(1.) Indeed Contempt of Court has been described as "the proteus of the legal world, assuming an almost infinite variety of forms". The history of this case exemplifies the above statement. A Peon of this Court was entrusted with the task of serving notice in a Habeas Corpus Petition. The first respondent herein was one of the respondents on whom the notice was to be served. The Peon went to the house of the first respondent in the company of another person who offered to identify the person. The first respondent is a tea-shop owner. As he was away in the tea-shop he was sent for Second respondent, who is also one of the contemnors, was present in the house of the first respondent. The Habeas Corpus petition was filed in respect of one Beena, who was the wife's sister of the 2nd respondent. Beena was also present in the house of the first respondent. First respondent immediately came to his house and enquired what the matter was. The Peon, who was anxious to serve summons on the first respondent, explained that he had been deputed by the High Court to serve an order. The latter demanded him to read and explain the order. The Peon is alleged to have read over the contents of the order. It is further alleged that the first respondent suddenly got enraged and snatched away the papers from the Peon and uttered that they did not contain the seal of the Court. The Peon tried to explain that it contained an embossing seal and requested that the papers shall not be torn and damaged. The first respondent then exhorted the 2nd respondent not to leave the Peon. Second respondent suddenly attacked the Peon by punching him on the stomach. The respondents together dragged the Peon to a nearby room and locked him there. The Peon made a hue and cry and hearing his outcry the neighbours collected and at their instance the Peon was released from the room. He later gave statement before the Police and on the same day he was admitted in a hospital. On the fifth day he gave a statement before the Registrar of this Court. The matter was ordered to be placed on the judicial side and the Division Bench of this Court decided to take suo motu action in the matter under R.7 of the Contempt of Courts Rules.
(2.) Notices were issued to the respondents. Respondents filed two counter affidavits each. In the first counter affidavit dated 8-4-92, the first respondent has not specifically denied the allegations made by the peon in the statement and the details mentioned in it. There is only a general denial of the incident. His case is that a person came to his house accompanied by a friend of the petitioner in the Habeas Corpus Petition. The person lookout a sheet of paper from his plastic packet and handed over to him. As the first respondent was illiterate he handed over the same to Beena. She said that it was not summons arid it was a fraud played on them. On seeing the person who accompanied the peon she cried aloud stating that it was in his house she was formerly wrongfully confined by the petitioner in the Habeas Corpus Petition and it was he who had requested for her gold ornaments. This respondent further alleges that Beena is closely related to his wife and from 13-2-92 onwards several strangers had come to his house pretending as sales agents, agricultural demonstrators etc. in order to contact the girl Beena. The further case of the first respondent is that the 2nd respondent then caught hold of the person who accompanied the Peon thinking that be was an agent of the petitioner in the Habeas Corpus Petition. Then the Peon all on a sudden tried to run away and in this attempt he fell on the ground near the door steps. The matter was informed to the police and the police informed this respondent that the peon was deputed from the High Court. It is alleged that then only the first respondent realised that he was a Peon of the High Court.
(3.) In another affidavit filed on 9-4-92, he had reiterated what he had stated in the earlier affidavit and offered unconditional a pology and requested for pardon. It is stated in the second affidavit that he had already suffered a lot due to the mental agony caused by this case and the connected criminal case.