In Re Mahesh Chandra Verma, Civil ... vs Shobhit Mishra And Others
2015 Latest Caselaw 694 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Reserved on 23.04.2015
 
Delivered on 27.05.2015
 
Court No. - 34
 
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 5 of 2013
 

 
Applicant :- In Re Mahesh Chandra Verma, Civil Judge J.D.
 
Opposite Party :- Shobhit Mishra And Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- A.G.A.,Sudhir Mehrotra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashok Mehta, Intekha Alam Khan, P.C.Srivastva, Pradeep Singh Sisodia
 

 
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

Hon'ble Shashi Kant, J.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J)

1. The contempt proceedings in the present matter have been initiated against Sri Shobhit Mishra, Harshit Mishra, Hansraj Bhadauria and Subhash Chandra Gautam pursuant to a reference dated 18.10.2012 made by Sri Mahesh Chandra Verma, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Meerut.

2. In Original Suit No. 224 of 1987, which was instituted for possession over the disputed property, the judgment and decree was passed on 29.1.2000 directing the defendant no. 1 to execute sale-deed after receiving Rs. 8166.50 from decree-holder and hand over possession within two months failing which the Court shall take steps for execution of sale-deed. The decree holder Murlidhar died and substituted by his legal heir, Smt. Santosh Bala. On an application made by decree-holder Smt. Santosh Bala nominating Sri Ashok Kumar Gupta and Smt. Sarita Gupta requesting for execution of sale-deed in their name, the Court accepted the same vide order dated 15.9.2008 in Execution Case No. 3 of 2000, allowed Sri Ashok Kumar Gupta and Smt. Sarita Gupta to be impleaded as applicants no. 6 and 7. Ultimately the sale-deed was executed and registered on 21.2.2009 through the Court. The Court also passed an order on 2.3.2009 issuing order for possession whereupon the Court Amin submitted a report on 18.3.2009 requesting for Police help for execution.

3. The decree-holder also moved an application on 25.3.2009 requesting Court to direct for giving possession of disputed property after demolition of construction raised thereon with the help of Police.

4. It appears that some parties including Ravi Nandan Mishra and others raised objection which was registered as Misc. Case No. 15 of 2009 under Order 21 Rule 92 C.P.C. However, the said objection came to be rejected on 12.5.2011. Thereupon the Court directed Court Amin to proceed and ensure delivery of possession to decree-holder with the help of Police. In the aforesaid order Court also accepted request of decree-holder to get possession transferred after demolition of construction, if any, raised on the disputed land.

5. The Court also obtained report from Police regarding the Force required for maintaining peace and effective execution pursuant whereto Police submitted report recommending two Sub-Inspectors, two lady Constable and ten Constables. The Court below directed Police to make the force available as per its recommendation, i.e., two Sub-Inspectors, two lady Constables and ten Constables. The decree-holder was also required to deposit expenses of Rs. 21032/- for the aforesaid Police force which he deposited in the Office of D.I.G./S.S.P. Meerut.

6. Another objection was filed by one Ravi Nandan Mishra and others registered as Misc. Case No. 54 of 2011. The Court vide order dated 23.5.2011 stayed execution ordered on 12.5.2011. Again the Court issued order for execution on 30.7.2012.

7. The decree-holder proceeded to take over possession of disputed property along with Police force, which was not according to Court's order but much lesser in number, Sri Shobhit Mishra and Harshit Mishra and several others (25-30 persons) reached the spot, created obstruction, misbehaved with Court Amin and its Orderly and assaulted decree-holder. It is said that Police force remained silent spectator, as a result whereof the execution could not proceed.

8. The learned Civil Judge then issued notice of contempt to the Office In-charge, Police Station Nauchandi and others and sent reference letter dated 18.10.2012 specifically stating that during execution proceedings, on 30.7.2012, the Court Amin, Sri Vichitra Veer Singh Gahlot, was subjected to abuse, snatching of Court order and torn, assault with decree-holder, slapping and threatening of the Government Servant and all these amount to direct obstruction in administration of justice. He has further stated that the Police Station In-charge, Sri Hansraj Bhadauria, deliberately disobeyed Court's order by providing only one Sub-Inspector, three Constables and one Home Guard instead of number of Police force directed by Court and, therefore, deliberately allowed a situation of disturbance caused on the spot. The Sub-Inspector Subhash Chandra Gautam, who had accompanied the execution, kept silence and did not prevent the persons obstructing the execution and, therefore, cooperated with them, hence has committed criminal contempt by causing obstruction in administration of justice.

9. This Court, having gone through the reference made by learned Civil Judge and finding from the contents thereof that a case of criminal contempt prima facie has been made out against Sri Shobhit Mishra, Harshit Mishra and two Police officials, namely, Hansraj Bhadauria and Subhash Chandra Gautam, issued notices for committing criminal contempt vide order dated 31.1.2013 to them to explain, why they should not be appropriately punished.

10. Sri Bhadauria and Sri Gautam, the two Police officials-contemners initially filed their affidavits stating that they do not want to contest the case and are tendering unconditional apology. The Court having gone through the evidence, noticed in its order dated 8.5.2013 that the alleged tendering of unqualified apology by the two Police officials is not in consonance with their remorse and, therefore, they were permitted to file supplementary affidavit.

11. On 8.5.2013 Sri Ashok Mehta, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for contemners, Shobhit Mishra and Harshit Mishra, requested the Court to allow him time to file supplementary counter affidavit stating all the facts including the facts about whatever happened, was not to undermine authority of the Court but because of unforeseen circumstances cropped up at the place of the incident, all of a sudden, and at that point of time these two contemners had not the slightest inkling or intention to disobey the order of Court and resist execution of decree.

12. The said affidavits were filed on 8.7.2013. The matter was then considered on 30.10.2014. The Division Bench consisting of Hon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh and Hon'ble Kalimullah Khan J.J., took the view that all the four contemners should be tried for criminal contempt and charge is required to be framed. Consequently, the charge was framed against the aforesaid four persons on 31.3.2015.

13. The contemners, Hansraj Bhadauria and Subhash Chandra Gautam, have filed their reply and supplementary affidavits. So far as Shobhit Mishra and Harshit Mishra are concerned, Sri Ashok Mehta, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on their behalf has stated at the outset that they are not contesting the matter, admitting the guilt and surrender to the mercy of Court. They are also tendering unconditional apology and the Court in these facts and circumstances may pass appropriate order taking compassionate and lenient view.

14. On behalf of remaining two contemners, relying on affidavits filed by them in reply of the charge, Sri Rahul Sripat, Advocate, has advanced his arguments denying the charge and allegations that they connived with two private contemners in obstruction of execution of decree on 30.7.2012, and, has requested that charge framed against the two Police officials be dropped and they may be discharged.

