COCP-5983-2025 (O&M) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

COCP-5983-2025 (O&M)

Reserved on : 30.01.2026

Date of Pronouncement : 09.02.2026

Uploaded on : 09.02.2026

Rajbir Singh Brar ..Petitioner

Versus

Gaurav Yadav and others ..Respondents

Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced?NO

Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Present:Mr. Rajbir Singh Brar, petitioner in-person.

Mr. Ravneet S. Joshi, DAG, Punjab,

for the respondent.

SUDEEPTI SHARMA , J.

1. At the very outset, this Court apprised the petitioner, who is

present in-person, that in the event the present contempt petition is found to

be frivolous, costs of Rs.1,00,000/- would be imposed. In response thereto,

the petitioner insists that the costs of Rs.2,00,000/- be imposed, if the

contempt petition be found to be frivolous.

2. The present contempt petition has been filed for deliberate and

intentional disobedience of order dated 30.07.2024 passed by the Division

Bench of this Court in CWP-2066-2018.

3. The Division Bench of this Court had passed the following

directions in CWP-2066-2018, vide its order dated 30.07.2024:-

COCP-5983-2025 (O&M) -2-

“8. In view of the above, it would be appropriate

to dispose of the present petition with the following

directions:-

i) State of Punjab is directed to ensure

that whenever a complaint is made which

reflects commission of cognizable offence,

an FIR ought to be registered in terms of the

law laid down by the Apex Court in Lalita

Kumari’s case (supra).

ii) The provisions of the Pre-Conception

and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act,

1994 be followed in its letter and spirit.”

4. In compliance of the order dated 30.07.2024, short reply by way

of affidavit dated 20.01.2026 of Gaurav Yadav, IPS, Director General of

Police, Punjab, Chandigarh, along with Annexures R-1 & R-2, has been filed

on behalf of the respondents before the Registry. The same is taken on

record. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:-

“4.That a perusal of aforesaid Order dated

08.12.2025 of this Hon'ble Court shows that petitioner

has alleged deliberate and intentional disobedience of

Order dated 30.07.2024 passed by this Hon'ble Court in

CWP 2066 of 2018. The aforesaid Order dated

30.07.2024 was passed in CWP 2066 of 2018 titled as

'National Anti Crime and Human Rights Protection of

India versus State of Punjab and Others' in which this

Hon'ble Court had passed the following directions

(relevant part of Order dated 30.07.2024): -

COCP-5983-2025 (O&M) -3-

“8. In view of the above, it would be appropriate

to dispose of the present petition with the following

directions:-

i)State of Punjab is directed to ensure

that whenever a complaint is made

which reflects commission of

cognizable offence, an FIR ought to

be registered in terms of the law laid

down by the Apex Court in Lalita

Kumari's case (supra).

ii)The provisions of the Pre-Conception

and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques

Act, 1994 be followed in its letter and

spirit.”

A perusal of aforesaid Order shows that the said

matter related to the provisions of the Pre-Conception

and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994 and have

no relation to the allegations levelled by the petitioner in

the present matter.

5.That the present matter relates to District Faridkot.

A detailed report regarding the matter and other relevant

documents have been obtained from the Senior

Superintendent of Police, Faridkot.

6.That the deponent craves for indulgence of this

Hon'ble Court to submit that the prayer made by the

petitioner is wholly misconceived. Prayer has been made

by the petitioner in Clause VI of COCP 5983 of 2025,

which reads as under: -

“VI. PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this

Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

a) Initiate contempt proceedings against

Respondents No. 1 to 3 for wiliful,

deliberate and conscious violation of

COCP-5983-2025 (O&M) -4-

mandatory directions of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Lalita Kumarl.

b)Direct registration of FIR against the erring

accused officers:

i.Smt. Pragaya Jain, IPS, Senior

Superintendent of Police, Faridkot

ii.Sh. Sandeep Kumar, PPS,

Superintendent of Police

(Investigation), Faridkot, Chairman

of the SIT

iii.Sh. Tarlochan Singh, PPS, Deputy

Superintendent of Police (Sub-

Division), Faridkot; SIT Member

iv.Sh. Rajesh Kumar, SHO, PS Sadar

Faridkot; SIT Member

v.Sh. Jasmit Singh PPS, Superintendent

of Police (Investigation), Faridkot

conducted biased inquiry on

complaint No. 616/PC/8-24 dated

5.4.2024.

