Gujarat High Court
Mohammedshafi Abdulgaffar Ghanchi vs Police Inspector Shree, Shree Gadhavi ... on 31 July, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/1782/2025 ORDER DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONTEMPT) NO. 1782 of 2025
==============================================================
MOHAMMEDSHAFI ABDULGAFFAR GHANCHI
Versus
POLICE INSPECTOR SHREE, SHREE GADHAVI SAHEB
==============================================================
Appearance:
MR AZIZ AN ALVI(1366) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MOHAMMADZAID M SHAIKH(13938) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR AAKASH GUPTA AGP for respondents
==============================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 31/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties.
1. The present contempt application is filed for initiation of
contempt proceedings for violation directions issued by the
Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. Government of
Uttar Pradesh [(2014) 2 SCC 1].
2. Learned AGP Mr. Aakash Gupta for the respondent - State
authorities has submitted that the present contempt petition is not
maintainable as the applicant is having the alternative remedy. He
has placed reliance upon the orders passed by the different co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in MCA No.345 of 2023 dated
01/05/2023, MCA No.664 of 2024 dated 12/03/2024, MCA No.360
of 203 in SCR.A No.1661 of 2023 dated 25/04/2023 and order
passed in MCA No.1054 of 2023 dated 03/07/2023. Learned AGP
has therefore submitted that present contempt petition may not be
entertained.
3. This Court while passing the order in MCA No.1054 of 2023
dated 03/07/2023 by placing reliance upon judgment dated
01.05.2023 passed in Misc. Civil Application No.345 of 2023 on an
identical issue has made following observations:
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/1782/2025 ORDER DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
"21. It we see the line of approach by other High Courts on almost similar
issue about violation of directions of Lalita Kumari's case, we have noticed
that High Courts have circumscribed to their own peripheral limits of
jurisdiction and did not initiate any action for contempt.
24. It is a trite law that contempt jurisdiction is a powerful weapon in the
hands of the Courts of law, but that by itself operates as a string of caution as
well. Proceedings are quasi criminal in nature and as such, said jurisdiction
cannot be exercised on mere probabilities and it is also a settled position of
law that if two Interpretations are possible, jurisdiction may not be desirable
to be exercised and this power to punish for contempt is a special and rare
power and this drastic power if misdirected, would result into miscarriage of
Justice on either way and Courts while exercising this jurisdiction must not
travel beyond four corners of the order which is alleged to have been flouted
or enter into, question that have not been dealt with or decided in the
judgment or the order failure of which is alleged. Only such directions which
are explicit in a judgment or the order or plainly self-evident ought to have
been taken into account for the purpose of consideration as to whether there
has been any violat on and Courts while exercising this jurisdiction must
ensure that while considering a contempt plea, jurisdiction available to the
Court in other corrective powers like review or appeal is not trenched upon
and as such, with this limits, which are well-defined, we are of the view that
since Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Lalita Kumari (supra) having not
clarified or directed or explained as to what has been done in the case of D.K.
Basu (supra) and Arnesh Kumar (supra), we are of the opinion that in the
absence of such, to entertain the contempt petition would be tinkering with
jurisdictional limits which are well defined by virtue of provisions as indicated
above. Hence, present contempt petition for want of jurisdiction is not
entertainable.
25. We are not observing anything or examining on merit of the allegations
which are leveled since we are not entertaining the petition on account of not
C/MCA/1293/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2025 being maintainable. We
express no opinion on the allegations which are leveled by the applicant in the
present proceedings, leaving it open for the applicant to take out appropriate
steps as may be permissible in law. It may be that the applicant is aggrieved
by action or response, but remedy is not present petition, it must be before
appropriate forum."
4. Hence, the present petition is bereft of any merits and hence,
the same is rejected.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
Radhika/ 12
