Gangavishan Singh vs Ram Singh And Others

Rekha Borana, J

None appeared for the petitioner yesterday when the matter was listed. Hence, the matter was directed to be listed today. Today also, none has appeared for the petitioner.

The present contempt petition has been preferred qua non-compliance of the order dated 05.10.2017 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1940/2016. Vide order dated 05.10.2017 while disposing the criminal misc. petition, the Court directed as under:

“6. In light of the aforesaid assurance given by learned Public Prosecutor, the present misc. petition is disposed of with a direction to the concerned investigating authority that in case the petitioners submit a representation along with all the necessary documents before it within a period of ten days from today, then the same shall be considered and decided before completing the investigation, strictly in accordance with law and as per the assurance given by the learned Public Prosecutor. However, if during the investigation, the concerned investigating authority needs to arrest the petitioners, then the petitioners shall be given15 days notice before making such arrest. The petitioners shall beat liberty to approach this Court again, in case need arises.”

It has been submitted in the petition that despite specific orders of the Court, the representation as submitted by the petitioner was not considered by the respondent Authorities and further, no 15 days’ notice before arresting him, was given.

A reply to the contempt petition has been preferred on behalf of the respondents wherein it has specifically been submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 12.12.2017 and prior to that the notice dated 16.10.2017, in compliance of the orders of this Court, was served on the petitioner. Hence, it cannot be said that any order of this Court was flouted.

It has further been submitted that even a specific investigation was conducted on the representation as submitted by the petitioner and after investigation, it was concluded that the offences as alleged were found to be proved against the petitioner and hence a charge sheet was filed against him.

The factual report with the said averments has been placed on record by learned counsel appearing for the respondent State.

In view of the fact that a thorough investigation on the representation of the petitioner was conducted by the respondent Authorities and further, a notice was served on him before his arrest, this Court is of the opinion that no case for contempt is made out and the present contempt petition is hence, dismissed.

Rule stands discharged.

All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.