The Delhi High Court in the case Court on its own motion v. Naresh Sharma in the case observed and has sentenced a litigant to six months in jail who demanded that death penalty which is to be imposed on a sitting judge who dismissed his pleas.
The Division bench comprising of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Shailender Kaur in the case observed that the litigant against whom criminal contempt proceedings were initiated in August, has no repentance for his conduct and actions.
The court stated that this court hereby hold that the Contemnor guilty of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and consequently, this court sentence him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months with fine for an amount of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment of seven days.
Further, it has been directed by the said court that Sharma be taken into custody and be handed over to Tihar Jail today itself.
The bench in the case noted that Sharma in his complaint, called the single judge a thief and that the Delhi High Court in is involved in making the criminal situation more complicated by committing crime upon crime.
The court also expressed shock about Sharma’s averments, the bench said that as a responsible citizen of the Country, thus, he is expected to set-forth his grievances in a civilized manner, maintaining the dignity of the Court and judicial process of law.
The court in the case observed and has stated that it is taken that the Contemnor due to outrage preferred the writ petitions, but despite issuance of Show Cause Notice, he without pleading guilty, filed a highly disrespectful reply thereto, which explicitly show that he has no guilt to his actions. Rather, it has been stated by the Contemnor that he has no remorse to whatever he did and he stands by the same.
The court issued the show cause notice to Sharma for criminal contempt by the bench while hearing his appeals wherein it challenged the single judge order passed on July 20 rejecting his pleas with costs of Rs. 30,000 each.
It has also been alleged by the Sharma before the single judge that his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India was being infringed. Thus, he argued that Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes ‘right to have public organisations that are not criminally established’.
Further, the Sharma prayed in an appeal before the coordinate bench that the Single Bench should be “criminally charged” since the judgment was not just baseless but also defamatory and inserted with lies.
Before the court, Sharma prayed to criminally charge the Single Bench for a meaningless, defamatory, criminal, seditious judgment on such an important issue under the Indian Penal Code 124 A, 166A(b), 167, 192, 193, 217, 405, 409, 499, 500, and Section 16 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971), and give her death penalty considering that such blatant trampling of fundamental rights in Constitution of India.
Further, it has also been alleged by sharma that the Supreme Court passed a judgment by selectively quoting the law amounting to theft of humongous Government property.