SANTOSH KUMAR PANDEY Vs. GEETA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Shri Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Pankaj Khare, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and also perused the record.

(2.) This contempt application has been filed praying that the opposite party be suitably punished for wilful disobedience of the orders dated 27.5.2017 and 28.7.2017 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow in Case No. 1493 of 2017.

(3.) The facts in brief are that on 25.5.2016 the petitioner lodged an FIR at Police Station Aliganj, Lucknow against three persons, which was registered as case Crime No. 229 of 2016, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B IPC. The police immediately after registration of the FIR, arrested one of the accused, namely, Pradeep Singh Chauhan while another co-accused Kusum Singh Chauhan sought her arrest by this Court. According to the petitioner, during the course of investigation substantive evidence was found against the accused Munna Singh Chauhan and Amir Alam but for the reason best known to the police, no action was taken against them. The petitioner moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for fair and proper investigation, which was disposed of on 27.5.2017 directing the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation as per the observation made by the Court and file charge sheet and also arrest the co-accused Amir Alam. When the order dated 27.5.2017 was not complied with by the police, the petitioner filed another application before the Magistrate concerned seeking progress report of the investigation. There-upon the police sought order under Section 82 Cr.P.C., upon which the court issued non-bailable warrant against him and also issued process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. Thereafter when no action was taken, the petitioner again moved an application seeking progress report but in the meantime, the Investigating Officer was changed and the new Investigating Officer submitted a report to the effect that since no reliable evidence had been found against the accused Amir Alam, therefore the order issuing proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. be withdrawn.