Sushil Kumar Sharma vs Mr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey S.S.P. ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 7692 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Reserved
 
Court No. - 26
 

 
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3461 of 2017
 

 
Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Sharma
 
Opposite Party :- Mr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey S.S.P. Distt. Aligarh
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Manisha Chaturvedi
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.

1. This contempt application has been filed by the petitioner praying for issuance of notice to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh to show cause as to why he should not be punished for contempt of the judgment and order dated 06.08.2015 passed in Writ C No. 43848 of 2015 (Smt.Anju Sharma and another vs State of U.P. and others).

2. Writ C No. 43848 of 2015 was filed by Smt. Anju Sharma and the petitioner, who claimed protection from the police against the family of the petitioner No. 1 therein and this writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 06.08.2015 with the following directions:

".........the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the concerned police authorities/Senior Superintendent of Police concern to ensure that petitioners are not put to any threat or torture and their married life is not disturbed provided their marriage certificate is not found to be fictitious and further they are not wanted or involved in any case in connection with the above marriage and living together........"

3. It is the case of the petitioner that in pursuance of the said judgment and order dated 06.08.2015 Smt. Anju Sharma filed an application before Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh as she feared for the life of her husband and her own at the hands of her parents and sought protection.

4. It has been alleged that on 24.04.2016, the parents of Smt. Anju Sharma visited the marital home of the petitioner and in the garb of celebrating petitioners' wedding again with social approval and religious ceremonies took Smt. Anju Sharma away with the consent of the petitioner Sushil Kumar Sharma. Later on he was informed by his wife that her parents were not letting her return to the petitioner.

5. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner wrote repeated applications to the Police Authorities seeking protection for his wife and for himself. When no heed was paid, the petitioner lodged an FIR dated 27.08.2016 bearing Case Crime No. 360 of 2016 against abduction of his wife by her parents. Even after one year no charge sheet/final report has been submitted by the police and no investigation done in Case Crime No. 360 of 2016.

6. The allegation in this contempt application is that since a mandamus had been issued by this Court to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh to ensure that the petitioners are not put to any threat or torture and their married life is not disturbed, it was the duty of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh to ensure that the married life of the petitioner continued undisturbed and protection is given to Smt. Anju Sharma against her parents, who allegedly were trying to get her married to somebody else.

7. Heard Miss. Manisha Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, who states that the cause of action arose for filing the Contempt Petition in August, 2016 when the petitioner lodged an FIR in Case Crime No. 360 of 2016 for abduction of Smt. Anju Sharma by her parents upon failure of the police to help the petitioner in this case, and the Contempt Petition was filed on 08.08.2017, which is within time as per section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

8. This Court before issuance of notice to the SSP, Aligarh to file his affidavit, is duty bound to first examine whether willful contempt or disobedience as alleged of the judgment and order dated 06.08.2015 has been committed by the SSP, Aligarh.

9. From a perusal of the contents of the Contempt Application and the FIR lodged by the petitioner in Case Crime No. 360 of 2016, Police Station Khair, district Aligarh, it is evident that on 23.04.2016, sister of Smt. Anju Sharma one Priti Devi, and mother Mithilesh Devi had talked on phone to the petitioner and assured him that the wedding of Smt. Anju Sharma with the petitioner would be held with all customary rituals etc. so that it gets social acceptance and on 24.04.2016, the father of Smt. Anju Sharma, one Krishna Avtar Sharma, son of Ratan Lal and brother Yatendra Sharma came to the petitioner's house and assured the petitioner that the wedding of Anju Sharma with the petitioner shall be held on 10.07.2016, and therefore, Anju Sharma must be sent with them by the petitioner. Anju Sharma thereafter went with her father and brother with the consent of the petitioner, but later on informed the petitioner on 26.04.2016 on phone that her parents were trying to marry her off against her wishes to some other person and that he must get her back immediately. Thereafter the petitioner went to his wife's home on 27.04.2016 and they refused to let Smt. Anju Sharma go with the petitioner and now it is being apprehended by the petitioner that his wife Smt. Anju Sharma is being held against her wishes at some unknown place by her father Krishna Avtar Sharma, her mother Mithilesh Devi, brother Yatender Kumar and Sister Priti Devi and that the police should make efforts to get Smt. Anju Sharma freed from the clutches of her family.

10. Vide Samar Ghosh and another vs Sanat Kumar Bag and others, 2004 (13) SCC 52, proceeding for contempt initiated against a person cannot be held to be sustainable merely on speculation, assumption and inference drawn from facts and circumstances of a particular case. Contempt of a civil nature can be held to have been made out only if there has been a willful disobedience of the order and even though there may be disobedience, yet if the same does not reflect that it has been a conscious and willful disobedience, a case for contempt cannot be held to have been made out. In fact, if an order is capable of more than one interpretation giving rise to a variety of consequences, non-compliance of the same cannot be held to be willful disobedience of the order so as to make out a case of contempt entailing serious consequences including imposition of punishment.

