Ramesh Venkatesh Gaikwad & Anr vs Smt. Malan Balasaheb Shinde & Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 1746 Bom

Mhi                                   1             CP-282-2010.sxw


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                      CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 282 OF 2010
                                       IN
                     CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4123 OF 2009


      1.    Ramesh Venkatesh Gaikwad                )
      2.    Kiran Arvind Gaikwad                    )
      3.    Kedar Ramesh Gaikwad                    )
      4.    Sachin Suresh Gaikwad                   )
      5.    Sudhir Suresh Gaikwad                   )
      6.    Dasbabu Venkatesh Gaikwad               )
            All residing at TS No.404,              )
            Ganpati Ali, Wai, Taluka, District:     )
            Satara.                                 ).. Petitioners
      1.    Smt. Malan Balasaheb Shinde             )
            Age 50 years, Occ: Service              )
            residing at C/4/12, Dhom Colony,        )
            Vasant Songirwadi, Wai, Post Tal.       )
            Wai, Dist: Satara 412 803.              )
      2.    Amrutrao Deshmukh                       )
            Age: Adult, Occ: Service                )
            The Police Inspector Wai Police         )
            Station, Wai, District: Satara.         )..Respondents
      Mr. K.P.Shah,Advocate for the petitioners
      Mr.S.G.Rajput, for respondent No.2.

                                      CORAM: SMT.SADHANA S.JADHAV, J.

DATE : 17th April, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT:

Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent

of the parties.

2. The present petitioner has filed the present Contempt Petition

Mhi 2 CP-282-2010.sxw

thereby demonstrating that respondent No.2 herein had committed willful

disobedience and violation of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court dated

11.9.2009 in Criminal Application No.4123 of 2009.

3. The petitioner herein happens to be the original accused in

Crime No.94 of 2009. The applicant had filed an application seeking the

relief of quashing of the said crime.

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the

Hon'ble Single Bench of this Court by an order dated 25.1.2010, had

observed that it appears that there are civil disputes between the parties

and, therefore, the proceedings deserve to be stayed. The Hon'ble Bench

had also observed that inadvertently interim relief was granted in terms of

prayer clause (d). The said interim relief granted vide prayer clause (d) was

vacated on 9.112011 and this Court had granted interim relief in terms of

prayer clause (c) which reads as follows :-

"Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present application, all further proceeding on the basis of the C.R.No.94 of 2009 registered with the Respondent No.2 - Wai Police Station, District Satara u/s. 143, 147, 452, 447, 427, 323, 504 & 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code be stayed."

It appears from the records that the order was passed on 25.1.2010.

Mhi 3 CP-282-2010.sxw

4. According to the petitioners, despite the fact that this Court had

stayed the proceedings, the respondent No.2 had filed charge-sheet in the

Court and hence had committed contempt of the order passed by this Court

dated 25.1.2010. It appears that after filing of the present Contempt

Petition, this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 16.12.2014, had directed the

Registrar (Judicial) to conduct an enquiry as to whether the respondent

No.2 had committed contempt of the order dated 25.1.2010. The Registrar

- Judicial had conducted a detailed enquiry and thereafter had informed the

High Court that he had taken inspection of the inward & outward Registers

for the relevant period maintained by Wai Police Station. That Wai Police

Station had received the High Court order Inward No.436 of 25.2.2010 in

Crime No.306/2010 wherein the C.R. number was shown as 94/2010

instead of 94/2009. The same tallied with the register maintained by the

Criminal Department of the High Court (Appellate Side). The Registrar

(Judicial) has also a report stating therein that the order granting interim

relief in terms of prayer clause (c) was received on 25.2.2010 as per the

extracts of the inward-outward Register produced by the Police Inspector of

Wai Police Station. It is pertinent to note that respondent No.2 had filed the

charge sheet on 9.2.2010 i.e. prior to receipt of the order dated 25.1.2010.

Mhi 4 CP-282-2010.sxw

5. Thereafter, the present Contempt Petition was heard by

Hon'ble Justice R.G.Ketkar. On 29.4.2013, Hon'ble Justice Ketkar had

passed an order as follows :-

"Mr. Patil seeks time to file reply. He submits that the copy of the order dated 25/01/2010 was not served on respondent No.2 and the petitioners may substantiate their contention that the cop7y of the order dated 25/01/2010 was duly served on respondent No.2."

Before Hon'ble Justice Ketkar, counsel for the petitioners had submitted

that respondent No.2 has filed charge sheet on 31.1.2010, whereas the order

was passed on 25.1.2010. It is further observed that the copy of the order

dated 25.1.2010 was not served on respondent No.2 and that the petitioners

may substantiate their contention that the copy of the order dated 25.1.2010

was duly served on respondent No.2 and the petitioner to file affidavit

enclosing therein with acknowledgment evidencing service of order dated

25.1.2010.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that thereafter

the petitioners had filed an affidavit contending therein that the petitioners

had put the best efforts to serve the copy of the order upon respondent No.2.

However, he had refused to accept the same. In view of this submission, it

Mhi 5 CP-282-2010.sxw

cannot be said that respondent No.2 had knowledge that further proceedings

in C.R. No.94/2009 has been stayed. It is further pertinent to note that the

petitioners herein had filed an application for recalling the charge sheet.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said application was

contested by the State. No application seeking recalling of the charge sheet

would be maintainable. The said application was rejected. According to

the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Magistrate had also

refused to accept the order being tendered by the petitioners and had

insisted upon a certified copy or a communication by the High Court. In

the given circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that respondent No.2

has not wilfully disobeyed the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on

25.1.2010. The charge sheet was filed prior to receipt of the order by the

concerned officer and hence it cannot be said that respondent No.2 has

committed contempt.

7. In view of this, the Contempt Petition stands dismissed. Rule

is accordingly discharged. Bailable Warrant issued against respondent No.2

is hereby recalled. No order as to costs.

(SMT. SADHANA S.JADHAV, J.)