Antony Joseph vs Shaji

K.Haripal, J

This is a contempt of court case initiated under Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as the Act, against two police officials, Sub Inspector and Circle Inspector of police respectively of Gandhi Nagar Police Station alleging that they had wilfully disobeyed an order passed by this Court on 18.02.2021 in Crl.M.A. No.1/2021 in B.A. No. 8186/2020. That was a bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pre-arrest bail in a case where he suspected to have been made the accused. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, by order dated 18.02.2021, this Court impleaded the defacto complainant as the additional third respondent and directed to issue notice to him by speed post. The court also directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested until served with a notice under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. However, the case of the petitioner is that ignoring the said direction, the counter petitioners arrested him at 9.00 A.M. on 29.05.2021 from Palakkad in front of his minor child, paraded him in public domain and produced before court on 30.05.2021 at 11.00 A.M. According to the petitioner, that case was registered on a private complaint preferred by the defacto complainant alleging offence under Sections 415, 416, 419, 420 of the Indian Penal Code contending that he had collected an amount of Rs. 5,95,000/- offering to arrange a visa and thereafter, neither the amount was paid nor the visa was arranged and thus, committed the said crime. He was arrested from Palakkad in the presence of the counter petitioners and another Sub Inspector and also the defacto complainant etc. Immediately after passing the order dated 18.02.2021, the same was communicated to both the counter petitioners; the counsel for the petitioner himself had handed over copy of the same at the police station and also tendered the same to the counter petitioners. Still they were not prepared to pay heed to the same and took him into custody without serving him a notice under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. Meanwhile, he managed to arrange the amount which was due to the defacto complainant and had paid the same. Even though he had submitted that aspect before the court, court did not consider to his plea of settlement and remanded him to judicial custody and was released on bail only on 31.05.2021. Thus alleging wilfull disregard of the order passed by this Court, the petitioner sought to proceed against the counter petitioners under Section 12(1) of the Act.

Both the counter petitioners submitted their separate replies. After considering the reply statements, this Court was convinced that the first respondent had received copy of the order of this Court dated 18.02.2021. Thus prima facie, it was found that there are materials to conclude that the first respondent, Sub Inspector Shaji had proceeded to arrest the petitioner without serving notice under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. even after obtaining copy of the order of this Court. Thus he was found prima facie answerable to the allegation of wilfull negation of the order passed by this Court. Even though the second respondent had accompanied the first respondent, as there was no material to say that the order was served on him, prima facie materials could not be gathered against him.

Thus on a prima facie satisfaction that the first respondent has committed contempt of this Court, he was called upon to appear before court in person for framing charge under Section 12(1) of the Act.

Pursuant to the said order, Adv. Sri. S. Rajeev entered appearance for the first respondent. The first respondent was present in person in Court on 04.03.2022, 23.03.2022 and 31.03.2022. Thereafter on 31.03.2022, it was ordered that his further personal appearance is not necessary.

I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the first respondent the contemnor.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though the contemnor has tendered apology, it is a belated apology. Before that he was trying to contest and dispute the allegations against him; there is no bonafides in the present unconditional apology tendered by him. He does not have slightest remorse or repentance. At last, when this Court found that there is prima facie materials against him for wilfull violation of the order passed by this Court, he has changed the strategy and has come with an apology which cannot be accepted on its face value. The learned counsel also relied on the decisions reported in Parameswaran v. Bharathan [2002 (2) KLT SN 35 (C. No. 42)], Arun Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. [2013(3) KLT SN 54 (C. No. 55) SC], Ranveer Yadav v. State of Bihar [2010(2) KLT SN 57 (C. No. 57) SC] and All Bengal Excise Licensees Association v. Raghavendra Singh and Others [ AIR 2007 SC 1386].

The learned counsel prayed that the belated apology tendered by the contemnor may not be accepted and pressed for framing charge against him.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the contemnor submitted that petitioner is only a Grade Sub Inspector who had accompanied the Station House Officer, Circle Inspector of Police. He had only limited role in assisting the superior officer in effecting arrest. Even though the learned counsel did not justify the act of the contemnor, he pointed out that the first respondent had no voice in the matter. He had only accompanied Inspector of police. Therefore, he prayed for closing the matter accepting the unconditional apology tendered by the contemnor.

I have no doubt that serious allegations were raised against the petitioner by the defacto complainant contending that he had cheated different persons after collecting money from them offering to arrange visa abroad. Going by the estimation of the respondents, total amount of financial fraud committed by him comes to Rs. 6,63,51,931/- in three cases lodged in different police stations, in Gandhi Nagar, Ponkunnam and Thrikkakara. Whatever it may be, there are reasons to believe that by the time when he was arrested and produced before court in connection with case in Gandhi Nagar police station, he had paid the entire amount due to the defacto complainant. Still he was arrested and granted bail on the following day only.

The order dated 18.02.2021 was served on the first respondent contemnor. All the same, satisfactory materials could not be brought before Court to say that the said order was communicated to the Station House Officer, the Circle Inspector. Thus, this Court could not find prima facie materials to proceed against the Circle Inspector, even though he has been arrayed as the second respondent in this Contempt of Court proceedings. But for two reasons, I am inclined not to proceed against the contemnor further and to drop the proceedings. Firstly, as stated earlier, he is only a Grade Sub Inspector, who had no independent role in the matter, in spite of the fact that he was the Investigating Officer of the case. He had proceeded to Palakkad and traced the petitioner at his rented premises accompanied by the Circle Inspector. In other words, the Circle Inspector was the team leader and he was only acting on the dictates of the superior officer. He had no independent application of mind in the matter despite the fact that he had received the order dated 18.02.2021.

Secondly, now in his affidavit dated 16.03.2022, he has tendered his unconditional apology. According to him, he regret for the inadvertent and unconditional mistake happened on his part; he is the sole breadwinner of the family consisting of three children who are studying for Degree courses. He has further undertaken that he will be careful in future. Even though this apology was tendered after a finding by this Court that there are prima facie materials against him, in my view there is nothing to suspect the bonafides of the contemnor. Even the petitioner has no case that the first respondent is an officer who has no regard for the orders passed by Courts. No antecedents also is noticed against him. In fact, contempt jurisdiction is intended not for punishing the contemnor, but for protecting the dignity and authority of the court.

In the circumstances that he has admitted his guilt and tendered unconditional apology, it is only appropriate in the interest of justice that the apology be accepted and further proceedings are closed.

In the result, accepting the apology, further proceedings are closed; it goes without saying that the contemnor, the first respondent shall be careful in future in such matters.