The Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, has dismissed a criminal writ petition seeking the quashing of a criminal complaint while imposing costs of Rs. 2 lakh on the petitioner for deliberate suppression of material facts. Finding that the filing advocate, who is also the petitioner’s wife and Special Power of Attorney holder, made a false declaration regarding prior litigation, the High Court directed the Registry to register suo moto criminal contempt proceedings and refer the matter to the Bar Council of Delhi for disciplinary action under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961. The Court also restrained the advocate from representing the petitioner in any proceedings arising from or connected to the case.
Background of the Case
The dispute emanated from a long-standing family property conflict concerning premises bearing G-23, Triveni Commercial Complex, Sheikh Sarai, Phase-I, New Delhi, following the death of the petitioner’s mother, Late Smt. Trilochan Kaur, on November 14, 2005. The petitioner, Harjeet Singh Mendiratta, alleged that respondent no. 2, his sister Sonia Mendiratta, executed fraudulent relinquishment deeds in collusion with other family members to seek property mutation.
On May 23, 2007, respondent no. 2 initiated proceedings under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), New Delhi, alleging offences under Sections 323, 341, 451, 506, and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). On June 5, 2007, the ACMM treated the application as a complaint under Section 200 CrPC and summoned the petitioner on June 8, 2007.
On October 1, 2012, the petitioner filed CRL.M.C. No. 3870/2012 before a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court seeking to quash the complaint case and the summoning order. By judgment dated December 18, 2012, the High Court dismissed the quashing petition on grounds of delay and laches, relying on Rajesh Chetwal v. State (CRL.M.C. No. 1656/2011) to reiterate that proceedings under Section 482 CrPC must be invoked within a reasonable time.
Subsequent developments in the trial court included the dismissal of the petitioner’s discharge application on March 14, 2018, and the framing of charges on April 3, 2018. The petitioner’s Revision Petition No. 102/2018 against the order framing charges was dismissed on May 1, 2018. The petitioner then filed Criminal Revision No. 165/2018 challenging the discharge order while suppressing the dismissal of the earlier revision petition. Dismissing Criminal Revision No. 165/2018 on July 10, 2018, with costs of Rs. 20,000, the Special Judge (PC Act), CBI-01, Saket Courts, observed:
“The factum of the said order on charge having already been challenged by filing of the revision petition and dismissal of the said revision petition, having not been disclosed in the revision petition filed before this court, per-se amounts to contempt, besides the fact that filing of another revision petition against the same order is not maintainable and challenge to framing of charge in isolation is not permissible.”
Later, on March 18, 2023, the Principal District & Sessions Judge, South District, Saket Courts, dismissed Criminal Revision No. 95/2023, observing:
“As noticed above, petitioner has already filed about 7 revision petitions before Sessions court. Challenge to framing of charge has already failed previously. Seeking the same relief by moving an application for dropping of proceedings and carrying it further to the revisional court is an absolute misuse of the process of law; especially when the petitioner has stated in the revision petition itself that this argument was also raised at the stage of challenge to framing of charge.”
The petitioner also filed transfer petitions seeking transfer of cases from five different judges. Dismissing CRL.M.C. 6487/2024 on August 21, 2024, a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court observed:
“This Court is of the opinion that the present Petition is only a method to put pressure on the Judge hearing the case of the Petitioner. This Court cannot ignore the fact that Order transferring a case from one Court to another or from one Judge to another casts an aspersion on the Judge and on his/her reputation. Withdrawing cases from a Judge on mere allegations of biasness without there being a reasonable belief will be prejudicial to the independence of judiciary.”
On September 26, 2024, the petitioner instituted W.P. (CRL) 3144/2024 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking to quash the complaint case and proceedings. The petition was drafted and filed by advocate Ms. Kalpana, who is the petitioner’s wife and Special Power of Attorney holder. Paragraph 46 of the petition contained the following mandatory declaration:
“That the Petitioner has not filed any other similar petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings arises from the complaints in question either before this Hon’ble Court or before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.”
Pending consideration of the show cause notice issued by the High Court on March 6, 2025, the trial court (JMFC-02, South District, Saket Courts) dismissed Complaint Case No. 463048/2016 on February 12, 2026, holding that respondent no. 2 failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Arguments of the Parties
Respondent No. 2
Counsel for respondent no. 2 submitted that paragraph 46 of the writ petition contained a false declaration, as the petitioner had previously filed CRL.M.C. No. 3870/2012 for identical relief, which was dismissed on December 18, 2012. It was argued that the non-disclosure constituted deliberate suppression of material facts, committed despite advocate Ms. Kalpana having personal knowledge of the earlier litigation as the petitioner’s counsel, wife, and Special Power of Attorney holder. Respondent no. 2 also pointed to documented history detailing multiple proceedings filed by the petitioner and Ms. Kalpana against opposing advocates, judicial officers, and witnesses to obstruct legal proceedings.
Amicus Curiae
The Court-appointed Amicus Curiae, Ms. Chand Chopra, Advocate, reported that Ms. Kalpana appeared throughout in a dual capacity as the petitioner’s advocate and Special Power of Attorney holder, while being his wife. The Amicus concluded that the declaration in paragraph 46 was demonstrably false, no satisfactory explanation was provided, and no written apology was tendered. The Amicus suggested proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, reference to the Bar Council of Delhi under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, prosecution under Section 217 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and exemplary costs.