15. From the discussion made above, we find that the real controversy has started on and after 24.7.2012 when the last order was passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Meerut for execution of decree with Police force directing to provide two Sub-Inspectors, two lady Constable and ten Constables to help the Court Amin and his officials, to assist them for execution of decree. The number of Police personnel was mentioned in the order of Court below on the basis of Police report itself which suggested that considering situation on the spot, for peaceful execution and maintaining law and order, Police force which would be required should consist of two Sub-Inspectors, two lady Constables and ten Constables. The requisite expenses for providing aforesaid number of Police officials was notified as Rs. 21,032/- by the Police department itself. It is also admitted that the aforesaid amount was deposited by decree-holder with the Police department.

16. Sri Vichitra Veer Singh Gahlot, City Amin, along with Orderly was provided Police force consisting of one Sub-Inspector, three Constables and one Home Guard. They reached the site for execution on 30.7.2012 and when started execution, Sri Shobhit Mishra, Harshit Mishra and some others obstructed them, abused them, torn the paper and threatened to slap Court Amin. The Court Amin sought to lodge report on 31.7.2012 but Station In-charge, Nauchandi did not register report stating that against the persons who caused obstruction, a report under Section 147, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. was already registered on 30.7.2012 as Case Crime No. 508 of 2012. The concerned Clerk, Keshav Dev Sharma in the Police Station told the Court Amin that no separate F.I.R. would be registered. Noticing all these facts, the Court Amin submitted report on 7.8.2012 to Civil Judge concerned who issued notice thereon to the Police officials as well as private contemners and then has made this reference.

17. In the report of City Amin, the actual allegations which he has made are reproduced as under:

^^fjiksVZ vehu

Jheku th]

ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds vkns'k vuqikyu esa fMdzhnkj dks lwpuk nsus ds mijkUr fu;r fnukad 30-07-2012 dks Fkkuk ukSpUnh ls iqfyl cy ysdj e; vnZyh n[ky ryc lEifRr fLFkr [kljk ua0 5804 x<+ jksM esjB igqWapkA n[ky ryc IykV ij nqdkus cuh gqbZ gSa ftu ij ekSds ij rkys yxs gq, gSaA fMdzhnkj ,oa iMkslh nqdkunkjksa ls n[ky ryc Hkwfe ij cuh nqdkuksa ds nqdkunkjksa dks cqyok;k rks lc us crk;k fd og ugha vk;sxsA vk/kk ?k.Vk izrh{kk djus ds ckn n[ky dk;Zokgh vkjEHk dh x;h nqdkus gn~n[ks feykdj [kkyh djkuh o fudkys tk jgs lkeku dh fyLV cukuh 'kq: dh blh nkSjku f'k[kk DykFk bEiksfj;e dk izksijkbZVj vius fxjksg ds lkFk ekSds ij vk;k vkSj mlds lkfFk;ksa ,oa mlus n[ky dk;Zokgh esa ck/kk mRiUu dhA ekSds ij xkyh xykSt Nhuk&>iVh fMdzhnkj ds lkFk ekjihV dh lsod dks Hkh 'kkfHkr feJk us FkIiM ekjus dh /kedh nhA iqfyl us dCtk fnykus esa dksbZ enn ugha dh ftl dkj.k n[ky dk;Zokgh vey esa ugha yk;h tk ldhA ,slk izrhr gqvk fd iqfyl okyksa us flQZ ekSds ij tkus dh vkSipkfjdrk fuHkkbZ FkhA mijksDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ijokuk fcuk rkfey nkf[ky U;k;ky; fd;k tkrk gSA**

(Emphasis added)

"Report of Ameen

Sir, orderly

In pursuance of the order of the Hon'ble Court and after intimating the decree holder, I, alongwith Orderly, after taking along the police force from P.S. Nauchandi reached the property, sought to be taken into possession, located at khasra no. 5804 on Garh road, Meerut on 30.07.2012. On the plot, sought to be taken into possession, shops are constructed, which stand locked on being seen on the spot. The shopkeepers of the shops constructed on the said land, were called for, with the help of the decree holder and the neighbouring shopkeepers. All of them told that they would not come. After waiting for them for half an hour, possession proceeding was initiated. The shops, with their limits taken together, were caused to be vacated and a list was begun to be prepared of the articles being taken out from these shops. Meanwhile, the proprietor of Shikha Cloth Emporium came over there with his accomplices. He and his cohorts obstructed the possession proceeding. They resorted to use of abusive language and scuffled with the decree holder. Shabhit Mishra even threatened to slap Sewak. Police did not extend any assistance in ensuring the delivery of possession and hence, the possession proceeding could not materialise. It appeared that police personnel just observed the formality of going over to the site. In the aforesaid circumstances, the citation without being executed is filed with the court." (English Translation by the Court)

18. Whatever had happened, besides attracting Section 147, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. also included the provisions of I.P.C. whereunder public servants if interfered in discharge of their official duties are guilty of offence, but the Police officials, after declining to register report at the instance of Court Amin, avoided to register a report in respect to such offences.

19. Initially affidavits filed by two official contemners, i.e., Subhash Chandra Gautam and Hansraj Bhadauria did not dispute the incident of disturbance caused by two private contemners and others. The affidavit dated 8.5.2013 of Sri Hansraj Bhadauria-contemner no. 3 stated in para 7 as under:

"7. That the deponent submits that he is not willing to give reply against the reference sent by the learned presiding officer of the court of Civil Judge (J.D.) City, Meerut."

20. In para 8 he has said that he is tendering unconditional and unqualified apology for the inconvenience caused to the Court.

21. Similar affidavit dated 8.5.2013 filed by Sri Subhash Chandra Gautam also repeated the same thing in para 7 and 8 which read as under:

"7. That the deponent submits that he is not willing to give reply against the reference sent by the learned presiding officer of the court of Civil Judge (J.D.) City, Meerut.

8. That in place of reply, the deponent tenders unconditional and unqualified apology before this Hon'ble Court with great respect and with folded hands for the inconvenience caused to this Hon'ble Court as well as the court of learned Civil Judge (J.D.), City Meerut in present matter and carves that his apology may kindly be accepted and notices may kindly be discharged."

22. The private contemner, Sri Harshit Mishra, filed his counter affidavit dated 8.5.2013 and in para 5 has referred to the incident dated 30.7.2012 as reported by City Amin to the Civil Court on that very date as under:

"5. That before making any contention or submission about the present proceedings it is submitted that the basis of present proceeding is an incident dated 30.07.2012 about which City Amin submitted a report to the execution court on that day, that report is as follows:" (Amin report is quoted which has already been reproduced and not being repeated).

23. He then denied all the allegations in para 6 to 13 which read as under:

"6. That the deponent hereby specifically deny that he has ever threatened to slap the Sewak of city Ameen.

