SUO MOTU Vs. SANTY GEORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel appearing for the alleged contemnor has relinquished his Vakalath and alleged contemnor appears in person. Alleged contemnor/party in person has filed I.A. No. 4 of 2020 for a direction to drop the entire proceedings against him. In the supporting affidavit, at paragraph Nos. 2 to 7, he has averred as hereunder:

(2.) Further, inviting the attention of this Court to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in suo motu C.C. (Crl.) No. 1 of 2009 reported in 2009 (1) KLT 695, alleged contemnor submitted that as per Section 15(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Rules 7 and 9 of Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules framed by this Court, a Full Court Reference is required before initiating suo motu contempt and in the absence of the above, decision taken by the Hon'ble Chief Justice on the basis of a complaint written by a former Judge of this Court, Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. Kemal Pasha, is not a correct approach.

(3.) Party in person further submitted that as per Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, "complaint"? means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under the Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report. According to the party in person, a complaint ought to have been preferred to the concerned Magistrate and that suo motu contempt proceedings cannot be initiated.