TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1439X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... criminal contempt. He has not interfered with the flow of justice. Though it can be said that the approach of the appellant is over zealous, it cannot be termed as an act in violation of the order passed. The appellant may be wrong in his conclusion for which, the remedy for the first respondent lies elsewhere. The submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent on the non compliance of the provisions of the Original Side Rules has got no bearing on the contempt petition. But, the appellant has complied with the order passed. In any case, the said issue cannot be a ground to haul the appellant for a contempt. The first respondent has not proved a wilful and deliberate violation of the order passed on the part of the appellant. The learned single Judge has also not given any specific findings on the same. Though certain procedural irregularities were pointed out, we are not concerned with this in these proceedings - the order passed in contempt petition is hereby set aside. - Contempt Appeal Nos. 1 and 3 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 12-1-2015 - Mr. Sanjay Kishan Kaul And Mr. M.M.Sundresh, JJ. For Appellant: Mr.R.Thiagarajan, Mr.T.Kannan, Mr.S. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... station after the pronouncement of the order in Crl.O.P.No.25046 of 2011. Finding that no case has been registered as stated before the Court, the appellant duly registered the complaint made by the first respondent on 08.05.2012 in Crime No.30 of 2012. Thereafter, the appellant sought for extension of time in Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2012 in Crl.O.P.No.25046 of 2011. Accordingly, by an order dated 14.06.2012, the time granted earlier was extended for a further period of three months to file the final report. The appellant duly filed the final report before the jurisdictional Court. 6. Alleging that the appellant has committed contempt of the order passed in Crl.O.P.No.25046 of 2011, by registering the complaint said to have been made on 08.05.2012 by the first respondent as against the statement made before the Court, the first respondent has filed Contempt Petition No.1390 of 2012 before the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge, by an elaborate order, found that the appellant in Contempt Appeal No.3 of 2013 has committed wilful disobedience of the order passed. Incidentally, it was held that the conduct of the appellant in Contempt Appeal No.1 of 2013 also warranted a punishm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the entire matrix, both on facts and law, no interference is required. 9. Proceeding with a contempt is a business between the Court and the contemnor. A person who initiates a contempt proceeding cannot have a bigger role than that of an informer with respect to a criminal contempt. When a person alleges wilful disobedience of an order passed by another, the onus is wholly on him to substantiate it. The proceedings are like in a criminal case which is inclusive of the standard of proof required. They are quasi criminal nature. The power of the Court, which exercises its contempt jurisdiction, is a special and rare one. Therefore, it has to be exercised with circumspection caution and care. There has to be sufficient evidence leading to a finding on the wilfulness relatable to the contemnor. When there are two views possible on the alleged action or inaction of the contemnor, then the benefit of doubt will have to be extended to him. These are the underlining principles governing contempt proceedings before a Court of law. A mere surmise or conjuncture can never be a basis to haul a person for contempt. An inadvertence mistake or misunderstanding of an order of Court would no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onal acts or genuine inability. Wilful acts does not encompass involuntarily or negligent actions. The act has to be done with a bad purpose or without justifiable excuse or stubbornly, obstinately or perversely?. Wilful act is to be distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. It does not include any act done negligently or involuntarily. The deliberate conduct of a person means that he knows what he is doing and intends to do the same. Therefore, there has to be a calculated action with evil motive on his part. Even if there is a disobedience of an order, but such disobedience is the result of some compelling circumstances under which it was not possible for the contemnor to comply with the order, the contemnor cannot be punished. ''Committal or sequestration will not be ordered unless contempt involves a degree of default or misconduct . (Vide: S. Sundaram Pillai, etc. v. V.R. Pattabiraman; AIR 1985 SC 582; Rakapalli Raja Rama Gopala Rao v. Naragani Govinda Sehararao Anr., AIR 1989 SC 2185; Niaz Mohammad Ors. etc.etc. v. State of Haryana Ors., AIR 1995 SC 308; Chordia Automobiles v. S. Moosa, AIR 2000 SC 1880; M/s. Ashok Pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant cannot be held responsible. He merely made an attempt to remedy the mistake committed on registering the complaint said to have been given by the first respondent. In other words, the appellant made an attempt to comply with the order passed though he was not a party to it. Such an attempt cannot be termed as wilful or deliberate and contravention of the said order. In such view of the order, it can also be termed either as a civil or criminal contempt. He has not interfered with the flow of justice. Though it can be said that the approach of the appellant is over zealous, it cannot be termed as an act in violation of the order passed. The appellant may be wrong in his conclusion for which, the remedy for the first respondent lies elsewhere. The submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent on the non compliance of the provisions of the Original Side Rules has got no bearing on the contempt petition. But, the appellant has complied with the order passed. In any case, the said issue cannot be a ground to haul the appellant for a contempt. The learned single Judge has gone into the merits of the case, which we feel is not required while dealing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