Filing Advocate Ms. Kalpana
Ms. Kalpana submitted that any omission was inadvertent and attributable to a lapse of memory, as CRL.M.C. No. 3870/2012 had been filed nearly twelve years prior without any intent to mislead. She contended that the present writ petition was distinct because it sought quashing on the ground that original complaints were destroyed and never exhibited. She added that the dismissal orders of December 18, 2012, and July 10, 2018, were subsequently placed on record via additional documents e-filed on November 16, 2024. She denied adverse personal findings in the July 10, 2018 order and alleged personal bias by counsel for respondent no. 2. During arguments on May 15, 2026, her counsel offered a verbal apology but stated she was unwilling to file a written unconditional apology or pay costs.
Court’s Analysis
The High Court observed that an advocate occupies a dual position as a representative of the client and an officer of the Court, bound to make full, fair, and accurate disclosures. The Court referred to the ‘Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette’ framed under Section 49(1)(c) of the Advocates Act, 1961, in Chapter II of Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules (specifically Rules 3, 4, 9, 13, 15, and 18), which mandate that advocates must not use improper means, must prevent clients from resorting to unfair practices, and must refrain from fomenting litigation.
The Court relied upon three Supreme Court judgments establishing the standards expected of legal practitioners:
In Pandurang Dattatraya Khandekar v. Bar Council of Maharashtra [(1984) 2 SCC 556], the Supreme Court held:
“Nothing should be done by any member of the legal fraternity which might tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the profession. For an advocate to act towards his client otherwise than with utmost good faith is unprofessional. It is against professional etiquette for a lawyer to give improper legal advice with an ulterior object. It is unworthy that an advocate should accept employment with such motive, or so long as his client has such understanding of his purpose. It is professionally improper for a member of the bar to prepare false documents or to draw pleadings knowingly that the allegations made are untrue to his knowledge. Thus, the giving of improper legal advice may amount to professional misconduct. That however may not be so by the giving of wrong legal advice.”
In Saumya Chaurasia v. Enforcement Directorate [(2024) 6 SCC 401], the Supreme Court observed:
“It cannot be gainsaid that every party approaching the court seeking justice is expected to make full and correct disclosure of material facts and that every advocate being an officer of the court, though appearing for a particular party, is expected to assist the court fairly in carrying out its function to administer the justice. It hardly needs to be emphasized that a very high standard of professionalism and legal acumen is expected from the advocates particularly designated Senior advocates appearing in the highest court of the country so that their professionalism may be followed and emulated by the advocates practicing in the High Courts and the District Courts. Though it is true that the advocates would settle the pleadings and argue in the courts on instructions given by their clients, however their duty to diligently verify the facts from the record of the case, using their legal acumen for which they are engaged, cannot be obliviated.”
In Jitender @ Kalla v. State of GNCTD & Ors. [SLP (Crl.) 4299/2024], the Supreme Court held:
“…Therefore, when incorrect facts are stated in the petition/appeal/counter affidavit or when material facts or documents are suppressed, the advocate-on record cannot shift the entire blame on either the client or his instructing advocates. Therefore, it is his duty to be cautious and careful. His duty is to file proper proceedings and affidavits before this Court to assist the court in dispensing justice. He must always be fair to the Court and effectively assist the Court in deciding cases. The duty of the advocate-on-record does not end after filing a case or a counter…”
The High Court held that the false declaration in paragraph 46 could not be treated as a mere inadvertent omission, as Ms. Kalpana had direct personal knowledge of the earlier quashing petition. The Court stated that deliberately filing a petition containing a false non-filing declaration falls within the definition of criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as it interferes with and obstructs the administration of justice.
The Court noted that Ms. Kalpana’s dual role as advocate, Special Power of Attorney holder, and wife blurred professional duties and personal interest, disclosing prima facie violations of Rules 5, 6, and 7 of the Bar Council of India Rules, 1975, which attract disciplinary action under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961. The Court added that the subsequent dismissal of the criminal complaint by the trial court did not efface or excuse the initial abuse of process.
Decision
The High Court issued the following directions:
- The Registry is directed to forward a copy of the judgment and the complete record within two weeks to the Bar Council of Delhi for considering initiation of disciplinary proceedings against Ms. Kalpana, Advocate, under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
- The Registry is directed to register a suo moto criminal contempt proceeding and place the matter before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders to list before the concerned Division Bench on September 1, 2026.
- Pending conclusion of proceedings, Ms. Kalpana, Advocate, is restrained from acting, appearing, filing pleadings, signing Vakalatnama, or representing the petitioner in any proceedings arising out of or connected with the matter.
- The writ petition stands dismissed. Costs of Rs. 1 lakh payable to the Delhi High Court Bar Clerk’s Association and Rs. 1 lakh payable to the Shaurya Foundation Trust were imposed on the petitioner, to be paid within two weeks.
Case Details:
Case Title: Harjeet Singh Mendiratta v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.
Case No.: W.P.(CRL) 3144/2024
Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Date: August 14, 2026
