HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 42
AFR
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 4 of 2011
Applicant :- In Re
Opposite Party :- Sri Aman Singh, Sub-Inspector And Others
Counsel for Applicant :- A.G.A.,Sudhir Mehrotra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Imran Ullah,Naveen Yadav,Y.S.Bohra
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. This criminal contempt arises out of a reference made by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Addl. Civil Judge (S.D.), Court No. 3, Muzaffar Nagar through the learned District Judge, Muzaffar Nagar whereby it was reported that the opposite parties (the contemnors) interfered with the administration of justice while the said court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Addl. Civil Judge (S.D.), Court No. 3, Muzaffar Nagar was in session and was hearing a civil suit.
2. The incident which has been reported states that while the said hearing was going on on 23.2.2010 at about 12:30 pm, one person namely Shaukeen, who had entered the said court room for surrendering himself before the Court in Case Crime No. 807 of 2009 was dragged away by the contemnors, out of whom five belong to the Special Operation Group, Police Force, two are Home Guards and two are private persons, who had lodged the complaint/FIR.
3. The case in which Shaukeen was alleged to be involved was one of robbery under section 394 IPC where the allegation was of loot of Rs. 25 lakhs and during investigation the recovery is also alleged to have been made whereupon certain accused persons were apprehended. Upon their apprehension they also disclosed the name of Shaukeen being involved in the case whereafter search began to apprehend the said accused.
4. It is in the aforesaid background that when Shaukeen is alleged to have presented himself for surrender before the abovementioned court, that the said incident took place, upon which a report was made by the Presiding Officer of the Court and the matter was taken up before the then Hon'ble Administrative Judge, who made a recommendation in this regard.
5. When the matter was taken up in this criminal contempt application, the following order was passed on 22.2.2011.
"We have heard learned A.G.A.
In this case, a letter was written by the Administrative Judge, Muzaffar Nagar, dated 7.10.2010 to the Chief Justice for C.B. C.I.D./Vigilance inquiry to ascertain the names of the police personnel who had entered into the Court Room and snatched away the accused. It appears that as the administration of justice was interfered with, a recommendation was also made by the said Administrative Judge for initiating Criminal contempt proceedings after receipt of the report. The Chief Justice directed that the said inquiry should be done by the Vigilance Department of the High Court. The Special Officer, Vigilance ascertained the names of the police personnel viz. Anti-Auto Theft Cell Team headed by Aman Singh, Sub-Inspector, Constable Om Pal Singh, Constable Meer Hasan, Constable Suraj Pal Singh, Home Guard Sachin Kumar, Home Guard Ashok Kumar and Constable Afzal accompanied with Haji Inam and his son Aijaz (complainant of Crime No. 807 of 2009), who had forcibly taken away the accused Shaukeen, who had been wanted in a Case under section 392 IPC, from the court room of A.C.J.M./Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) Court No. 3, Muzaffar Nagar, when the accused had entered in the court room to surrender in the aforesaid case. Prima facie, it appears that this amounts to interference in the administration of justice and constitutes criminal contempt within the meaning of section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Court's Act and is punishable under section 12 of the said Act. The Chief Justice also recommended on 21.2.2011 that proceedings of criminal contempt be initiated against the aforesaid police personnel and Sri Haji Inam and his son Aijaz (complainant of Crime No. 807/2009). The file has been forwarded to this Bench.
In this view of the matter, let notices be issued to the aforesaid police personnel Anti-Auto Theft Cell Team headed by Aman Singh, Sub-Inspector, Constable Om Pal Singh, Constable Meer Hasan, Constable Suraj Pal Singh, Home Guard Sachin Kumar, Home Guard Ashok Kumar and Constable Afzal and Haji Inam and his son Aijaz (complainant of Crime No. 807 of 2009) to appear before this Court on 24.3.2011 to show cause why they should not be punished for committing criminal contempt in the circumstances described above."
6. A perusal of the said order demonstrates that the High Court on the administrative side had also ordered for a vigilance investigation which was carried out by the then Vigilance Officer and a report dated 19.2.2011 had been submitted.
7. The contents of the report disclose that the statement of the court officials was taken as well as other witnesses in which the description given in the report is that Ahivaran Singh, the Reader in the said court, Dinesh Kumar - Steno, Ranveer Singh - Court Clerk, Sri Babu Hasan-Court Moharrir, Aftab Khan-Orderly and some advocates have given statements about the incident having taken place. However, none of these witnesses appears to have nameed the opposite parties in their statement as the vigilance report does not indicate the same. However, the name of Inspector Aman Singh was disclosed in the application which was moved by Sri Devendra Shiwach, advocate appearing for Shaukeen on the same date informing the learned Magistrate that the police personnel who had done this were headed by Inspector Aman Singh. Consequently, for the first time the name of Aman Singh only came up before the court on 23.2.2010. The second application was moved on 24.2.2010 levelling the same allegations. However, the story took another turn when Shaukeen himself surrendered in court on 27.2.2010 and moved an application where he named two persons Kallu and Mehtab and some others including police persons to be allegedly involved in the said dragging incident from the court. No name apart from the said two names were mentioned in the said application.
8. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffar Nagar was also informed about the same, who got an inquiry conducted through the Circle Officer and the CO submitted a report where he indicated that the involvement of the police personnel as named does not appear to be correct.
