Coming down heavily on a litigant for filing a contempt petition against a judicial officer despite compliance with court directions, Justice Sudeepti Sharma of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the plea with Rs 1 lakh costs after holding that it was a “glaring instance of misuse of the judicial process” and an abuse that adds to the court’s pendency.The cost was directed to be paid to the judicial officer.Justice Sharma made it clear that no case of willful disobedience was made out, while also expressing concern over the manner in which allegations were levelled against the judicial officer. The court asserted that such proceedings, pursued despite compliance, undermined judicial functioning and wasted limited judicial time.Justice Sharma was hearing a contempt petition filed alleging non-compliance of directions issued on November 10, 2025, in a case where the High Court had asked the courts below to decide certain applications expeditiously, “preferably within a period of three months.”No disobedience, compliance already on recordJustice Sharma was, during the course of the hearing, told that one of the applications had already been decided by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, on February 27 in compliance with the High Court’s order.Rejecting the very foundation of the contempt plea, Justice Sharma held: “A bare reading of the order dated November 10, 2025, shows that there is no disobedience on the part of the respondent for which the present contempt petition has been filed.”The court noted that despite being aware of this compliance, the petitioner still chose to file the contempt proceedings and continued to pursue the same without any “justifiable or tenable grounds of law.”‘Gross abuse’ and burden on docketJustice Sharma termed the conduct as an abuse of process that contributed to pendency: “Such conduct amounts to gross abuse of the process of law and unnecessarily adds to the burgeoning pendency of cases before this court.”The bench added that the matter could have been dismissed, but was required to be proceeded further in view of the nature of the allegations against the judicial officer.“Ordinarily, this Court would have concluded the matter at this stage by dismissing the contempt petition. However, having regard to the underlying intent behind the filing of the present contempt, the manner and mode in which the allegations have been raised against the Judicial Officer, the matter warrants further consideration and elaboration,” Justice Sharma asserted.Coming to the rescue of the judicial officer, Justice Sharma added: “Such a kind of allegation of disobedience of this Court’s order against a sincere, competent, and hardworking judicial officer demands indulgence of this Court.”Direction was not time-boundClarifying the scope of its earlier order, Justice Sharma asserted that the direction to decide applications within three months was not mandatory.“Further perusal of the order dated November 10, 2025, shows that this Court had directed the courts below to decide the applications expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months. No time-bound direction was given by this Court to decide the applications. Therefore, no contempt is made out.”The court also referred to the trial court record, noting delays attributable to procedural aspects, including non-filing of reply and adjournments, with even costs imposed by the Civil Judge on January 29.Deterrent costs to protect judicial officersTaking a stern view, Justice Sharma held the petition to be a textbook misuse of contempt jurisdiction: “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 officers and to prevent their exploitation by unscrupulous litigants.”Referring to the need to conserve judicial time for genuine cases, the court added that the court’s time and resources were limited and must be reserved for bona fide grievances “that merit judicial consideration.”Imposing deterrent costs, Justice Sudeepti Sharma ordered: “Accordingly, with a view to sending a strong deterrent message and to preserve the sanctity of judicial officers, this court deems it appropriate to impose costs of Rs 1 lakh upon the petitioner to be paid to the respondent.”The amount was directed to be deposited with the District and Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, for disbursal to the respondent-officer. The court further directed that the amount would be recovered as arrears of land revenue in case of default.