c)Direct CBI or any independent agency to

investigate; embezzlement of Govt. funds,

Forging/Tempering with Govt. records, theft

of Govt. record, fabrication of evidence,

false affidavits, collusion and Conspiracy

with accused, Filing of wrong and

misleading Challan and manipulation of the

investigation.

d)Pass any other order deemed just and

proper.”

A perusal of the aforesaid prayer clause shows that

apart from alleging wilful disobedience of orders and

directions of this Hon'ble Court, the petitioner has

prayed before this Hon'ble Court for directing

registration of FIR against the police officers and

direction to CBI or any independent agency to investigate

allegations levelled by the petitioner. Thus, the all-

encompassing prayer made by the petitioner is wholly

COCP-5983-2025 (O&M) -5-

misconceived and beyond the scope of present contempt

proceedings, as the same are in the nature of mandamus.

7.That as per the report submitted by the Senior

Superintendent of Police, Faridkot, the petitioner had

earlier filed a complaint No. 616/PC-8-24 dated

05.04.2024 to the Senior Superintendent of Police,

Faridkot levelling allegation of embezzlement of school

grants and tempering of government records etc. Similar

complaint was made by the petitioner to concerned

authorities in the Education Department.

8.That on the complaint of District Education Officer

(DEO), case FIR No. 21 dated 04.02.2025 was registered

for commission of offence under sections 409, 420, 465,

468, 471 IPC (sections 467/120-B IPC added later) at

Police Station Sadar, Faridkot, against the following

accused person:

i. Jaskewal Singh, C.H.T., Government School, New

Pippli;

ii. Dhanna Singh Deol, Ex-DEO (Ele. Edu.),

Faridkot;

iii. Sukhjinder Singh, Sr. Assistant, Office of DEO,

Faridkot;

iv. Rajwinder Kaur, Principal, Government School,

Pakhi Kalan;

v. Varinder Kumar Salhotra, Principal, Government

School, Moranwali;

vi. Sudha, Principal, Government School,

Araiyanwala Kalan;

vii. Nachhattar Singh, Ex-Member, School

Management Committee.

9.That to ensure effective investigation, a Special

Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted vide Order No.

4346-48/C dated 24.02.2025 by Senior Superintendent of

Police, Faridkot comprising of the following: -

i.Superintendent of Police (Investigation) Faridkot.

COCP-5983-2025 (O&M) -6-

ii. Deputy Superintendent of Police (Sub-Division)

Faridkot.

iii.SHO, PS Sadar Faridkot.

10.That the SIT examined accused Nachhattar Singh,

Rajwinder Kaur, Sudha, Varinder Kumar Salhotra and

Sukhjinder Singh.

11.That the investigation by the SIT revealed that

petitioner had lodged prior complaints with various

authorities regarding alleged embezzlement of funds and

forgery/tampering of records. The investigation

established that petitioner- Rajvir Singh Brar had

already made several complaints to the different

authorities alleging forgery/tampering in the official

record and embezzlement in the funds. It was found that

during enquiry into the matter, accused Nachhattar

Singh, Sudha, Rajwinder Kaur, Sukhjinder Singh and

Varinder Kumar had prepared a preliminary report dated

03.09.2020, followed by final report dated 11.09.2020,

which were submitted to the concerned authorities. The

SIT found that there was no mens rea on part of accused

person nor they had any connivance with the prime

accused Jaskewal Singh. Due to insufficiency of evidence

the SIT found 05 accused Sudha, Rajwinder Kaur,

Sukhjinder Singh, Varinder Kumar Salhotra and

Nachhattar Singh innocent in the case. The SIT submitted

its report dated 13.10.2025, which was approved by the

Senior Superintendent of Police, Faridkot.

