STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. SHRI AKHILESH SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition arises out of the letter dated 31.1.09 written by th District & Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur addressed to the Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, forwarding the letter dated 29.1.09 written by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur, referring the matter to the High Court, for taking necessary action against Shri Akhilesh Kumar, who was serving as SHO, Police Station Maan Town, Sawai Madhopur, under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') for the alleged non -compliance of his order dated 1.10.08. The court vide order dated 20th April, 2009 had issued the notice to the said Akhilesh Kumar and directed the learned Government Counsel Shri Pradeep Kalwania to represent the interest of the State in the contempt petition. In response to the said notice, the respondent Shri Akhilesh Kumar has filed his reply, to which rejoinder has been filed by the Dy. S.P., Sawai Madhopur on behalf of the State. The record of the case called for by the court, has also been perused.

(2.) IT appears that one Shri Harphool Meena S/o. Jansi, R/o. Basokala, Tehsil Khandar, District Sawai Madhopur had lodged a complaint on 10.10.06 at Police Station Maan Town, Sawai Madhopur alleging inter alia that his son Hansraj, who was living in Adarsh Nagar was detained in the lockup at the Police Station, Maan Town on 30.9.06, and that on 1.10.06 two constables had come to inform him that his son was in the lockup; that the complainant went with the said constables to the Police Station and at about 12.00, the complainant was taken to the General Hospital, where his son was declared dead. It was alleged in the complaint that the son of the complainant was beaten and murdered by the police officers when he was in police custody. On the basis of the said complaint, an FIR came to be registered being No. 434/06 under Section 143, 302 and 201 of IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It appears that thereafter an enquiry was conducted by the Addl. S.P., CID (CB), who after investigation filed the final report before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur, who accepted the same vide order dated 25.6.07. It appears that thereafter on 29.10.07 the protest petition having been filed by the complainant i.e. the father of the deceased, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 1.10.08 appointed the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur City to hold judicial enquiry into the matter and directed to complete the inquiry within one month on the receipt of the application from the concerned Investigating Officer. It appears that thereafter the Chief Judicial Magistrate had written the letter dated 3.10.08 to the concerned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, the copy of which was sent to the SHO, Maan Town Police Station, Sawai Madhopur, informing him about the order and directing to cooperate with the enquiry officer in the enquiry. It appears that thereafter the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur again wrote a letter dated 15.11.08 to concerned SHO informing him as to what documents were produced by him before the enquiry officer. It further appears that in response to the letter dated 7.1.09 written by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate vide letter dated 16.1.09 had replied that no documents were submitted by the SHO, Maan Town Police Station in the enquiry proceedings. The Chief Judicial Magistrate thereafter had written the letter to the Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur dated 29.1.09 through the District Judge, Sawai Madhopur requesting to take appropriate action for the civil contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, as there was non -compliance of the order dated 1.10.08 at the instance of the SHO, Maan Town Police Station. The said letter was forwarded by the District Judge, Sawai Madhopur to the Registrar General and accordingly the present petition was registered against Shri Akhilesh Kumar, the then SHO, Maan Town Police Station.

(3.) HOWEVER , the learned counsel Mr. B.N. Sandu for the respondent has submitted that the respondent has tendered an unconditional apology for the alleged non -compliance of the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. According to him, earlier the enquiry was conducted by the Addl. S.P., CID (CB) who had filed the final report which was already accepted by the concerned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate on 25.6.07 and hence he was under the bonafide impression that nothing was required to be done by him. He further submitted that even otherwise the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate who conducted the judicial enquiry, has also submitted his report dated 28.5.11, observing inter -alia that there were no injuries found on the dead -body of the deceased Hansraj Meena. Mr. Sandu also submitted that there was no deliberate disobedience on the part of the respondent in not complying with the order dated 1.10.08, and hence the present proceedings be dropped.