Mr Kuldeep vs Mr Suthesh K P
2023 Latest Caselaw 1530 Kant

                                              -1-
                                                       CCC No. 1146 of 2022




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                          DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
                                           PRESENT
                    THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                              AND
                            THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

                        CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 1146 OF 2022

                   BETWEEN:

                   MR KULDEEP
                   ADVOCATE
                   AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
                   S/O CANDRASHEKHAR SHETTY
                   R/A PUTHILA VILLAGE
                   BELTHANGADY TALUK
                   DK DISTRICT-574214
                                                             ...COMPLAINANT

                   (BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
                       SRI. VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed   AND:
by R DEEPA
Location: High
Court of           1.    MR SUTHESH K P
Karnataka
                         SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE
                         PUNJALKATTE POLICE STATION
                         DK DISTRICT-575001

                   2.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
                         BY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
                         VIDHANA SOUDHA
                         AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
                         BENGALURU - 560001
                         REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY
                                                                 ...ACCUSED
                   (BY SRI. S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA)
                                 -2-
                                            CCC No. 1146 of 2022




     CCC    IS    FILED      UNDER       ARTICLE      215    OF   THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT,              1971, BY THE COMPLAINANT,
WHEREIN HE PRAYS THAT THE HON'BLE COURT BE PLEASED
TO   HOLD   THE    ACCUSED      GUILTY    OF    THE     OFFENCE    OF
CONTEMPT         PUNISHABLE      THEREBY            VIOLATING     THE
GUIDELINES EXPRESSED IN ARNESH KUMAR V STATE OF
BIHAR REPORTED IN 2014 (8) SCC 273 AND PUNISH HIM TO
THE MAXIMUM AS ER LAW PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A.


     THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, CHIEF
JUSTICE, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                              ORDER

Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently

submitted before this Court that the respondents have

committed a willful disobedience of the guidelines

expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of

SRI ARNESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER

reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 and as such are liable for

an action for committing the offence of contempt of Court.

Firstly, the learned counsel invited our attention to the

copy of judgment placed on record at vide Annexure-A and

CCC No. 1146 of 2022

particularly, the guidelines reflected in para No.11. The

emphasis on guidelines 11.7 reads thus:

"11.7. Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of Court to be instituted before the High Court having territorial jurisdiction."

2. Now, on the factum of the submissions of the

learned counsel, we have gone through the material

placed on record.

3. From the perusal of material placed on record,

the following things emerged:

4. The complainant was subjected to lodgment of

a report registered at Belthangadi Circle, Punjalakatte

Police Station at the instance of a complaint lodged by one

Smt. Bhavani and it was reported that the accused

persons i.e., accused Nos.1 and 2 committed the offence

under Sections 447 and 379 of IPC. The copy of the report

CCC No. 1146 of 2022

is placed on record. The complainant is shown as accused

No.2. The arrest of the complainant was effected on

02.12.2022. He was produced before the Magistrate and

on enquiry, the complainant submitted before the

Magistrate that his arrest was effected on 02.12.2022 at

night hours i.e., at 8.00 p.m. by the Police and same was

intimated to his mother. It is further stated before the

learned Magistrate that inspite of resistance of his mother,

the Police pulled him, arrested, brought to the Police

Station and then he made certain complaint and ill-treated

him by the concerned Police Station in-charge, attached to

Punjalakatte Police Station.

5. The learned Magistrate in clear unambiguous

words observed that "it is seen that, the police officer has

not followed the guidelines of Hon'ble Supreme Court at

the time of arrest of the accused, that too for the offence

punishable under Sections 447 and 379 of IPC which are

punishable up to 3 years."

CCC No. 1146 of 2022

6. Then, there is an important observation of the

learned Magistrate which reads thus:

"Issue intimation to his higher authority to take necessary action against the Police Officer for violation of the personal liberty of the accused."

