PUKHRAJ PRAJAPATI Vs. NARENDRA DAYAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This contempt petition has been filed alleging willful disobedience of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.539/1986 with Writ Petition (Criminal) No.592/1987 dtd. 18/12/1996 in D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal with Ashok K. Johri Vs. State of U.P. The facts/allegations, as per the contempt petition, are that the petitioner was arrested by the respondent No.1 on 1/4/2013 but fabricated the documents showing his arrest on 2/4/2013 and in the arrest memo, the respondents No.2 & 3 had put their signatures as "motbir witness". It is averred that during his police custody, he was subjected to physical violence as is apparent from his medical examination conducted on 6/4/2013 which reveal six bodily injuries. It is averred that his complaint against the violation of his fundamental rights as also the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of D.K. Basu (supra), came to be dismissed by the Assistant Police Commissioner, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (West) vide order dtd. 4/2/2015 on the premise that on his complaint containing similar allegations, the Court of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.11, Jaipur Metropolitan has already taken cognizance under Sec. 323 IPC against the erring respondents.

(2.) Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 raised a preliminary objection as to maintainability of the contempt petition. He submitted that as per the memo of contempt petition, the contempt was allegedly committed in the first week of April, 2013; but, the contempt petition has been filed as late as on 27/7/2015 in which the contempt proceeding has not been initiated till date. He submits that in view of provisions of Sec. 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for brevity, "the Act of 1971"), the contempt petition is barred by limitation. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the contempt petition on this count alone. Learned Senior Counsel, in support of his submissions, relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Om Prakash Jaiswal Vs. D.K. Mittal & Ors.: AIR 2000 SC 1136 as also a Division Bench judgment of this Court in case of Rajasthan University & College Teachers Association Vs. Shri Anil Vaish & Anr.: 2006 WLC (Raj.) UC Pg.751. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that cause of action for filing of the contempt petition arose only when his complaint was dismissed by the Assistant Police Commissioner, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (West) vide order dtd. 4/2/2015. With regard to initiation of contempt proceedings, he submits that since, he has filed the contempt petition within limitation, it should not be thrown away only because notice for initiation of contempt petition could not be issued within time by this Court. He, therefore, prays for rejection of the preliminary objection raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.1.

(3.) Heard. Considered.