MARIAPPAN Vs. J.K. TRIPATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, namely, Mariappan and Veeraputheeran, are accused in Cr.No.4 of 2019 on the file of the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Virudhunagar, second respondent herein and moved this petition to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondent and to punish the respondent for willfully disobeying the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.1277 of 2014 dated 02.07.2014.

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that one Michael Raja preferred a complaint against them before the second respondent Police on a financial transaction with an allegation that when the defacto complainant approached the first petitioner for the purpose of getting a loan to an extent of Rs.5,00,000/-, the first petitioner arranged the loan through one Santhosh Kumar and as a security for the same, obtained a mortgage deed of the complainant property in favour of the first petitioner on 23.02.2010. According to the complainant the entire loan amount was repaid by him to the first petitioner but he inturn did not pay the same to the lender-Santhosh Kumar and also refused to cancel the registered mortgage deed even after the settlement. Therefore, the complainant Michael Raja preferred a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar, who forwarded the same to the District Crime Branch, Virudhunagar, for an enquiry. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Virudhunagar, the second respondent herein registered a case in Cr.No.4 of 2019 as against these petitioners and one Karuppasamy for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 34 of IPC and also arrested the accused on 11.06.2019 and remanded them to Judicial custody.

(3.) Aggrieved over the same, the present contempt petition is filed. Mr.K.P.S.Palanivel Rajan, learned counsel for the petitioners in support of this contempt petition, referring to the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lalitha Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2013 (6) CTC 353, submits that the averment in the complaint is of commercial nature and therefore, the respondent Police, after the receipt of the complaint, ought to have conducted a preliminary enquiry before registering the case, but, instead, the second respondent registered the case without conducting any preliminary enquiry and also arrested the petitioners. It is also the case of the petitioners that the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another reported in 2014 (3) SCC Crl. 449 have not been followed in this case.