Upon completion of investigation against accused

Dhanna Singh Deol, (DEO Retired), Final

Report/Challan was presented to the competent court on

15.10.2025. Accused Jaskewal Singh is absconding from

law. His warrants of arrest have been obtained for

30.01.2026 from Ld. JMIC, Faridkot. Further

investigation in the matter is under progress. In view of

the aforesaid, the Senior Superintendent of Police,

Faridkot has been directed to expedite further

investigation against accused Jaskewal Singh who is

absconding from law.

COCP-5983-2025 (O&M) -7-

12.That it has further been report that the District

Police has carried out the investigation of FIR No. 21

(supra) in a fair and impartial manner, whereas the

dissatisfaction of the present petitioner with the outcome

of investigation does not attract the contempt

proceedings in any manner. Moreover the petitioner is

not an de facto complainant of this FIR; but he wants to

steer the investigation of the case on his own terms and

thus the instant petition which has been filed with a view

to apply pressure tactics deserves to be dismissed. The

representation Annexure: P-3 is highly vexatious,

scandalous and frivolous and need not be acted upon.

Present petition is liable to be dismissed.

13.That it has further been reported that

representation (Annexure P-3) made by the petitioner

was received in the office of Senior Superintendent of

Police, Faridkot. It was numbered 934-PC/9/25 dated

20.12.2025. The said representation containing similar

allegations of embezzlement, forgery etc. was enquired

into by SHO, Sadar Faridkot. The Deputy Superintendent

of Police, Sub-Division, Faridkot concurred with the

report of SHO, PS Sadar Faridkot, which was further

accepted by Superintendent of Police, Investigation,

Faridkot and approved by Senior Superintendent of

Police, Faridkot on 10.01.2026. After approval by Senior

Superintendent of Police, Faridkot the same was

consigned to record.

14.That it has further been reported that petitioner

had earlier filed a CRM-M No. 38992 of 2025 for

issuance of directions to the respondent to file a status

report in FIR No. 21/2025. It was further prayed to quash

the Special Investigation Team constituted in the case.

The said CRM-M was disposed of vide order dated

20.08.2025, which is reproduced herein below: -

“The petition has been filed inter alia seeking a

direction to the respondents to file a status report

in FIR No. 21 dated 04.02.2025, registered under

Sections 409, 420, 465, 468, 471 IPC, at Police

Station Sadar, Faridkot, and quash the Special

Investigation Team (SIT) constituted in the case.

COCP-5983-2025 (O&M) -8-

2.Status report, dated 05.08.2025, has been

filed on behalf of the respondents which

specifically states that investigation in the matter

is going on and statements of relevant witnesses,

including that of District Education Officer

(Elementary), Faridkot, has also been recorded.

3.Learned State counsel submits that the SIT

will conclude the investigation within two months

from today.

4.In view of statement made, learned counsel

for the petitioner has no objection to the petition

being disposed of in terms thereof.

5.Ordered accordingly."

15.That it is further humbly submitted that earlier the

petitioner had filed COCP No. 5433 of 2025 titled as

Rajbir Singh Brar versus Gaurav Yadav, IPS and Others,

which was dismissed as withdrawn by passing the

following order on 07.11.2025, a copy of which is

annexed alongwith and marked as ANNEXURE R-2: -

“4. The legality and correctness of the status

report cannot be determined in the present petition

filed under the Contempt of Courts Act for

initiation of contempt proceedings. However, the

petitioner has alternate remedy to assail the

correctness of the status report.

5. After arguing for some time, the petitioner

wishes to withdraw the present petition with liberty

to avail appropriate alternate remedy and also to

file an application before the Court seeking

modification of the order dated 20.08.2025

(Annexure P-3).

6. Dismissed as withdrawn with aforesaid

liberty”

5. A perusal of the compliance affidavit as well as the material

placed on record reveals that the directions issued by the Division Bench

COCP-5983-2025 (O&M) -9-

have been duly complied with. No material has been produced by the

petitioner to establish any willful, deliberate or disobedience on the part of

the respondents.

