Allahabad High Court
Shyam Singh Aheria vs Awadhesh Kumar, Iind Addl. C.J.M. on 21 May, 2012
Bench: Krishna Murari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 34
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2210 of 2012
Petitioner :- Shyam Singh Aheria
Respondent :- Awadhesh Kumar, Iind Addl. C.J.M.
Petitioner Counsel :- Rahul Chaturvedi
Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
This application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act has been filed on the allegation that the direction issued by this Court vide order dated 02.12.2008 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 33199 of 2008 requiring the opposite party to consider and decide the application, if any, moved by the applicant for discharge within a period of two months has been willfully flouted in as much as despite the application having been moved on 02.01.2009, the same has not yet been disposed of.
I have perused the record.
A perusal of the order dated 02.12.2008 of which contempt has been alleged goes to show that the application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. had been filed by the applicant for quashing the proceedings of Complaint Case no. 1556 of 2007, State Vs. Shyam Singh Aheria under Section 171 (F) IPC and Section 167 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, the Court finding that from perusal of material on record and looking to the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. Accordingly, it was observed that the applicant has got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 Cr. P. C. by making proper application for the said purpose. It was further observed that in the event such an application is filed within one month, the trial court may consider and dispose of the same within two months. While disposing of the application, the Court further observed that if the applicant appears before the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of order and applies for bail then his application for bail shall be considered in view of the settled law laid down in the case of Amarawati and another Vs. State of U. P., reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 and for a period of two months or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail, whichever is earlier, any coercive action against the applicant shall be kept in abeyance. It was further directed that in case the applicant does not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
A perusal of the pleadings further goes to show that the applicant never presented himself before the court below personally nor he applied for bail though he moved an application for discharge through his Advocate. The opposite party vide order dated 02.05.2012 finding that applicant has not appeared in person before the Court as directed by this Court nor has moved any bail application and for this reason his application for discharge could not be considered. The opposite party further directed the applicant to appear before the Court in compliance of the direction of this Court and undertake appropriate proceedings for bail.
It is contended that the opposite party having failed to decide the discharge application within two months as directed by this Court is in contempt as he has willfully flouted the order.
As a mater of fact, a perusal of the order-sheet goes to show that the applicant himself did not appear in person on any of the dates before the court below; on some dates he appeared through Advocate. There was clear direction of this Court to the applicant to appear within a period of thirty days and apply for bail.
Since the applicant himself did not appear in person before the court below, it does not lie in the mouth to say that his discharge application has not at all been decided and in view of the aforesaid facts, it cannot be said that any case for contempt as alleged is made out.
The contempt application stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.5.2012
Dcs
