SOU MEGHANA RAMACHANDRA KOTTAWAR Vs. ASHWINI RAMESH PATWARDHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Returnable forthwith. Shri Oka and Shri Apte waive service. By consent heard finally. 1 . The petitioner has filed this application under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act and prayed for punishing the respondents for having committed contempt of the court's order passed by this court in Criminal Application No. 3304 of 1997 on 15/6/1998. For proper appreciation, a few relevant facts need to be stated.

(2.) THE Respondent No.1 filed Criminal Case No.338 of 1995 against the petitioner and two others in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalyan on 5/12/1995 alleging that they had committed offences punishable under section 3 of the Maharashtra Flat Ownership Act, 1993 and under sections 403, 406, r/w Section 34 of I.P.Code. The learned Magistrate issued process against all the 3 accused on 19/8/1996. The petitioner feeling aggrieved thereby filed criminal revision application No. 119 of 1996. The Court of Additional Judge, Kalyan by his order dated 19/9/1997 partly allowed it and quashed the order of the issue of process in so far as it related to the offence punishable under section 406 of I.P.Code. The petitioner thereafter, filed Criminal Application No. 3304 of 1997 in the High Court challenging the order of issue of process against her. The said application was admitted by a learned single Judge of this court by his order dated 15/6/1998 and the further proceedings of the criminal case was stayed. It is not disputed that the stay issued by this court was operative at the relevant time since the criminal revision application was still pending. Despite this fact the said case appears to have been proceeded with. Roznama dated 13/10/2000 in the said criminal case records that both the parties were absent when called out. Therefore, notices were directed to be issued to both the parties. Accordingly notice (Annexure A 8 page 56) came to be issued to the respondent No.1 whereby she was informed that her case was lying unattended and the same was therefore, fixed on 21/11/2000. By the same notice she was called upon to attend the court, failing which exparte order would be passed against her. The said notice was served on respondent No.1 on the same day. Although similar notice was also directed to be issued to the other side i.e. accused, no such notice appears to have been issued to the petitioner. Therefore, she did not remain present before the court on 21/11/2000. On that day respondent No.1 and the other accused were not present. The respondent No.2 who is the advocate of the respondent No.1, therefore, moved an application (page 59) on the same day and prayed for issue of non bailable warrant against the accused. The court allowed that application and directed to issue non bailable warrant against accused. It appears that thereafter, the case was adjourned from time to time for about a year ignoring the fact that the criminal revision application filed by the respondent No.1 in the High Court was still pending and that the stay order passed on 15/6/1997 had not been vacated. It appears that respondent No.1 attended the court on several dates but she found that none of the accused had remained present before the court. Hence finally on 4/10/2001 respondent No.4 who appeared on behalf of the respondent No.1 as her advocate and who is said to be the Assistant of Respondent No.2, moved an application (Annexure A9 page 58) pointing out that the accused had remained absent on several dates and that on that date also they were absent. It was therefore, prayed that the court should issue warrants against them and that the warrants should be handed over to the respondent No.1 for execution. The said application was allowed by the court who directed issue of non bailable warrant against the accused including the petitioner.

(3.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that the conduct of the respondent in getting petitioner arrested was deliberate and they intended to humiliate her despite the fact that the criminal case in which the said warrant of arrest was issued was stayed. It may be pointed out that initially the learned Magistrate who directed to issue non bailable warrant was added as respondent No.3, but later on as per the order dated 21/12/2001 passed by a Single Judge in this proceedings, his name was deleted. The petitioner was however, allowed to implead respondent No.4 who had given the application dated 4/10/01. Date: 11th June, 2002.