Allahabad High Court
Aakash Narayan And 6 Others vs Neelam Singh Investigation ... on 22 July, 2022
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved on 06.07.2022
Delivered on 22.07.2022
Court No. - 10
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3515 of 2022
Applicant :- Aakash Narayan And 6 Others
Opposite Party :- Neelam Singh Investigation Officer
Counsel for Applicant :- In Person
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Aakash Narayan, who has appeared in person for himself and for other applicants no.2 to 7.
2. This contempt application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been filed against the opposite party Neelam Singh, Investigating Officer, Mahila Thana, Varanasi for wilfully and deliberately disobeying the order of this Court, and further she having failed in serving the location under the information sought under the Right to Information Act.
3. According to the averment of the contempt application, a First Information Report was lodged against the applicants being Case Crime No.38 of 2018, under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Varanasi.
4. The said First Information Report was put to challenge before this Court through Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.37905 of 2018, wherein this Court on 03.01.2019 had directed that till the next date of listing or till the submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., whichever is earlier, the petitioners shall not be arrested in the said case crime. The charge-sheet was submitted after the investigation on 09.04.2019 and the writ petition was disposed of on 11.04.2019 giving liberty to the petitioners/applicants to challenge the charge-sheet in appropriate jurisdiction by taking recourse to appropriate legal remedy.
5. According to applicants, they had filed application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court, which is pending consideration. According to them, no notice was served by the Investigation Officer under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and the proper jurisdiction of investigation is at Lucknow and the matter should have been transferred to Lucknow and investigation conducted at Varanasi and the final report was submitted at Varanasi, where no cause of action had occurred, thus is in violation of the judgment of the Apex Court and the opposite party is in contempt.
6. I have heard the applicants and considered the material on record.
7. It is a case, where a First Information Report was lodged under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Varanasi by the complainant against the applicants.
8. The applicants had challenged the First Information Report, during pendency of the investigation, the Court had granted interim relief to the extent that they shall not be arrested either till the submission of police report or till the next date of listing of the case.
9. The police after investigation had submitted charge-sheet on 09.04.2019 against the applicants and writ petition filed by the applicants was disposed of by the writ Court on 11.04.2019 giving liberty to the applicants to challenge the charge-sheet before the appropriate Court.
10. It is also not in dispute that the applicants had filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the charge-sheet, which is still pending before this Court.
The present contempt proceedings have been initiated against the Investigating Officer of Police Station Mahila Thana, Varanasi on the ground that she did not have the jurisdiction to investigate the matter and the investigation should have been transferred to Lucknow.
11. It is made clear that the Investigating Officer does not have any power to transfer the matter to another district for investigation. The First Information Report was lodged at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Varanasi and the investigation was rightly carried out by the Investigating Officer so appointed. If the applicants were aggrieved by the investigation being carried out at Varanasi, they should have moved for the transfer of investigation from Varanasi to Lucknow.
12. Once, the investigation was over and the charge-sheet was submitted and cognizance order was passed by the Court below and further the applicants having challenged the cognizance order as well as charge-sheet before this Court, they have no occasion to file application under Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for punishing the opposite party.
13. Recently, the Apex Court in Case of Dr. U.N. Bora, Ex. Chief Executive Officer and others Vs. Assam Roller Flour Mills Association and another 2022 (1) SCC 101 had held that no roving inquiry can be done while exercising jurisdiction under Section 12. Relevant para 8 is extracted hereas under:-
"8. We are dealing with a civil contempt. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 explains a civil contempt to mean a willful disobedience of a decision of the Court. Therefore, what is relevant is the "willful" disobedience. Knowledge acquires substantial importance qua a contempt order. Merely because a subordinate official acted in disregard of an order passed by the Court, a liability cannot be fastened on a higher official in the absence of knowledge. When two views are possible, the element of willfulness vanishes as it involves a mental element. It is a deliberate, conscious and intentional act. What is required is a proof beyond reasonable doubt since the proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature. Similarly, when a distinct mechanism is provided and that too, in the same judgment alleged to have been violated, a party has to exhaust the same before approaching the court in exercise of its jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is well open to the said party to contend that the benefit of the order passed has not been actually given, through separate proceedings while seeking appropriate relief but certainly not by way of a contempt proceeding. While dealing with a contempt petition, the Court is not expected to conduct a roving inquiry and go beyond the very judgment which was allegedly violated. The said principle has to be applied with more vigor when disputed questions of facts are involved and they were raised earlier but consciously not dealt with by creating a specific forum to decide the original proceedings."
14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that no case for contempt of Court is made out from the perusal of record against the opposite party.
15. The contempt application is misconceived and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date:- 22nd July, 2022
SK Goswami
[Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.]
