NIRALI DIPENBHAI PATEL Vs. BHARTASINH RATHWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is filed under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1971') alleging that the respondents have intentionally and will fully violated the direction issued by this Court in the order dated 3.4.2017 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.8519 of 2017.

(2.) Heard learned advocate Mr. Nirad D Buch for the applicant and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Devnani for the respondents.

(3.) It is submitted by learned advocate for the applicant that the FIR being C.R.No.I-44 of 2017 is filed with Rajkot Taluka police station against the applicant and two others for the offences punishable under Sections 365 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code. The said FIR is filed on 14.3.2017. The applicant and other accused have filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.8519 of 2017 for quashing of the said FIR and proceedings arising therefrom. It is submitted that this Court passed an order on 3.4.2017 by which this Court has observed that the investigation may continue, however, no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicants on condition that the applicant shall extend full cooperation in the investigation. It is submitted that the copy of the said order was served to the concerned police station on 5.4.2017. In spite of service of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, on 27.4.2017 at 6.30 p.m., the respondent no.3 came at the place of the applicant. At that time, she was in the house of her neighbour and she was taken to the police station. Thereafter, the respondent no.3 called the respondent nos.1 and 2 and respondent nos.1 and 2 reached Nikol police station in the midnight. Thereafter, she was taken to Bopal and in the morning at 6.30 p.m., she was permitted to leave the police station. Thus, the applicant was illegally detained by the respondents in spite of the order passed by this Court that no coercive steps shall be taken by the applicant. It is, therefore, alleged that the respondents have intentionally and willfully disobeyed the direction given by this Court and therefore proceedings under the Act of 1971 be initiated against the respondents.