AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.P. Bhangale, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of parties.
By means of this petition, the Petitioner questioned the order dated 25th November 2010, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandrapur, whereby the application filed by the Petitioner came to be rejected on the ground that it was barred by limitation and, secondly, there was no proof on the part of applicant to establish that Respondent has committed disobedience of the order passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 196/2000 decided on 24th May, 2000.
It appears that the Respondent -Rakeshsingh Chauhan had preferred an application before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandrapur informing the Court that Tractor No. MH-34/F-433 and Trolley No. MH-34/A-4418 were seized in the course of investigation. The Respondent Rakeshsingh Chauhan had prayed for return of the said tractor and trolley upon Suprathnama. After hearing upon the application, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandrapur by an order dated 24th May 2000, returned the said tractor and trolley by passing a conditional order directing the Respondent-Rakeshsingh Chauhan to execute a bond in the sum of Rs. 1.00 lac with a condition that he will produce the said tractor and trolley before the Court as and when required and he shall not dispose it of till the final order of the criminal case concerned.
The learned advocate for the Petitioner argued that the Respondent-Rakeshsingh Chauhan violated and disobeyed the same and thus committed contempt of Court. This fact, according to him, was brought to the notice of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandrapur by Misc. Criminal Application No. 429/2008, but the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has rejected the application by impugned order.
It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that the application ought not to have been rejected but necessary enquiry as to compliance and obedience of the order should have been made against the Respondent No. 1 - Rakeshsingh Chauhan, to whom the property i.e. Tractor and Trolley were returned conditionally upon execution of bond in the sum of Rs. 1.00 lac.
Learned advocate for Respondent No. 1 has opposed the petition on the ground that the impugned order was passed after hearing the parties and was according to law. He has further submitted that there was no contempt of Court as such.
The question as to whether contempt of Court has been committed or not in respect of the order passed by the Court is a matter between the court and contemnor. The Court has to consider the behavior of the person who committed disobedience and contravention of the order passed by the Court along with attendant circumstances as also impact of disobedience upon administration of justice. Necessary order has to be passed to protect faith of public in the administration of justice according to law.
Under these circumstances, considering the order which was passed on 24th May 2000, which was conditional in nature, it is for the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandrapur to first find out as to whether the applicant-Rakeshsingh Chauhan in Misc. Application No. 196/2000, violated the order of the CJM, Chandrapur or not and then to pass further order according to law. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside with a direction that the learned CJM, Chandrapur shall consider as to whether the order dated 24th May 2000, passed in Misc. Criminal Application 196/2000 was violated. Necessary enquiry be made in this regard and an order according to law be passed for alleged breach of the said order or contempt of Court if any.
Criminal Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.