7. That the deponent has not did any marpeet with the alleged decree holder or his associates.

8. That the deponent only sought order and Parwana for demolition or taking possession of Shikha Cloth Emporium and demolished the building which city Ameen is failed to provide and left the place of incident.

9. That the deponent hereby specifically deny to have committed any act or omission amounting to contempt.

10. That the deponent hereby specifically deny to have committed any act whatsoever amounting to interfere with administration of justice.

11. That the deponent hereby deny the allegation made by court Amin Sri Vichitra Singh Gahlot that - lsod dks Hkh 'kksfHkr feJk us FkIiM- ekjus dh /kedh nhA

12. That the deponent specifically deny that the deponent has torn the Parwana.

13. That the deponent has not given any threat whatsoever to court Amin Sri Vichitra Singh Gahlot."

24. In para 40 of the affidavit, he has also brought on record an earlier attempt made by Court Amin for execution of decree and report submitted on 18.3.2009 requesting for Police help and the reasons therefor. Para 40 of the affidavit of Sri Harshit Mishra reads as under:

"40. That on 18.03.2009 Court Amin Civil Court Sri Suresh Chandra submitted the report:

^^Jheku th U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds vuqikyu djus gsrq eSa fnukad 18-03-2009 dks fMdzh gksYMj dks lwpuk nsdj fMdzh gksYMj ds lkFk lEifRr n[ky ryc [kkrk ua0 5804 fLFkr x<+ esjB igqpk rks [kkrk ua0 5804 esa dbZ nqdkukr o xSyjh cuh gqbZ gSA ftuesa ls ikap nqdkuksa ij rkys o cSad vkQ cMkSnk dh lhy yxh gS rFkk ,d nqdku esa tks dkQh cM+h gS blesa f'k[kk bEiksfj;e ds uke dk dkjksckj pkyw gSA blesa if'pe esa Hkh nqdku dk rkyk cUn feykA rFkk f'k[kk lkMh bEiksfj;e dh nqdku esa ,d O;fDr feyk mlds U;k;ky; dk vkns'k crkdj nqdku [kkyh djus dks dgk rks mlus euk dj fn;k vkSj nqdku cUn dj nh vkSj Mh0,p0 ls yM+us ij vkeknk gks x;kA blfy, fcuk rksys rksM+s o fcuk iqfyl lgk;rk ds n[ky fnykuk lEHko ugha gS ekSds dh xokgh djk yh x;hA vr% ijokuk n[ky fcuk rkehy okLrs mfpr vkns'k gsrq nkf[ky vnkyr fd;k tkrk gSA**

"Sir, in pursuance of the order of the Hon'ble Court, I, after giving intimation to the decree and thus taking him along, reached the property, sought to be taken into possession, located at khata no. 5804 on Garh road, Meerut on 18.03.2009 and found many shops and galleries constructed at the plot no. 5804. Five shops out of them, when seen on the spot, are locked under the seal of Bank of Baroda; and yet another shop, which is fairly big, houses a business under the name of Shikha Emporium. Even on the western side the shop was found to be locked. A person was found at the Shikha Emporium. He, on being told about the order of Hon'ble Court and to vacate the shop in pursuance thereof, refused to do so and shut down the shop. He got bent on getting into a fight with D.H. Hence, without breaking open the locks and but for the police help, it is not possible to ensure delivery of possession. Testimonies were recorded on the spot. Hence, the citation for possession, without being executed is filed with the Court for appropriate orders."

(English Translation by the Court)

25. It is also stated in para 46 that Harshit Mishra also got a cross case, i.e., Criminal Case No. 508A of 2012 registered against the decree-holder Ashok Gupta under Section 147, 392, 427 and 506 I.P.C. at Police Station Nauchandi.

26. A similarly worded affidavit has been filed by Sri Shobhit Mishra-private contemner with the only difference that he has placed on record some documents.

27. Then a supplementary affidavit dated 20.5.2013 has been filed by both the private contemners, namely, Harshit Mishra and Shobhit Mishra, in which tendering unconditional, unqualified apology, seeking mercy in para 3 they have stated in para 5 and 6 as under:

"5. That the deponent has greatest respect and regard for the Hon'ble Court and its order and have never attempted nor attempt in thought, word or deed to conduct in a manner which may be construed as, even slightly, undermining the dignity of court majesty of law or amounting to interfere in the process of law.

6. That because of unforeseen circumstances cropped up at the place of the incident, all of a sudden and at that point of time, deponent had not the slightest inkling or intention to disobey the order of the court on 30.07.2012."

28. Affidavit of both the private contemners are similarly worded.

29. Two supplementary affidavits dated 8.5.2013 have also been filed by two Police officials-contemners in which also they have tendered apology and sought mercy. The affidavits are similarly worded, hence, para 3, 4 and 5 thereof are reproduced as under:

"3. That the deponent appeared before this Hon'ble Court on 15.04.2013 and further time was sought on his behalf to submit explanation in compliance of the direction issued by this Hon'ble Court, as above stated. The Hon'ble Court was pleased to grant further time and had fixed the next date as 08.05.2013.

4. That firstly, the deponent tenders unconditional and unqualified apology before this Hon'ble Court with great respect and with folded hands for the inconvenience caused to this Hon'ble Court as well as the Court of learned Civil Judge (J.D.), City, Meerut in present matter and carves that his apology may kindly be accepted and notices may kindly be discharged.

5. That the deponent is a member of Police Department and was posted at the relevant point of time i.e. on 30.07.2012 as Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station Nauchandi, Meerut and is presently posted as Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station Medical, Meerut. The deponent has great respect for the process of law and the Hon'ble Courts and he can not even think to act in a manner, which may cause disrespect or contempt of any court of law.

30. Then a counter affidavit has been filed by Sri Harshit Mishra dated 10.2.2015 and para 4 and 5 thereof read as under:

"4. That the deponent has greatest respect and regard for the Hon'ble Court and its order and have never attempted nor attempt in thought, word or deed to conduct in a manner which may construed as, even slightly, undermining the dignity of court majesty of law or amounting to interfere in the process of law.

5. That because of unforeseen circumstances cropped up at the place of the incident, all of a sudden and at that point of time, deponent had not the slightest inkling or intention to disobey the order of the court on 30.07.2012."

31. A similarly worded affidavit has been filed by Sri Shobhit Mishra also on the same day, i.e., 10.2.2015.

32. After framing of charge, as already said, the private contemners have not filed any affidavit or reply but the two Police officials have filed their affidavits replying the charge by denying the same and Sri Hansraj Bhadauria has also filed a supplementary affidavit.

