CHHAGANLAL Vs. B B BHARDWAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has moved this application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act against the non-petitioners who are the SHO and Head Constable of the Police Station Tehla, district Alwar for disobeying the order dated 5. 10. 1988 passed by this Court in S. B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2581/88. This application under Section 438 Cr. P. C. was allowed and it was directed that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner he shall be released on bail on certain conditions. THE petitioner obtained certified copy of this order dated 5. 10. 1989 and went to the Police Station Tehla on the next day last 6. 10. 1988 and informed the Station House (Officer about the order of this Court. On 8. 10. 1988 at about 9. 30 P. M. the non-petitioners came at the residence of the petitioner at Phulera with other police personnel in civil dress. THE petitioner showed the order of this Court but he was arrested and taken to Police Station Tehla. According to the petitioner, the order of this Court was wilfully and knowingly disobeyed and the petitioner who was prepared to furnish bail and bonds was not allowed to do so. THE petitioner was taken in custody and the present contempt petition was moved by his wife Smt. Kamla with the prayer that the Station House Officer and the Head Constable, be punished and that the petitioner be released from custody. This petition was presented on 25th Oct. 1988 and on 15. 11. 1988 it was orded that notice be issued to the non-petitioners to show cause as to why they should not be punished for contempt of Court.

(2.) THE respondents denied having committed any contempt of this Court. At this stage I am not going into the details of the factual aspect of the matter as first the legal objection raised by the respondents is to be decided.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the non-petitioners has tried to place before me the circumstances on basis of which it is argued that the alleged contempt in the present case amounts to criminal contempt. Referring to paragraphs 4 and 8 of the rejoinder submitted by the petitioner, it has been contended that when the petitioner feels that there has been a disregard for the majesty of law and the act of the non-petitioners tantamounts to interference with the administration of justice then these matters would fall under the definition of criminal contempt and in such a case cognizance can be taken only in accordance with Sections 15 and 18 of the Act.