Ajay Aggarwal vs S.N. Vashisht and Others

M.M.S. Bedi, J.—Petitioner is an Advocate for Dr. Sumeet Sofat. Said Dr. Sumeet Sofat had filed a complaint against some police officers and private persons alleging that they had committed acts of kidnapping, abduction and had attempted to murder him besides levelling allegations of extortion etc. As no action was taken by the police, the petitioner in the capacity as an Advocate had sent a legal notice on behalf of Dr. Sumeet Sofat. No action having been taken, the petitioner has filed the present petition for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents higher police officers and the Chief Secretary, Haryana, claiming that Hon''ble the Apex Court in Lalita Kumari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, passed orders on 14.7.2008 which was confirmed on 8.8.2008 directing the Governments of all the States and Union Territories and Director Generals of Police to the effect that if steps are not taken for registration of FIRs immediately and copies thereof are not made over to the complainant on the same day, the complainant may move concerned Magistrate by filing complaint to give directions to the police to register case immediately upon receipt/production of copy of the orders and make over copies of the FIRs to the complainant within 24 hours on the receipt/production of copy of such orders. The petitioner has emphasised that in case necessary steps are not taken, the aggrieved person is entitled to initiate contempt proceedings against the delinquent officials and punish them for violation of the orders if no sufficient cause is shown warranting stringent punishment like sentence of imprisonment against them. Copies of the orders of Hon''ble the Apex Court has been placed on record as Annexures P2 & P3.

The operative parts of the directions issued by Hon''ble the Apex Court in Annexures P2 & P3, are reproduced hereunder:-

In view of the above, we feel that it is high time to give directions to Governments of all the States and Union Territories besides their Director Generals of Police/Commissioners of Police as the case may be to the effect that if steps are not taken for registration of F.I.Rs immediately and copies thereof are not made over to the complainants, they may move the concerned Magistrates by filing complaint petitions to give direction to the police to register case immediately upon receipt/production of copy of the orders and make over copy of the F.I.Rs to the complainants, within twenty four hours of receipt/production of copy of such orders. It may further give direction to take immediate steps for apprehending the accused persons and recovery of kidnapped/abducted persons and properties which were subject matter of theft or dacoity. In case F.I.Rs are not registered within the aforementioned time, and/or aforementioned steps are not taken by the police, the concerned Magistrate would be justified in initiating contempt proceeding against such delinquent officers and punish them for violation of its orders if no sufficient cause is shown and awarding stringent punishment like sentence of imprisonment against them inasmuch as the Disciplinary Authority would be quite justified in initiating departmental proceeding and suspending them in contemplation of the same.

The operative part of the final order of Hon''ble the Apex Court dated 25.8.2008 is reproduced as under:-

In view of this, we direct the Chief Secretaries of all the States and Union Territories and Director Generals of Police/Commissioners of Police, as the case may be, to see that the police officers posted in every police station throughout the country should act in accordance with the order dated 14th July, 2008, treating the proposed directions therein given by this Court to be the interim ones and, in case there is any failure on the part of any police officer, the concerned authority shall take immediate action against that officer.

In any view of the matter, we grant two weeks time by way of last chance to the Chief Secretaries of all the States and Union Territories, except Chief Secretaries and Director Generals of Police of the States of Uttar Pradesh and Arunachal Pradesh, as well as Directors General of Police/Commissioners of Police, as the case may be, to file responses failing which they shall have to appear in court in-person on the next date fixed in this case. As all the States and Union Territories are represented before this Court, it was not necessary for the Registry to communicate this order to the Chief Secretaries or Directors General of Police/Commissioners of Police, as the case may be. Nonetheless, the Registry is directed to communicate this order by fax as well to the Chief Secretaries of all the States and Union Territories and all the Director Generals of Police/ Commissioners of Police, as the case may be.

Let order dated 14th July, 2008, and this order be put on the website of the Supreme Court of India so that the people of India may know what directions have been given by this Court and they may take appropriate steps in case of any inaction on the part of the concerned officer of the police station in instituting a case and the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, shall take action in a case of inaction upon filing of complaint petition and give direction to institute the case within the time directed in the said order failing which the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, shall not only initiate action against the delinquent police officer but punish them suitably by sending them to jail, in case the cause shown is found to be unsatisfactory. Apart from this, the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, shall report the matter to the disciplinary authority at once by fax as well upon receipt of which the disciplinary authority shall suspend the concerned police officer immediately in contemplation of departmental proceeding.

Place the matter on 25th August, 2008.

The petitioner submits that the matter is pending before the Constitution Bench of Hon''ble the Apex Court.

The petitioner sent a legal notice Annexure P-4 to the respondent police authorities.

In view of above, a prayer has been made for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents.

I have heard the petitioner, at length.

Without expression of any opinion on merits of the grievance of Dr. Sumeet Sofat, the aggrieved person against the police officials and the private persons and without touching the merits of the complaint filed by the aggrieved person before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula, Annexure P9, u/s 156(3) Cr. P.C., this Court is of the opinion that the orders referred to by the petitioner do not make it mandatory that in every case where the complaint of aggrieved victim is not entertained, the contempt proceedings are to be initiated necessarily.

I have carefully gone through the directions passed by Hon''ble the Apex Court and I am of the opinion that the discretion has been given to the Magistrates observing that they would be justified in initiating contempt proceedings against the delinquent officials in case of non-registration of FIRs in serious offences.

The present petition for contempt deserves to be dismissed on following grounds:-

(i) The petitioner in the capacity as an Advocate has got no locus standi to initiate contempt proceedings on behalf of aggrieved person as he has already availed the alternative remedy available to him under law as is apparent from the complaint Annexure P-9 u/s 156(3) Cr. P.C., filed by Dr. Sumeet Sofat in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula;

(ii) The orders passed by Hon''ble the Apex Court are directory and not mandatory; and

(iii) The petitioner has got other alternative remedies to enforce the legal rights of victim i.e., either by filing a petition u/s 482 Cr. P.C., or a petition under Article 226 /227 of the Constitution of India and approaching the higher administrative authorities.

In view of above, the present contempt petition is disposed of as not maintainable for the above said reasons.