SUNIL KUMAR CHAUDHARY Vs. NANDAN ARYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner who filed this Criminal Contempt Petition under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is the only Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 991 of 2004 (M/B). He prays for summoning the Respondents and punishing them in accordance with law for committing wilful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court.

(2.) THE Respondents in this petition are (1) Sri Nandan Arya, Additional Government Advocate, State of Uttaranchal, Nainital; (2) Sri Asarhu Lal Arya, Inspector, Vigilance Establishment, State of Uttaranchal, Dehradun and (3) Sri Am it Agarwal, S/o SH Naveen Agarwal, R/o 61/2 Balveer Road, Dehradun. The allegation is that when Writ Petition No. 991 of 2004 (M/B) came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court on 20 -04 -2005, the first Respondent, acting at the behest of Respondents Nos. 2 and 3, made a false statement before the Court that charge -sheet in the criminal case from which the said writ petition arose had been filed against the Petitioner and in view of the said statement, the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous. It is stated that the aforesaid statement of Respondent No. 1 was totally false as no such charge -sheet had been filed. It is alleged that such a false statement was made by the first Respondent at the instance of Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and that their action was not only illegal but also malafide. It is further stated that in the interest of justice this Court may summon the Respondents and punish them in accordance with law for committing criminal contempt.

(3.) EVERY petition in respect of criminal contempt, where it is not moved by the Advocate General and where the consent in writing of the Advocate General had not been obtained and every petition in regard to criminal contempt of a subordinate court where no reference has been made by it and the petition is moved without the consent of the Advocate General, shall c early state the reasons why the consent in writing of the Advocate General could not be obtained and why the court has been approached to act suo motu.