CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Mostt. Moti Ranee Devi vs The State of Bihar and Others

Patna High Court · Decided on 25 February 2003 · Citation: (2003) 2 PLJR 691

HON’BLE JUDGES
P.K. Deb, J
CASE NUMBER
M.J.C. No. 1883 of 2002
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 363 words
1.

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and also the State counsel.

2.

It is peculiar to note that even after the order was passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 822 of 2002 [reported in Mostt. Moti Ranee Devi Vs. State and Others, ] and when the matter was agitated before the L.P.A. court and then the L.P.A. had been withdrawn but still then the authorities of the police department are trying to evade the order of this Court wilfully stating that the husband of the Petitioner was dismissed from service and not discharged. But factual aspects had been considered and then order passed by this Court in writ petition has been confirmed. Now there remains No. scope for defying the court''s order either by the Superintendent of Police or by any other authorities of the police department. But from Annexure-C filed today in the supplementary affidavit, it clearly shows that Respondent No. 5 has committed the contempt of court and there remains no other alternative but to proceed against him by framing charges for contempt of court and give punishment thereto.

3.

Strenuously it has been argued by the State counsel that whatever the Respondent No. 5 had stated in Annexure-C might be corrected by opposite party No. 4 who had more authority and higher authority in hierarchy than the Superintendent of Police. But direction was given by this Court not only to the Director General of Police but also to the Superintendent of Police as I have stated already that the Superintendent of Police had made contempt of the court by issuing Annexure-C.

4.

In that way, let opposite party No. 5, The Superintendent of Police, Madhubani, appear before this Court on 1st April, 2003 for proceeding against him for contempt of court and framing charges thereof. But this appearance would not debar opposite party No. 5 and opposite party No. 4 to correct themselves in the meantime.

5.

Let this case be listed on 1st April, 2003.

6.

A copy of the order be made available to the State counsel i.e. J.C. to S.C. 10 and he shall be responsible for giving information to the opposite party No. 5.