6. Further from the compliance affidavit, it is clear that the

petitioner is in the habit of filing frivolous contempt petitions. Normally

when there is apparent contempt by the official respondents, this Court

imposes costs to be deducted from their salary for non-compliance of the

order. The present case is the set example of the litigants, who are in the

habit of blaming/targeting the official respondents unnecessarily. A perusal

of the compliance affidavit itself shows that there is no disobedience by the

respondents, rather, they are doing their duties effectively and efficiently.

7. A perusal of the whole file of this case shows that the petitioner

is in the habit of filing contempt petitions and blaming the official

respondents by name. Such conduct amounts to a gross abuse of the process

of law and unnecessarily adds to the burgeoning pendency of cases before

this Court.

8. It is well settled that contempt jurisdiction is required to be

exercised with great caution and circumspection and only in cases where

willful and intentional disobedience of an order of the Court is clearly made

out. The jurisdiction cannot be invoked to settle scores or to unnecessarily

harass officials, particularly when the record reflects compliance with the

directions issued by this Court.

9. Similar matter has already been dealt with by this Court in

COCP-3579-2025 decided on 24.07.2025 titled as “Payal Chaudhary V/s

COCP-5983-2025 (O&M) -10-

KAP Sinha IAS and others”, while placing reliance on the judgments

passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as “Dalip Singh V/s State

of Uttar Pradesh and others (2010) 2 SCC 114, Subrata Roy Sahara V/s

Union of India (2014) 8 SCC 470 and K.C. Tharakan V/s State Bank of

India & Ors. Passed in Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).27458/2022”.

The relevant paragraphs of Payal Chaudhary (supra) are reproduced as

under:-

“9. It is evident that the petitioner has engaged in what

can only be described as a frivolous and vexatious

litigation spree, seemingly driven by a misplaced sense of

grievance. Such conduct constitutes a gross abuse of the

judicial process and contributes significantly to the

burgeoning pendency of cases before this Court. The

tendency of litigants to misuse the judicial forum by

engaging in forum shopping, filing repetitive and

meritless petitions, and adopting dilatory tactics

undermines the very foundation of our legal system and

clogs the administration of justice.

10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Dalip Singh Vs.

State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2010) 2 SCC 114,

has cautioned against this emerging category of

unscrupulous litigants who, devoid of respect for truth,

resort to falsehood and unethical practices in their

pursuit of relief. The Supreme Court emphatically held

that such litigants, who seek to pollute the stream of

justice or who dare to touch the fountain of justice with

unclean hands, are not entitled to any relief, interim or

final. Relevant extracts of the same is reproduce as

under:-

COCP-5983-2025 (O&M) -11-

“In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has

cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not

have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort

to falsehood and unethical means for achieving

their goals. Courts have evolved new principles to

curb such abuse, and it is now well established

that a litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of

justice or touches the pure fountain of justice with

tainted hands is not entitled to any relief, interim

or final.”

11. The petitioner’s conduct in instituting frivolous

litigation has resulted in a gross misuse of the judicial

process, thereby squandering the valuable time and

resources of this Court. It is imperative, in the interest of

justice, that bona fide and timely claims are adjudicated

expeditiously, without being impeded by vexatious and

unscrupulous litigation. At this juncture, reference may

be made to the pertinent observations of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of

India (2014) 8 SCC 470, wherein the Court lamented the

pervasive malaise of frivolous litigation afflicting the

Indian judicial system. The Hon’ble Apex Court observed

as under:-

“The Indian judicial system is grossly afflicted

with frivolous litigation. Ways and means need to

be evolved, to deter litigants from their compulsive

obsession towards senseless and illconsidered

claims. One needs to keep in mind, that in the

process of litigation, there is an innocent sufferer

on the other side of every irresponsible and

senseless claim. He suffers long drawn anxious

periods of nervousness and restlessness, whilst the

litigation is pending, without any fault on his

part.”

