2015 (1) TMI 1439 - HC - Indian Laws

Contempt petition - wilful disobedience of the order passed - appellant submitted that admittedly the appellant was not a party to the order passed there is neither a wilful disobedience nor non compliance of the order passed - HELD THAT - Admittedly the appellant was not a party to the order passed. There is no difficulty in appreciating the principle of law that a contempt would lie even against the person who is not a party to the order alleged to have been violated. However in the case on hand the appellant has not violated the order passed. In other words the order passed was based on a misrepresentation for which the appellant 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 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.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Allegation of contempt of court by the appellant.
2. Determination of wilful disobedience of the court order.
3. Procedural aspects and jurisdiction of contempt proceedings.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Allegation of contempt of court by the appellant:
The contempt appeals were filed against the order in Contempt Petition No.1390 of 2012 in Crl.O.P.No.25046 of 2011. The first respondent had sought a direction to complete the investigation on complaints dated 23.05.2011 and 25.05.2011 and file a final report. The learned single Judge directed the second respondent police to investigate impartially and file the final report within 60 days. The appellant registered the complaint on 08.05.2012 and sought an extension to file the final report, which was granted. The first respondent alleged that the appellant committed contempt by registering the complaint contrary to the statement made before the court, leading to Contempt Petition No.1390 of 2012. The learned single Judge found the appellant guilty of wilful disobedience and civil contempt.

2. Determination of wilful disobedience of the court order:
The appellant argued that there was no wilful disobedience as he was not a party to the original order and had acted to remedy a misrepresentation by registering the complaint. The court reiterated that contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal and require a high standard of proof. The court must find sufficient evidence of wilfulness, which means intentional, conscious, and deliberate actions. The appellant's actions were seen as an attempt to comply with the order, not as wilful disobedience. The court emphasized that inadvertent mistakes or misunderstandings do not constitute contempt.

3. Procedural aspects and jurisdiction of contempt proceedings:
The court discussed the principles governing contempt proceedings, highlighting that they should be exercised with caution and care. The court should not delve into the minutiae of the contemnor's actions beyond the scope of the alleged contempt. The Supreme Court's judgment in RAM KISHAN V. SH.TARUN BAJAJ was cited, emphasizing that contempt jurisdiction is a powerful weapon that must be used judiciously. The court found that the appellant's actions did not amount to wilful disobedience and that procedural irregularities pointed out were not relevant to the contempt proceedings.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the appellant had not wilfully disobeyed the order and set aside the order in the contempt petition. Contempt Appeal No.1 of 2013 was allowed, and Contempt Appeal No.3 of 2013 was closed as abated. The court noted that the jurisdiction in contempt petitions is limited and that the first respondent had not proven a wilful and deliberate violation by the appellant.