33. Contemner no. 3, Sri Bhadauria, in his affidavit sworn on 15.4.2015 has now come up with the defence that he joined the Police force on 31.7.2005 and after completion of training of one year was posted at difference places. On 30.7.2012, for the reasons beyond his control, he could not provide the requisite Police force for assisting the execution proceeding in Execution Case No. 3 of 2000 as ordered by Court below. In the morning of 30.7.2012, Sri Bhadauria while posted as Station Officer, Police Station Nauchandi, Meerut, received a RT Message/Communication dated 30.7.2012 circulated by Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as "S.S.P.") giving a schedule/programme of deployment of Police force on account of visit of Mohammad Azam Khan, Cabinet Minister (Parliamentary and Urban Development Department), U.P. Government. In the Radiogram Message, point no. 3 was specifically meant for Station Officer, Police Station Nauchandi, Meerut who was directed to be In-charge of security arrangement of route starting from Commissionary Meeting Hall upto Vocational Public School and was further directed to deploy 3 Sub-Inspectors and 15 Constables on the said route and also to personally inspect the route in advance and to ensure the necessary Police arrangements on four-ways and three-ways to maintain law and order. Sri Bhadauria in order to comply the said direction left Police Station, Nauchandi at 12.15 O' Clock after making entry in General Diary of Police Station as G.D. Rapat No. 24 dated 30.7.2012 Time 12.15 O'Clock.

34. At about 14.00 O'clock on the same day, while on petrolling, Sri Bhadauria received a phone call of Meghraj Singh, Head Constable from Police Station, Nauchandi that the City Amin, his Peon and decree-holder have come for providing Police force for execution. Sri Bhadauria had conversation with Sri Ashok Kumar Gupta, decree-holder, and requested that the Police force in adequate number is not available as per the Court's direction due to deployment of force for security of the Cabinet Minister, hence he may proceed for execution at some other point of time. Sri Bhadauria, however, was insisted upon by decree-holder to send Police force as may be available despite repeated request by Sri Bhadauria. Even the counsel of decree-holder called upon Sri Bhadauria and insisted upon to send Police force as may be available for execution of decree.

35. Sri Bhadauria, then asked his subordinate at Police Station to send one Sub-Inspector, three Constables and one Home Guard with the decree-holder on the spot for execution with instruction that in case there is any hindrance in execution, Sri Bhadauria shall be informed on phone and also on RT Set whereupon he would reach the spot with further force deployed with him. This information was also entered in General Diary of Police Station. As soon as Sri Bhadauria received information about hindrance in execution on the spot, he reached there with three Sub-Inspectors and five Constables to control the situation but by that time City Amin and his Peon had already left the spot. Only decree-holder and counsel were present. Other miscreants, who created hindrance in execution, also had flown away from spot in the meanwhile.

36. The decree-holder Sri Ashok Kumar Gupta, was sent to Police Station where he submitted complaint and a report dated 30.7.2012 was lodged against Shobhit Mishra, Harshit Mishra and Puneet Mishra and 20-30 unknown persons registered as Case Crime No. 508 of 2012. On 31.7.2012 the Court Amin submitted an application at Police Station which was entered into General Diary as G.D. Rapat No. 39 (date 31.7.2012, time 16.35 O'clock) and it was also included in the investigation of Case Crime No. 508 of 2012. He admits that the order of execution of decree was passed by Court on 12.5.2011 wherein Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut was directed to provide Police force (two Sub-Inspectors, two Female Constables and ten constables) on the date fixed by City Amin after payment of expenses by the decree-holder and for this purpose decree-holder was granted 7 days' time to deposit amount of expenses and City Amin was directed to submit compliance report within 10 days thereafter. This order was stayed by Court below on 23.5.2011 which continued upto 24.7.2012 and order for execution was again passed on 24.7.2012. City Amin was granted ten days' time for execution of decree. City Amin, however, approached Sri Bhadauria on 30.7.2012 at 14.00 O'clock and requested for requisite Police Force. Such a request was not made earlier either to Police Station, Nauchandi or Police Station Officer. At that time Sri Bhadauria was not at Police Station and looking into circumstances and the situation, he did his best by providing whatever force was available, and, that too, on the request of decree-holder, Sri Ashok Kumar Gupta. It is also said that non providing Police force for assisting execution proceedings in Execution Case No. 3 of 2000, as ordered by Court below, does not constitute contempt of Court defined under Section 2(c) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1971") punishable under Section 12 thereof. It is lastly said that he reiterates his unconditional and unqualified apology for the inconvenience caused to the Court and in future would be careful in respect to compliance of orders of Court.

37. A supplementary affidavit sworn on 22.04.2015 has also been filed by Sri Hansraj Bhadauria, contemner no. 3. It is said that Court Amin has not narrated the correct and complete facts in his report dated 30.07.2012. He has neither given the time of reaching Police Station, Nauchandi on 30.07.2012 nor has mentioned the time of reaching the property under execution and has also failed to mention the time he has left the place of execution. As per contemner no. 3, Court Amin, Sri Vichitra Veer Singh Gahlot, reached Police Station at 2.00 P.M. along with his Orderly and decree-holder. Since there was no prior information, sudden availability of Police force as per the ordered strength could not be arranged and, therefore, a request was made by contemner no. 3 to Court Amin as also the decree-holder to execute the decree on any other date. However, at the instance of decree-holder, Sub-inspector Subhash Chandra Gautam along with two male Constables, one female Constable and one Home Guard were provided to assist the execution and they reached place of execution of decree at 2.50 P.M. When the Police team was inside the premises, some disturbance took place outside with judgment-debtor who was backed with 20-30 persons. They were involved in hot-talk with decree-holder. Sub-inspector Gautaum, i.e., contemner no. 4 and other Police personnel immediately controlled the situation. The persons backing judgment-debtor against the execution ran away. Sub-inspector Gautam called Station Officer as there was likelihood of fresh attack while delivering possession. At 3.45 P.M. Sub-inspector Gautam found that Court Amin and his Orderly have gone. It appears that Court Amin was not interested in delivering possession to decree-holder and, therefore, vanished from spot without execution of decree though contemner no. 3 reached the spot with additional Police force at 4.15 P.M. However, due to absence of Court Amin, delivery of possession could not be done. In the Court Amin's Report, it is said that he reached the spot at 2.30 P.M. and the time of dispute between decree-holder and judgment-debtor is between 3.00 to 4.15 P.M. He has said that he sould be permitted to cross-examine the Court Amin and his Orderly. G.D. Entry of 30.07.2012 at 2.00 P.M. contains arrival and departure at 2.00 P.M. The Log-Book entry R.T. Message of 30.07.2012 did not become available to Sri Bhadauria since it has now been weeded out. The decree-holder filed first affidavit on 06.08.2012 in which he has not made any averment that he approached S.S.P., Meerut on 27.07.2012 and contemner no. 3 Sri Bhadauria on 28.07.2012 though this fact has been disclosed for the first time in a subsequent affidavit dated 17.09.2012.