11. It has been held by the Supreme Court that when the Courts are confronted with a question as to whether a given situation could be treated to be a case of willful disobedience of its order or a case of a lame excuse, in order to subvert its compliance, howsoever articulate it may be, the answer will depend on the facts and circumstances of a particular case; but while deciding so, it would not be legally correct to be too speculative.

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in Dinesh Kumar Gupta vs United India Insurance Company Ltd. reported in 2010 (12) SCC 770 thus:

".....An important statutory ingredient of contempt of a civil nature given out u/s 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 that the disobedience to the order alleging contempt has to satisfy the test that it is a willful disobedience to the order. Bearing this important factor in mind, it is relevant to note that a proceeding for civil contempt would not lie if the order alleged to have been disobeyed itself provides scope for reasonable or rational interpretation of an order or circumstance which is the factual position in the instant matter. It would equally not be correct to infer that a party although acting due to misapprehension of the correct legal position and in good faith without any motive to defeat or defy the order of the Court, should be viewed as a serious ground so as to give rise to a contempt proceeding. Thus, accidental or unintentional disobedience is not sufficient to justify one for holding guilty of contempt. The settled law on the law of contempt that casual or accidental or unintentional acts of disobedience under the circumstances which negate any suggestion of contumacy, would amount to a contempt in theory only and does not render the contemnor liable to punishment....."

13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Jammu & Kashmir vs Syed Zaffar Mehdi, 1997 (9) SCC 640 was considering a case wherein directions was given in the writ petition by the Court to continue the writ petitioner in service without the consequential benefits and not to take any action against him for alleged overstay on leave except in accordance with law and principles of natural justice. The said direction was not challenged by the State, and therefore, become final. Subsequently, the Department denied promotion to the writ petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was a habitual absentee.

14. In the Contempt Petition filed by the respondent before the High Court the appellants were held guilty of contempt. In the Criminal Appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that contempt proceedings are quasi criminal in nature, and therefore, the High Court could not in contempt proceedings enlarge the scope of the original writ petition and make a direction for promotion of the petitioner. The scope of the writ petition was limited and did not include matters in regard to future promotions. The proper course for the writ petitioner therein was to challenge the decision of the Government refusing to grant him promotions and for the court to examine the same in accordance with law in a fresh writ petition. The Appeal was allowed and the contempt application was dismissed.

15. From the facts as mentioned in the FIR and the Contempt Application, it is evident that the petitioner willingly let his wife accompany her father and brother and there was no threat extended by father and brother of Smt. Anju Sharma to the petitioner when he let her go with them on 24.04.2016. It is only after Smt. Anju Sharma left with the consent of her husband, the petitioner herein to her parents' home, on subsequent events it has come to light that the family of Smt. Anju Sharma is holing her back against her wishes. For this purpose, an FIR has also been lodged by the petitioner as mentioned aforesaid.

16. Since, this Court had disposed of the earlier writ petition with a direction to the Senior Superintendent of Police concerned to ensure that the petitioners are not put to any threat and torture and their married life is not disturbed in its order dated 06.08.2015, it is this direction which has been alleged to have been willfully disregarded by the Senior Superintendent of Police in this contempt application.

17. The subsequent events of the petitioner letting his wife Smt. Anju Sharma go with her father and brother willingly on his own, although on a ruse played by them and without the complicity of the Police Authorities in any manner, cannot lead to any definite conclusion that the petitioner or Smt. Anju Sharma was subjected to any threat or torture by her parents, which was in the knowledge of the Police at the time when the petitioner willingly let his wife go with her parents. The subsequent events that have occurred where the parents of Smt. Anju Sharma have held her back against her wishes cannot be said to be amounting to any threat or torture, which was in the knowledge of the Police Authorities.

18. Since, the petitioner willfully let his wife go with her parents, the order dated 06.08.2015 can be said to have played out its life and now a fresh cause of action has arisen when the petitioner lodged an FIR against his parents-in-law for allegedly abducting his wife. The proper course for the petitioner herein is to file a Habeas Corpus Petition for alleged illegal confinement of his wife by his parents-in-law and this Court cannot go beyond the scope of original writ petition and the order dated 06.08.2015, and issue contempt notice to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh for willful disobedience of the direction issued by this Court on 06.08.2015.

19. The contempt petition is liable to be dismissed as misconceived and is dismissed as such. No order as to costs.

Order Date :- 06.12.2107

Sazia