RAJESH MODAK AND ORS. Vs. RAHUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This special appeal has arisen from an order of the learned Single Judge in the exercise of the contempt jurisdiction by which the learned Single Judge has observed that the frequent transfer of police officers has affected the smooth administration of justice and amounts to criminal contempt.

(2.) The respondent instituted Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.16712 of 2015 claiming that he was married to Km. Arti (who was impleaded as the second petitioner to the writ petition). On this basis, he sought to challenge the proceedings in Case Crime No.383 of 2015 under Sections 363 and 366 of the Penal Code at Police Station Kotwali, District Etawah. The writ petition was heard by a Division Bench of this Court on 14 July 2015 when an order was passed to the effect that until further orders of the Court, further proceedings in Case Crime No.383 of 2015 under Sections 363 and 366 of the Penal Code shall remain stayed.

(3.) A certified copy of the order of the Division Bench was made available by the computerized copying section of this Court on 24 July 2015 (the same date on which an application for a certified copy was made). A certified copy together with an application of the respondent was forwarded on 26 July 2015 to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Etawah (Annexure 11). In the meantime, it appears that the statement of Km. Arti was recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah on 23 July 2015 to the effect that the respondent had misrepresented his religion and that she had been abducted after being administered an intoxicant upon which she had been raped and confined. The First Information Report in the case had been registered on 21 June 2015. The victim was taken into protective custody at the roadways bus stand at Etawah upon which she was medically examined on 22 July 2015. Her statement was recorded thereafter on 23 July 2015. A contempt petition was filed by the respondent in which it was alleged that in spite of the order passed by the Division Bench on 14 July 2015, a notice of proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. was affixed which, it was submitted, amounted to a contemptuous act. The respondent averred that he had attempted to serve a certified copy of the order dated 14 July 2015 upon the SSP, Etawah and SHO personally but no receipt was issued, as a result of which, he had forwarded a certified copy by registered post. The date of the application on which service upon the SSP Etawah and SHO was attempted was stated to be 16 July 2015.