38. Sri Bhadauria has denied the fact that decree-holder either met S.S.P. on 27.07.2012 or the contemner no. 3 on 28.07.2012 along with the order of Execution Court and receipt of deposit of expenses for providing Police force. He never met the contemner no. 3 nor apprised him of Court's order on 28.07.2012. It is only on 30.07.2012, contemner no. 3 was apprised of the Court's order. Copy of Dak-Bahi from the Office of S.S.P. of 27.07.2012 has been obtained by contemner no. 3 in which there is no mention of such visit of decree-holder. Photocopy of the said register is filed as Annexure-2 to the supplementary affidavit. It is said that all the applications received to the Office of S.S.P. are sent to the concerned Police Station with remark/order. He said that if any such application would have been given to S.S.P. by decree-holder on 27.07.2012, the same would have been sent to Police Station, Nauchandi and recorded in Dak-Bahi but as no such entry is there, it shows that no such application was submitted by decree-holder in the Office of S.S.P. The allegations made by decree-holder is nothing but a subsequent development by incorrect allegations.

39. Sri Bhadauria has desired to cross-examine decree-holder. On 30.07.2012, he proceeded along with Police force on 12.00' noon to attend V.V.I.P. Security of Cabinet Minister Sri Azam Khan, who was under Z Security cover.

40. Another affidavit has been filed by contemner no. 4, Subhash Chandra Gautam, stating that he joined Police force on 31.07.2005. On 30.07.2012 while posted at Sub-inspector at Police Station, Nauchandi, Meerut, he along with five Constables, one Home Guard was directed by Station Officer, Police Station Nauchandi to go with decree-holder and City Amin for assistance in execution of Court's decree with the instruction that in case there appears any hindrance, the Station Officer be informed on telephone and also on R.T. Set and he will reach on spot with further force deployed with him. At the spot, the party in possession of property was not present, hence process of breaking open lock started under the instructions of Court Amin. After breaking open lock and shutter of property, Court Amin, his Orderly and the contemner no. 4 and other Police personnel entered the Complex. When they were inside the premises, 20-30 unknown persons including Shobhit Mishra came outside the Complex and started quarrel with decree-holder, who at that time was outside the complex premises. The contemner no. 4 on hearing the sound of quarrel sent accompanying Police personnel to take care of the situation and made a call to the Station Officer. Contemner no. 4 also came out of the Complex and found that Sri Shobhit Mishra and others by that time had gone away. The contemner no. 4 took security of decree-holder under his control and at that time, the Court Amin and his Orderly were inside the Complex. Contemner no. 4 controlled the entire situation at the spot but the Court Amin and Orderly left the spot. At that time, Station Officer reached the spot with additional force. The decree-holder thereafter went to Police Station, submitted a complaint whereupon a first information report dated 30.07.2012 was filed against Shobhit Mishra, Harshit Mishra, Puneet Mishra and 20-30 unknown persons as Case Crime No. 508 of 2012 under Section 323, 147, 504, 506 I.P.C. at Police Station Nauchandi, Meerut. On the next date, Court Amin submitted application at Police Station Nauchandi, Meerut which was entered into General Diary as G.D. Rapat No. 39 dated 31.07.2012 time 16.35 and included in the execution of Case Crime No. 508 of 2012.

41. Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against Shobhit Mishra, Harshit Mishra, Puneet Mishra etc. in the aforesaid case. The contemner no. 4 did his best with sincerity and diligence to control the situation and has not committed any wilful disobedience. He has fully cooperated with the execution process and assisted the Court Amin. He has also contended that non sending of requisite Police force for assisting execution in Execution Case No. 3 of 2000, as ordered by Court below, does not constitute a criminal contempt under Section 2 (c) of Act, 1971. However, lastly he has also tendered unconditional apology.

42. It is in this backdrop, pleadings and defence taken by contemners, this Court has to examine the charge levelled against them, whether the contemners are guilty of committing criminal contempt or not.

43. First of all, the legal argument we propose to consider, whether non compliance of Court's order for providing particular strength of Police force for assistance in execution proceeding resulting in disruption in execution as also misbehaviour etc. with the Court representatives, i.e. Court Amin and his Orderly, would constitute a criminal contempt as defined under Section 2 (c) of act, 1971 or not.

44. Section 2(c) defines "criminal contempt" as under:

"2(c) "criminal contempt" means that publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which--

(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any Court; or

(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or

(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner;"

45. Publication of any matter or doing of any other act whatsoever which scandalizes or tends to scandalize or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any Court is one aspect within the ambit of term "criminal contempt" vide clause (i). In this clause whether this publication or act of Contemnor which has the effect of scandalizing or lowering the authority or tends to scandalize or tends to lower the authority, has been committed in judicial proceedings or otherwise is not a necessary condition as no such words have been used therein.

46. In clause (ii) something which prejudices or interferes or tends to interfere the due course of any judicial proceedings amounts to criminal contempt.

47. Clause (iii) deals with another situation where publication or any other act of Contemner interferes or tends to interfere with or obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of justice in any manner also amounts to criminal contempt.

48. At the first flush one may have an impression that all the three clauses in substance talk of similar situation or conditions but in fact they are different.

49. A similar argument as has been advanced in the present case by Contemnor, was also raised in Rachapudi Subba Rao vs. Advocate General, Andhra Pradesh, 1981(2) SCC 577. In paras 13 and 16 the Court said:

"13. It is noteworthy, that in the categorisation of contempt in the three Sub-clauses (i) to (iii), only category (ii) refers to "judicial proceeding". Scandalizing of Court in its administrative capacity will also be covered by sub-clauses (i) and (iii). The phrase "administration of justice" in Sub-clause (iii) is far winder in scope than "course of any judicial proceeding", The last words "in any other manner" of Sub-clause (iii) further extend its ambit and give it a residuary character. Although Sub-clauses (i) to (iii) describe three distinct species of 'criminal contempt', they are not always mutually exclusive. Interference of tendency to interfere with any judicial proceeding or administration of justice is a common element of Sub-clauses (ii) and (iii). This element is not required to be established of a criminal contempt of the kind falling under Sub-clause (i)."

50. Any act which interferes or tends to interfere with or obstructs or tends to obstruct administration of justice in any other manner, therefore, is included within the definition of "criminal contempt". This clause is very wide and includes several aspects of the matter which may come within the ambit of "criminal contempt". The decisive factor is that there should be interference and obstruction etc. in administration of justice. It cannot be doubted that trial of a suit is a judicial proceeding. When decree is passed, it is a judgment of Court and execution of decree is an integral part and parcel of judicial proceeding of the Court. A judgment is not passed by Court just for the sake of it but the party in whose favour judgment is given is entitled to have its benefit and anyone who obstructs in such enjoyment of successful party may be compelled to act in accordance with the terms of judgment. When a judgment is put in Court for execution and the Court passes order to get the execution performed through an Officer appointed by it, namely, Court Amin etc., such Officer represents the Court and any interference in the functioning of such Officer is nothing but obstruction in functioning of the Court and amounts to obstruction and interference with administration of justice. Mere fact that something has been done with the Officer of the Court outside the Court campus does not mean that it is not included within the term "criminal contempt".