7. Ultimately, the learned Magistrate was pleased

to protect the liberty of the complainant by issuing an

interim order by granting bail to the complainant. The

direction, above referred by the learned Magistrate, clearly

shows that the learned Magistrate found that there's

breach of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court

in the case of ARNESH KUMAR (SUPRA). As per guidelines

11.7, for failure to the direction, the learned Magistrate

directed the superior officer of the concerned Police

Station in-charge, attached to the said Police Station, to

take action against that particular officer i.e., the PSI who

was attached to the concerned Police Station.

CCC No. 1146 of 2022

Learned counsel for the complainant further

submitted that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of D.K.BASU VS. STATE OF WEST

BENGAL reported in AIR 1997 SC 610, the Police

authorities were required to issue prior notice to the

complainant before effecting his arrest. Since prior notice

was not issued, as such, the arrest of the complainant

itself was bad in law.

8. Now, this aspect of the matter would certainly

be beyond the scope of the contempt petition. It was the

submission of the learned counsel for the complainant that

failure to comply with the directions issued in the case of

D.K.BASU (SUPRA), is an act of willful disobedience of the

order of the Court and as such, it is also an additional

reason for initiation of an action against the respondents

for commission of an offence of contempt of courts.

9. Though the learned counsel vehemently

submitted this point, in our opinion, in contempt petition,

CCC No. 1146 of 2022

whether the effect of arrest was unsustainable or void in

law, cannot be a question which can be gone into and such

observation would be possible only when there is a fact

finding observation by the concerned judicial officer. As

such, in our opinion, the submissions of the learned

counsel based on the directions issued in the case of

D.K.BASU (SUPRA), the judgment may not be helpful in

the present contempt case. The other feature which

reveals from the material placed on record is that the

complainant in the present complaint makes the following

statement and they are reflected at page No.9 of the

complaint which reads as follows:

"The complainant's mother Smt. Mamata had opened the door of the house and at that moment, the accused pushed her and clandestinely entered the house and immediately caught hold of the neck of the complainant and dragged him into the veranda and started assaulting the complainant brutally and his banyan was torn".

CCC No. 1146 of 2022

10. Then it is stated that it is also pertinent that the

complainant and his parents were not informed of the

reason for the arrest and detention.

11. Now, on the factum of this statement, if we

once again peruse the order of learned Magistrate, it

reveals that all these statements which are made in the

complaint are made before the Magistrate when the

complainant was proeuced before the Magistrate and the

Magistrate gave him an opportunity to say at this point of

time and at this opportunity what the complainant stated

before the Magistrate is that he was arrested on

02.12.2022 at night hours at 8.00 p.m. by the Police and

the same was intimated to his mother and it is stated that

inspite of resistance of his mother, the police pulled him,

arrested and brought to the Police Station. Thus, it can

safely be said that there is some difference in the version

of the complainant, which was submitted before the

learned Magistrate. When he was produced before the

learned Magistrate, the complainant tries to add

CCC No. 1146 of 2022

something more than what he submitted before the

learned Magistrate by way of some additional statement in

the complaint. In our opinion, as already the learned

Magistrate took cognizance of the factual aspect, namely,

the statement made before him by the complainant -

accused and then specifically observed in the order that

the concerned Police Officer committed breach of the

guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court reflected in the case

of ARNESH KUMAR (SUPRA) and further directed to higher

officer to initiate an action against the erring officer, it will

be in the fitness of the screens that some opportunity

needs to be granted to seek what is the outcome of the

direction of the learned Magistrate. As such, in our

opinion, the civil contempt being premature at this stage,

we are not inclined to entertain the contempt.

Accordingly, the contempt petition is disposed of with

a direction to the learned Magistrate to call for the report

of compliance of his order as expeditiously as possible,

whereby the direction was issued to the higher authority

- 10 -

CCC No. 1146 of 2022

to initiate action against the erring officer. If such report is

submitted to the learned Magistrate and if the report in

clear words indicate that the officer concerned had acted

in breach of the guidelines issued in the case of ARNESH

KUMAR (SUPRA), the complainant may take appropriate

steps as provided under the provisions of law, if so

advised.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

SSB