Chet Ram vs Khub Ram

Bhawani Singh, J.—This contempt petition has been preferred by the Petitioner against the Respondent for violating the order of this Court passed in Cr. M. P. No. 117/89 in Criminal Revision No. 62 of 1989. The matter arises in the following circumstances.

The Petitioner''s father namely, Basakhu is the owner in possession of land Khasra No. 1245 in village Mundroo, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi. This fact finds mention in the Jamabandi for the year 1983 also. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent and his wife had been troubling the family of the Petitioner regarding OIE tree and at a result of demarcation of 25-12-1987, it was found that Khasra No. 1248 was owned and possessed by the father of the Petitioner. In the morning of 3-2-1986 the Respondent and his wife entered the said land and cut the tree with-in Khasra No. 1248 in the ownership and possession of the Petitioner, with the help of five Chiranies.

The Petitioner lodged a report in Police Station, Balh, Sadar Mandi, and First Information Report No. 27 of 1988 was recorded. Investigation was conducted and on completion thereof, challan against the Respondent and his wife was preferred in the Court at Mandi. During the course of investigation, the scants and fuel wood were recovered and given on Spurdari to Chuharu Ram on 7-2-1988. The trying Magistrate by order of 30-5-1989 discharged the accused for offences u/s 447/379/427 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court directed that the case property be returned to the accused after expiry of two months from the delivery of the order and parties were permitted to get their rights determined, if so advised from the Civil Court.

This order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi was challenged by the Petitioner in this Court through Criminal Revision Petition No. 62 of 1989 and on 13-7-1989, this Court passed the following order:

Notice for August 1, 1989, for final hearing. Notice to mention that the case would be disposed of finally.

Cr.M.P. 117 of 1929

Order dated May 30, 1989 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi is stayed. It is further directed that the case property be not released till further orders.

Thereafter, the Petitioner moved Contempt Petition (Civil) number 50 of 1989, complaining that the notice of revision petition as well as the direction in the stay order were duly served on the Respondent, besides, the Respondent was also informed of the stay order by the Spurdar, Shri Chuharu Ram . However despite the order of this Court, the Respondent removed all the Slippers and Wallen wood of the case property and utilized the same. This matter was reported to the Police by the Spurdar through letter of 14-11-1989 (Annexure-PA) also. The Petitioner has filed affidavit also in support of this petition. Chuharu Ram (Spurdar) has also filed an affidavit stating that he was appointed Spurdar of the case property, which was kept by the Respondent and his wife, by the Investigating Officer, Police Station, Balh. The case property was kept nearby the house of the Respondent, who assured in the presence of the Police that he would not dispose of the same till further directions of the authorities. The Respondent was informed regarding the stay order of the Court, and when he went to see the property on 12-11-1989, he found that the same was removed by the Respondent. The Respondent not only abused him, but also threatened him with dire consequences. Regarding the stay order of this Court, he stated that he did not know about any orders of the Court and removed the Slippers to saw machine and burnt the Wallen of the case property.

On the other hand, the Respondent has admitted that Chuharu Ram was the Spurdar of the property. He has also admitted that the notice of revision petition as well as the stay was duly served upon him in July, 1989. He, however, denies that Chuharu Ram had given him any information in this behalf. He has also denied that he removed the property in question. In reply to the affidavit filed by Chuharu Ram (Spurdar), he has admitted that the impugned order of discharge by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi had been stayed by this Court, although, he denies that he was informed of this fact by Chuharu Ram. He also denies that Chuharu Ram came to his house on 12- 11-1989 and that the Slippers and the Wallen had been removed by him and was stacked in his house.

Rejoinder has also been filed by the Petitioner, wherein it has been re-asserted that the Respondent had been informed about the stay order by this Court not only by the Petitioner, but also by Chuharu Ram (Spurdar), and the stay order was served upon the Respondent on 27-7-1989.

Parties did not like to file any affidavit other than those already on the file of this case nor did they choose to examine any person to prove their respective contentions. They wanted the matter to be decided on the basis of the affidavits already on the record of this case.

Now, the question is whether the Respondent has committed the contempt of this Court by violating the order dated 13-7-1989? The answer is yes. It has been established that the stay order was served on the Respondent on 27-7-1989. According to the direction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, the Respondent could not have dealt with the property for two months, and this period expired on July 30, 1989. The Respondent was not only informed by the Petitioner, but also by Chuharu Ram (Spurdar) in addition to the service of the summons on him by this Court. However, he took away the property not only in violation of the direction of the trial Court, but also in violation of this Court''s Order. The statement of Chuharu Ram, who is a Panchayat Panch, cannot be debuted. He has no grievance against this Respondent. He had a solemn function to execute and it was his responsibility to look after the property till it was taken away from his Spurdari in accordance with Law. When he found that it was taken away by the Respondent, naturally, he reported the matter to the Police (Annexure-PA). the defence raised by the Respondent is thoroughly untrue and an after thought. It has simply been set up to avoid the consequences of his act that was done in violation of this Court''s order. He appears to have scant regard for the orders of Court. He did not bother to file reply to the contempt petition for long and sought as many as seven adjournments, totalling more than three and a half months. A perusal of orders passed by the court from time to time disclose that it was Court''s anxiety to seek his reply and see his defence, so that he is heard against the complaint of the Petitioner. It was only on 12th July, 1990 that he filed his reply-affidavit in the case.

Kedareshwar, Advocate Ld. counsel for the Respondent, contended that Chuharu Ram (Spurdar) has already moved the Police complaining commission of an offence u/s 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, instead of initiating contempt proceedings, the matter should be allowed to be investigated by the Police so found in such investigation.

There is no substance in this submission. Contempt jurisdiction is independent of the commission of any other offence by the Respondent that may be found by the Police on the complaint of Chuharu Ram.

My examination of the matter establishes quite clearly that the Respondent knew about the stay order of this Court and he violated the same intentionally thereby committing the contempt of this Court, thus making him self liable for punishment.

Now, the question arises what punishment should be awarded to the Respondent in the facts and circumstances of this case. The Respondent showed no regard for the order of this Court and violated it knowingly and intentionally. No regret or apology was tendered. Accordingly, the Respondent is punished with simple imprisonment for a term of four months with fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine, he will undergo further simple imprisonment for two months. He will surrender to the authorities to serve the sentence.