51. In the context of a Receiver, who was appointed by Court and was in possession of certain property, in pursuant thereto when such possession was sought to be interfered, it was held that such an attempt amounts to contempt of Court. Lord Chancellor, Lord Truro in Russell v. East Anglian Railway Co. (1850) 42 ER 201 observed:

"... consider the rule to be of such importance to the interests and safety of the public, and to the due administration of justice, that it ought on all occasions, to be inflexibly maintained ... they do it under the peril of resistance, and of that resistance being justified on grounds tending to the impeachment of the order under which they are acting."

52. In Ames v. Trustees of the Birkenhead Docks (1855) 20 B 332, Sir John Romilly said :

"There is no question but that this Court will not permit a receiver, appointed by its authority, and who is therefore its officer, to be interfered with or dispossessed of the property he is directed to receive, by anyone, although the order appointing him may he perfectly erroneous; this Court requires and insists that application should be made to the Court, for permission to take possession of any property of which the receiver either has taken or is directed to take possession........."

53. A Receiver appointed by a Court is the hand of the Court, so to speak, for the purpose of, holding the property of the litigants whenever it is considered necessary that it should be kept in the grasp of the Court in order to preserve it, pendente lite. The possession of Receiver cannot be disturbed without leave of the Court as the property is regarded in gremio legis, in the custody of law. Neither stranger nor anyone else can disturb possession of a Receiver and the remedy lies to approach the Court concerned.

54. In State Vs. Sanker Charan Sahu MANU/OR/0057/1952 the Court held a Sub-inspector guilty of contempt when interfered in an order passed by Civil Court in the execution of a decree. The Civil Court in execution of a decree, issued a warrant of arrest against judgment-debtor and handed it over to a process-server. The judgment-debtor appeared in the Court of Magistrate and obtained bail. Then apprehending his arrest by Process Server, he filed an application under Section 144 Cr.P.C. in the Court of Magistrate for restraining the process-server from arresting him and claimed immunity from arrest under Section 135 C.P.C. Magistrate passed an order purporting to be under Section 144 Cr.P.C. restraining process-server from arresting the judgment-debtor. The process-server met the judgment-debtor and showed him warrant and demanded payment of decretal amount. While the process-server and the judgment-debtor were engaged in conversation, a crowd collected there. The Sub-Inspector also reached with a few constables to prevent breach of peace. Sub-Inspector showed order of Magistrate to civil court process-server and allowed judgment-debtor to proceed in the car. The result was that judgment-debtor released from the custody of civil court process-server as a consequence of the facility afforded to him by Sub-Inspector of Police who prevented process server from executing the process. High Court held the Magistrate as well as Sub-inspector of Police, guilty of contempt, and punished them with fine.

55. In a similar circumstance, where Receiver's possession was sought to be disturbed, Punjab High Court in Jai Prakash Beni Pershad and others Vs. Ram Sarup and others AIR 1958 P&H 471 considered an issue that Section 197 Cr.P.C. protects public servants and held that the aforesaid provision has no application to the matters of contempt. It relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in State Vs. C.M.L. Bhatnagar AIR 1952 All 50 (Lucknow Bench). It held that Contempt of Court Act does not create an offence. It recognises the jurisdiction which inheres in this Court as the highest Court of Record in the State. Section 197 Cr.P.C. was not intended to apply to such proceedings.

56. The above view is fortified by Apex Court's decision in Everest Coal Company (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and others (1978) 1 SCC 12. Here the Court clarifying the legal position said, "When a court puts a Receiver in possession of property, the property comes under court custody, the Receiver being merely an officer or agent of the court. Any obstruction or interference with the court's possession sounds in contempt of that court, any legal action in respect of that property is in a sense such as interference and invites the contempt penalty of likely invalidation of the suit or other proceedings."

57. In Ratnakar D. Patade and others Vs. Smita P. Dalvi and others 2002 (104(3)) BOMLR 441, the Court said that a Receiver is an officer of the Court. Being such officer, his possession is simply the possession of Court and any attempt to disturb possession of Receiver without the leave of Court is a Contempt of Court.

58. Similarly a "Special Officer" appointed under Companies Act, 1956 was held to be an Officer of the Court in International Coal Corporation Vs. Pure Sitalpur Coal Concern Ltd. AIR 1972 Cal. 45

59. In Kilachand Devchand and Co. Vs. Ajodhyaprasad Sukhanand AIR 1934 Bom. 452, the Court held that "Receiver" is an officer of the Court and if he is interfered or disturbed, it amounts to "criminal contempt". The Court said:

"The case of interference with or obstruction to a receiver appointed by the Court is treated as a contempt of a criminal nature ...."

60. The only thing which has to be seen is that person interfering or obstructing has the knowledge of such appointment by the Court. In such matters, it is not a mere infringement of any order but here is an act causing interference with the administration of justice and with its officers.

61. In State Vs. Adilakshmi Amma and others AIR 1954 Ori. 167, the question came to be considered whether resistance of Receiver appointed by Court in taking possession amounts to contempt. The Division Bench, relying on Bomay High Court's decision in Kilachand Devchand and Co. Vs. Ajodhyaprasad Sukhanand (supra), observed that resistance or obstruction to a Receiver appointed by Court is a "criminal contempt". The Court further said:

"Words or acts which obstruct or tend to obstruct administration of justice would always amount to criminal contempt..."

62. The Court also said that refusal by a party to deliver possession to a Receiver would also amount to contempt provided the party was aware of appointment of such Receiver and despite having been called upon to deliver possession did not do so. Even threats of violence coupled with an aggressive or menacing attitude on the part of the person uttering the threat and by other gestures, may easily amount to obstruction, if they cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of a public servant that resistance would be offered if he attempted to discharge his duty.

63. In Dwijendra Krishna Dutta Vs. Surender Nath Nag Chaudhury and others AIR 1927 Cal. 548, the Court observed that contempt by obstructing an officer of the Court is punished, not for the purpose of vindicating the dignity or the person of the officer, but to prevent undue interference with the administration of justice. It also held that Receiver is an officer of the Court and the Court must protect him while discharging his duties, and interference with or disturbance of a receiver appointed by the Court is a contempt.

