Delhi High Court on Criminal Contempt for Threatening a Court-Appointed Local Commissioner with a Gun.

Headnote:

The Delhi High Court held that threatening or intimidating a Court-appointed Local Commissioner amounts to criminal contempt under Section 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as it interferes with the administration of justice. The contemnor’s act of placing a pistol on a table during the inspection and his false claim that it was a toy gun were found to be deliberate attempts to obstruct and undermine the authority of the Court. The Court emphasized that Local Commissioners act as an extension of the Court, and any attempt to threaten or obstruct them warrants strict judicial action.

Background:

1. The proceedings arose from O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) 186/2024 – Bina & Ors. v. Ashok Bansal, where the Court had restrained the respondent from dealing with 30,000 tons of coal and alienating assets of M/s G&G Concrete Solutions.
2. To ensure compliance, the Court appointed Advocate Ms. Nandini Bali as a Local Commissioner to inspect the coal site at Bhupani, Faridabad on 12 July 2024.
3. During inspection on 13 July 2024, the contemnor Nitin Bansal, son of the restrained party, appeared on-site, behaved aggressively, obstructed the inspection, and allegedly placed a pistol on the table, threatening the Commissioner and others.
4. The pistol was seized by the police, and initial reports suggested it was unlicensed. The Single Judge, taking cognizance of this act, referred the matter for criminal contempt proceedings.

Court’s Observations:

1. Local Commissioners are officers and representatives of the Court. Any obstruction, intimidation, or threat to them constitutes interference with the judicial process.
2. The contemnor’s defence that it was a toy gun used to scare monkeys was rejected after the gun was produced in Court and verified as a real air gun by the investigating officer.
3. The contemnor’s false plea was held to be a deliberate attempt to mislead the Court and aggravate contempt.
4. The Court relied on precedents:
5. Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj (2014) 16 SCC 204 – proof of contempt must be beyond reasonable doubt.
6. Court on its Own Motion v. M/s Obsession Naaz & Ors. (2025:DHC:7206-DB) – assault or threat to Commissioners amounts to criminal contempt.
7. Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly (2002) 5 SCC 352 – contempt jurisdiction preserves the dignity of the Court and ensures justice.

Held:

1. The Court found Nitin Bansal guilty of criminal contempt under Section 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for:
2. Threatening and obstructing the Local Commissioner in discharge of official duties.
3. Providing false statements to the Court regarding the nature of the weapon.
4. It was held that such conduct strikes at the root of the administration of justice and cannot be tolerated.
5. The Court directed that appropriate consequences would follow upon determination of sentence.

Legal Provisions Discussed:

1. Section 2(c)(iii), Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Criminal contempt: any act which interferes with or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceeding.
2. Section 15, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Cognizance of criminal contempt.
3. Article 215, Constitution of India – High Courts’ power to punish for contempt of themselves.

Citation: 2025:DHC: (exact neutral citation not provided in PDF; judgment dated 29 October 2025)

Case: Court on its Own Motion v. Nitin Bansal

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Justice Prathiba M. Singh & Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta

Date of Decision: 29 October 2025

Contempt Case (Crl.) No.: 16 of 2024