.P. (C) No. 240 of 2025) was cited to underline that courts should not permit withdrawal of frivolous petitions without imposing heavy costs as a deterrent.
• The Court reasoned that if costs can be imposed on officials in genuine cases of disobedience, a litigant who has manifestly abused the process should equally bear exemplary costs payable to affected officials.
• To send a strong deterrent message and preserve the sanctity of judicial proceedings, the Court imposed costs of Rs 3,00,000 on the petitioner, payable in equal shares of Rs 1,00,000 to each respondent, recoverable as arrears of land revenue in case of default.