64. In Emperor Vs. Tohfa and others AIR 1933 All 759, Munsif passed an order of attachment before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 and appointed one B.Onkar nath, Vakil to do the work of attachment. When Sri Onkar Nath went to the village accompanied by plaintiff, the other side and his sons came out of house armed with lathis. They adopted an offensive attitude and said that they would never allow the attachment to be made and that they would break the head of anyone who should point out the property. The Commissioner apprehending that an assault might be committed, thereupon retired; but when he had gone a short distance, he heard cries, and, on looking round, he saw that one of the plaintiff's men had actually been assaulted by other side. The action was held to be an offence under Section 186 I.P.C. as it has obstructed a public servant in making an attachment.

65. In Advocate General, Andhra Pradesh Vs. Ashok Kumar 1994 Cr.L.J. 1333, a Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court considered a matter where an Inspector of Police obstructed an Advocate Commissioner from entering the Police Station for searching a person directed to be produced before the Court. The Court held that such an action by Police officer was a contempt.

66. A case quite nearer to the present one is Government of A.P. and another Vs. G. Lakshman Reddy and another (1997) 2 SCC 631. A decree was passed by District Munsif, Nizamabad for demolition of a wall on the ground that the police had constructed wall and obstructed public way. In the execution proceeding, Court issued notice on execution. Thereafter, warrant was issued on February 7, 1996 for demolition of the wall. The warrant was entrusted to one Shri Madhusudhan Bhat for enforcement. He went along with Venkaiah, another bailiff, and two process servers and accompanied with some workmen to demolish the constructed wall. When they were in the process of demolition, certain Police officers obstructed execution of warrant. The Court held the Police officers guilty of wilful and deliberate contempt punishable under Section 12 of Act, 1971.

67. Following the principles and dictum laid down in the above authorities and discussed above, we have no hesitation in our mind that the Court Amin and his Orderly, when had proceeded to get the execution of decree were performing their official duties as Officers of the Court. They were in fact hands of the Court, anxious to get judicial order executed in favour of the party who has succeeded in the judicial proceeding. If any obstruction is created with such Officers or even the decree-holder, who has accompanied the aforesaid Officers of the Court to have its judgment and decree executed, we have no hesitation in our mind to hold that it shall amount to "criminal contempt" as defined under Section 2 (c) of Act, 1971, since that act of obstructionists is nothing but an interference in administration of justice.

68. Now the factual issue comes, whether there was an actual obstruction or not and if so, on whose part and whether all the four contemners are guilty or some of them or none of them.

69. So far as contemners no. 1 and 2 are concerned, as we have already said that at the time of final hearing on 23.04.2015, Sri Ashok Mehta, learned Senior Advocate, fairly stated that the contemners no. 1 and 2 are not contesting the matter and accepting the guilt. They are simply tendering unconditional apology and surrender themselves to the mercy of the Court. Therefore, the report of Court Amin and the complaint made by decree-holder that they obstructed and assaulted when they have proceeded for execution of decree stands proved against them. Contemners no. 1 and 2, i.e., Shobhit Mishra and Harshit Mishra, though initially denied the allegations of threat, obstructions etc., but subsequently in their supplementary affidavits sworn on 20.05.2013 in para 6 clearly have admitted the said allegations when they have stated that unforeseen circumstances cropped at the scene of incident all of a sudden which shows that the incident as complained by decree-holder as well as the Court Amin actually happened and the two contemners no. 1 and 2 have admitted their guilt. In view thereof as also in the light of submission made by Sri Ashok Mehta, learned Senior Advocate at the time of argument that they are simply surrendering to mercy of the Court, the charge levelled against them stands proved and we hold so.

70. Now comes the question of contemners no. 3 and 4. The allegations against them is not that they themselves obstructed execution or assaulted or threatened the decree-holder or the Court Amin or his Orderly. The contemner no. 3 was assigned duty to provide adequate protection for peaceful and smooth execution at the site. In this regard, this is an admitted case that Court Amin Sri Suresh Chandra earlier proceeded to execute the decree on 18.03.2009 but he was obstructed by person(s) who was/were found in possession of disputed property and adamant to have a shuffle with the decree-holder. The same Court Amin, thus, submitted report that without Police force and without breaking open the lock, delivery of possession is not possible. It is pursuant thereto, the Court below sought a report from Police department as to the strength of Police force that would be necessary for peaceful and smooth execution of decree. It is not in dispute that this report was submitted by Police officials themselves that for the purpose of maintaining law and order and peaceful execution of decree, looking to the gravity of situation on spot, requisite Police force must consists of 14 Police officials, i.e., two Sub-inspectors, two woman Constables and 10 male Constables. The Court accordingly passed the order for providing aforesaid Police force for execution of decree. It is also an admitted fact that for providing 14 Police personnel of aforesaid description, the Police Department required decree-holder to pay expenses of Rs. 21032/-, which was also deposited by him.

71. The defence taken by Sri Bhadauria, contemner no. 3, is that on 30.07.2012, at 2.00 P.M. when he was not at Police Station, the decree-holder and Court Amin came and requested for providing Police force of the strength as directed by Court below. Since sufficient number of Police force, he had already taken, for providing Security to a visiting Minister, hence he requested decree-holder and Court Amin to postpone execution to another date but on their insistence that whatever Police force available, may be sent, he provided one Sub-inspector, three Constables and one Home Guard for assisting execution and for security and safety of personnel gone for execution.

72. The contemners no. 3 and 4 have completely denied any threat or misbehaviour by contemners no. 1 and 2 or their men and it is also said that though contemners no. 1 and 2 started quarrel with decree-holder outside the premises, after hearing the sound of quarrel accompanying Police personnel came and controlled the situation. They have denied any other incident taken place on the spot. However, the enquiry report of August' 2012 submitted by Circle Officer, Civil Lines, Meerut has been placed on record with the affidavit of contemners no. 3 and 4. The aforesaid report clearly says that in the fight started by contemners no. 1 and 2 and their supporters, decree-holder, Ashok Kumar Gupta, sustained injuries. The relevant observations in the enquiry report reads as under:

^^ekStwn iqfyl cy }kjk nksuksa i{kksa dk dkQh chp&cpko djrs gq, ekSds ij 'kkfUr O;oFkk cukbZ xbZ ,oe >xM+s esa pksfVy v'kksd dqekj xqIrk ------^^

"By intervening intensely between both the parties, law and order was maintained at the site by the Police force present, and Ashok Kumar Gupta injured in the clash ...."

(English Translation by the Court)

73. The enquiry report further said that on the site of execution, accompanying Police force required Court Amin to provide document showing exact location of Khasra No. 5804 which he could not make available. In all the affidavits filed by contemners no. 3 and 4, they have not stated anywhere that the contemners no. 1 and 2 and their supporters caused injuries to the decree-holder while obstructing execution on 30.07.2012. If the accompanying Police force was seriously protecting Court Amin, his Orderly and decree-holder, it is difficult to understand how obstructionists could have caused injuries to decree-holder. In the report lodged by decree-holder, it is stated that after registering F.I.R., he was forwarded to P.L. Sharma Hospital for medical examination. The report of Court Amin states that execution order of Court when shown to contemners no. 1 and 2 and their followers, the document was torn and they also threatened Court Amin whereupon the execution could not proceed.