9. However, the Vigilance Officer of the High Court, who conducted the inquiry also examined Sri Sanjay Bajpai, Station House Officer, police station Civil Lines, district Muzaffar Nagar, who appeared before the said inquiry officer alongwith the general diary (GD) dated 22.2.2010 to 24.2.2010 including GD NO. 50 and 45. Photostat copy of the said GD has also been filed today alongwith a supplementary affidavit of the contemnors which has been taken on record. A perusal of that part of the report indicates that the said police personnel had shown their departure on 22.2.2010 and returned on 24.2.2010 in search of the accused of the same case crime no. 807 of 2009 in which Shaukeen was wanted. Consequently, the Vigilance Officer came to the conclusion after having discussed the said case diary as well as other statements given and the said material available on record that the opposite parties appear to have forcibly taken away accused Shaukeen on 23.2.2010 when he entered into the court room for surrendering himself in the aforesaid case. Consequently, a recommendation was made that this act of the opposite parties amounted to committing criminal contempt under section 2(C) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as punishable under section 12 thereof.
10. It is thereafter that the charges were framed on 24.5.2011 and the opposite parties have submitted their reply to this and have filed two supplementary affidavits. They are also present in court.
11. We have heard Sri Naveen Yadav, counsel for the contemnors, who has put a defence and he contends that the name of the contemnors did not surface in the application moved by Shaukeen on 27.2.2010 which clearly demonstrates that the name of only Inspector Aman Singh had been indicated in the earlier application moved by Sri Devendra Shiwach, counsel who had also appeared for Shaukeen, but his name and the name of the other contemnors is clearly omitted in the surrender application dated 27.2.2010.
12. Sri Yadav, therefore, submits that the taking of name of the opposite party no. 1 was not repeated or in any way explained as to why the said name was not mentioned in the application dated 27.2.2010. He, therefore, submits that the presence of the opposite party no. 1 in the court room is not established by any clinching evidence except on suspicion on the ground that he had departed on 22.2.2010 to search for Shaukeen as indicated in the GD. So far as other contemnors are concerned, the contention is that the report of Special Officer, Vigilance of the High Court formulates an opinion on the basis of the said document only, and on the basis of the statement which only indicate some police personnel without their presence actually in the court premises being corroborated by any of the witnesses or by any person. He, therefore, submits that the presence of other police personnel also has not clinchingly been established that they were the persons involved in dragging Shaukeen from the premises. He, therefore, contends that in the absence of any such credible evidence of probative value which could establish their presence the drawing of criminal contempt proceedings is unwarranted and does not lead to the proof of the charge framed against them. He in the aforesaid background and keeping in view of the aforesaid explanation given in the affidavit submits that the contemnors deserve to be discharged.
13. In reply to the said submission Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned Special Counsel for the High Court contends that the report of the Special Officer, Vigilance clearly indicates the evidence which was collected about which there is no explanation by the contemnors. To the contrary he contends that the supplementary affidavit filed today establishes that they had departed for the search of the accused, including Shaukeen, as per the GD entry which has been found to be correct in the report of the Special Officer Vigilance. He, therefore, submits that a clear inference can be drawn about the action taken by the said police officials of having chased and nabbed him inside the court room where the said incident is said to have taken place. He further submits that the name of the accused had already appeared during investigation prior to that and not only this, the Court officials have also corroborated the happening of the event inside the court premises on the said date. He, therefore, contends that the only possible conclusion that can be drawn is that it is the opposite parties who were responsible for dragging away Shaukeen from the court premises and created a ruckus as complained by the said Magistrate upon which present proceedings have been drawn. He, therefore, submits that in the wake of evidence which cannot be doubted and remains unrebutted the opposite parties have clearly committed criminal contempt by interfering with the course of the proceedings of the court concerned, and having undermined the authority and Majesty of the Court, have been rightly held guilty.
14. We have gone through the entire records and have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions raised by both the sides and what we found from the evidence is that there is no statement of the person who was dragged allegedly from the court room namely Shaukeen so as to indict any of the opposite parties. Neither the Vigilance Officer nor any evidence of the court officials has indicated that Shaukeen has given any statement about name of the opposite parties except the name of Aman Singh, Inspector in the application dated 23.2.2010 and 24.2.2010. It is clear that the concerned Advocate who had moved the application on 23.2.2010 lateron did not press his own application. The statement of Shaukeen thereafter was not taken and his application for surrendering himself subsequently on 27.2.2010 nowhere mentions the name of Aman Singh, Inspector or any of the opposite parties. To the contrary, he mentions the name of two other persons who are not charged before us.
15. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid facts that have come forth, it cannot be said that it has been clinchingly established that the opposite parties were present physically in the court room when the alleged ruckus took place. It cannot be said with certainty that the opposite parties were responsible for such ruckus. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid findings recorded by us, we extend benefit of doubt to the opposite parties and acquit them of the charges under which they have been summoned in this contempt application. Accordingly the present criminal contempt application is disposed of.
16. The opposite parties are discharged from these contempt proceedings.
17. We would however hasten to add that we have left off the opposite parties only on account of absence of corroborating evidence on the allegations made but at the same time we would also caution the police authorities that such attempts should not be repeated in future as the court premises are supposed to be secure, both for the victim and the accused. No such free lancing without proper permission or authority, that too inside a court room, cannot be approved either in law or in the name of exigency. The opposite parties shall therefore take care in future.
Order Date :- 27.7.2015 SKS