12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently

emphasized the need to deter frivolous appeals and

COCP-5983-2025 (O&M) -12-

petitions by imposing exemplary costs on the litigating

parties. In Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 27458/2022

titled as K.C. Tharakan v. State Bank of India & Ors.

decided on 01.05.2023, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as

follows:

“No legal system can permit a situation wherein a

party repeatedly agitates the same issue after it

has been conclusively adjudicated by the highest

judicial forum. Such conduct amounts to a gross

misuse of the judicial process and results in a

significant waste of valuable judicial time.

Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed

with costs. However, taking into consideration that

the petitioner is a dismissed employee, we deem it

appropriate to impose a nominal cost. The writ

petition is, therefore, dismissed with costs

quantified at 10,000/-, to be deposited with the

₹

Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Welfare

Fund, to be utilized for the benefit of the SCBA

Library.”

10. In view of the above referred to judgments, this Court is firmly

of the opinion that the instant petition constitutes a glaring instance of

misuse of the judicial process. It is, therefore, incumbent upon this Court to

safeguard the sanctity of judicial proceedings and to prevent their

exploitation by unscrupulous litigants. The time and resources of this Court

are limited and must be reserved for bona fide grievances that merit judicial

consideration.

11. Further Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Writ Petition(s) (Civil)

No(s).240 of 2025 titled as ‘Sandeep Todi Vs. Union of India and others’,

wherein the petitioner appeared and argued in person, passed the following

order on 22.04.2025:-

COCP-5983-2025 (O&M) -13-

“The petitioner, appearing in person, is an

advocate and understands the law and nuances of law,

has still got the guts to file this petition under Article 32

of the Constitution of India.

He has not only wasted the valuable time of the

Court but also of the Registry and has spoiled the entire

environment of the Court.

On the previous occasions in other pending

petitions, the petitioner was advised to mend his ways.

We have also perused the reliefs claimed in the

petition, which a prudent lawyer of basic knowledge of

law would not claim in a petition under Article 32 of the

Constitution of India, but still the petitioner, who has a

registration with Bar Council from last three years, has

been conducting his cases in different Courts, including

this Court, has still made all those prayers. The

allegations made in the petition and the relief claimed

are totally frivolous and malicious.

Today, when the matter is taken up, the petitioner

has stated that he may be permitted to withdraw this

petition.

If we allow simpliciter withdrawal of such

petitions, it would send a wrong message to the litigants

to file any frivolous petition and then get away by

simpliciter withdrawals.

Accordingly, we dismiss this petition with cost of

Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) to be deposited

with the National Legal Services Authority within four

weeks and proof of such deposit may be filed before the

Registry of this Court within six weeks from today.

COCP-5983-2025 (O&M) -14-

In case, proof of deposit is not filed by the

petitioner within the time indicated above, Registry to list

the matter before this Court.

Pending applications stand disposed of.

12. The aforesaid judgments clearly emphasize that frivolous and

vexatious litigation must be curbed with a firm hand. The repeated filing of

meritless petitions not only results in wastage of precious judicial time but

also causes unnecessary harassment to public officials who are constrained

to defend themselves despite having acted in accordance with law.

13. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the time has

come when not only deterrent costs must be imposed upon the official

respondents but also upon the frivolous litigants. If, in cases of genuine

disobedience, costs can be imposed upon officials and recovered from their

salaries, there is no reason why, in cases of manifest abuse of process such

as the present one, the erring petitioner should not be saddled with

exemplary costs payable to the affected officials.

14. Accordingly, with a view to sending a strong deterrent message

and to preserve the sanctity of judicial proceedings, this Court deems it

appropriate to impose costs of Rs.3,00,000/- upon the petitioner.

15. The said amount shall be deposited with the Department of

Home, Punjab, which shall disburse the same to the respondents in the

present contempt petition in equal shares in their respective accounts.

16. Consequently, the present contempt petition is dismissed with

costs of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh only), payable to the respondents

COCP-5983-2025 (O&M) -15-

in equal shares, i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- each, to be credited into their respective

accounts.

17. In the event of default in compliance, the amount shall be

recovered from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue by the competent

authority.

18. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.

09.02.2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA )

Virender JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No