74. The stand of contemners no. 3 and 4 is continuously varying. In the reply submitted before the Court below, neither the contemner no. 3 nor the contemner no. 4 have said anything about injuries sustained by decree-holder when the contemners 1 and 2 and others obstructed execution. However, they have categorically denied the report of Court Amin regarding misbehaviour and tearing of Court's order. The reply of accompanying Police officials is virtually same. It is quite natural since all were defending them in a matter where complaint was made that they are guilty of abetting and colluding with the obstruction in execution proceeding and have not discharged their duties as they were supposed to do. The contemners no. 3 and 4 themselves have filed affidavits dated 12.9.2012 of decree-holder wherein he has categorically said that information of Court's order for execution was communicated on 27.07.2012 along with receipt of expenses deposited to S.S.P. and on 28.07.2012 it was made available to Station In-charge, Police Station Nauchandi.

75. The newspaper report of "Meerut Jagran" is also on record showing that obstructionists included some members of political parties also. The contemners no. 3 and 4 have also changed their stand virtually taking a ''U' turn inasmuch when they filed initial affidavits pursuant to notice dated 31.01.2013 wherein said that they do not want to contest the case and are tendering apology. Their affidavits stating that they do not want to contest implicitly has their admission regarding correctness of allegations made against them. It is only when the charge has been framed, a different version has come up before this Court. The contemner no. 3 has tried to justify his inaction in not providing Police force of due strength as ordered by Court below but has not placed anything on record to show that requisite Police force could not have been arranged by him by bringing necessary facts to the notice of superior officers or that compliance of the order of Court was lesser important than attending duties of visiting Minister. Moreover, their conduct of firstly going to surrender and thereafter disputing the entire thing to the extent of even levelling allegations against Court Amin of making false report shows their complacency in the matter particularly when contemners no. 1 and 2 have ultimately admitted allegations of obstructions and threat etc. We, therefore, find it inconceivable and un-creditworthy that contemners no. 3 and 4 have discharged their duties effectively and the report submitted by Court Amin is incorrect.

76. It is not that mere non providing requisite Police force by contemner no. 3 that he can be said to be guilty of "criminal contempt", but it has to be seen in the backdrop of the facts that requisite Police force of the strength ordered by Court was necessary for peaceful execution. This was assessment made by Police Department itself and hence ordered by Court. The decree-holder has also deposited the requisite expenses as assigned by Police Department. The contemner no. 3 being In-charge of Police Station was under an obligation to provide requisite Police force instead of keeping some available Police force just to please a political boss.

77. Moreover, the own admission of contemner no. 3 that as soon as he received information from contemner no. 4, he reached the spot at about 4.00 P.M. shows that contemner no. 3 and force available with him was not necessarily required elsewhere and he could have deployed requisite force in compliance of Court's order for peaceful execution. In other words, the failure on the part of contemner no. 3 in making requisite Police force available has given an authority to obstructionists to disturb and interfere with Court proceeding of execution and for that contemner no. 3 cannot be excluded from his own responsibility. It is his failure which has caused and encouraged the obstructionist to do such interference. The available Police force consisted of only one Sub-inspector, three Constables and one Home Guard. When they themselves say that a large number of persons came to obstruct execution proceeding, inaction on the part of wholly inadequate Police force is quite understandable otherwise no explanation has come as to why decree-holder sustained injuries caused by obstructionists including contemners no. 1 and 2. No explanation, whatsoever, has come on this aspect. The affidavits are completely silent to admit that obstructionists caused that much obstruction and interference in which the decree-holder got injuries. When some facts have been concealed by contemners no. 3 and 4, we can reasonably believe and infer that in respect to other aspects, as reported by Court Amin, the denial on the part of contemners no. 3 and 4, is untrustworthy.

78. Even otherwise, the Court Amin has gone for execution of Court's order and when he started breaking open lock and actually entered the complex, as admitted by contemners no. 3 and 4, it cannot be said that Court Amin was not interested in getting the decree executed, but obviously when a large number of persons gathered to create obstruction and also manhandled decree-holder, apprehending danger to their life and liberty, Court Amin and his Orderly were justified in leaving the spot and not to wait for a similar assault and injuries upon them. We are clearly of the view that contemners 3 and 4 are guilty of charge framed against them for committing deliberate and intentional act causing interference in administration of justice amounting to criminal contempt.

79. Now comes the question of punishment. Contemners no. 1 and 2 have taken a very different stand at the time of final hearing and instead of contesting the matter, they have accepted the guilt and surrendered themselves to the mercy of Court. Though they are real obstructionists making interference in administration of justice by obstructing the execution, but looking to their improvised conduct in the Court, we are of the view that punishment of simple imprisonment of one month to each of the contemners 1 and 2, Shobhit Mishra and Harshit Mishra, besides fine of Rs. 1000/- each, shall serve the ends of justice. We order accordingly.

80. So far as contemners no. 3 and 4 are concerned, they are Police officers but failed to discharge their duties of having orders of Court complied with, causing and allowing contemners no. 1 and 2 and others to create obstruction by manhandling etc. Initially, they accepted the guilt but subsequently, filed their affidavits with a totally different version before this Court which has been found un-creditworthy. Therefore, their conduct is uncondonable and being public servants, they deserve a heavy punishment. However, but looking to the entire facts and circumstances, we impose punishment of one month's simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/- upon contemner no. 3, Hansraj Bhadauria, and contemner no. 4, Subhash Chandra Gautam, each.

81. The contempt application is disposed of accordingly.

Dt. 27.05.2015

PS

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 5 of 2013

Applicant :- In Re Mahesh Chandra Verma, Civil Judge J.D.

Opposite Party :- Shobhit Mishra And Others

Counsel for Applicant :- A.G.A.,Sudhir Mehrotra

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashok Mehta, Intekha Alam Khan, P.C.Srivastva, Pradeep Singh Sisodia

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

Hon'ble Shashi Kant, J.

1. After delivery of judgment in this case, the contemners pray that sentence imposed by this Court vide judgment of date be suspended to enable them to avail statutory remedy of appeal under Section 19 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1971") before the superior court.

2. In the circumstances, we suspend the sentence for a period of two months. In case, the appeal is not filed or if filed but no otherwise order is passed in the appeal, the contemners shall surrender before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut after two months, i.e. on 28.07.2015, who shall take steps to get the sentence served out by contemners.

Dt. 27.05.2015

PS