MISHRILAL Vs. VIDHYADHAR SINGH POONIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have perused the case diary of Crime No. 131/93, Police Station, Shahpura as also the case diary of criminal complaint No. 33/93 u/s. 41 (2)/110 Cr. P. C. of Police Station, Shahpura initiated against petitioner Mishrilal. I have also perused the reply filed by the contemners.

(2.) PETITIONER Mishrilal and one Hansraj filed a petition u/sec. 482 Cr. P. C. bearing S. B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 515/93 in this court and prayed for quashing the FIR No. 131/93, whereby a criminal case for the offences u/ss. 447 and 427 IPC and sec. 3 (x), S. C. /s. T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' was registered against them and for setting aside the order dated 28. 8. 93 passed by the learned Special Judge, S. C/s. T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Bhilwara dismissing their anticipatory bail petition. This Court vide its order dated 10. 9. 93 ordered for issuing notices to the respondents, returnable within four weeks. In S. B. Cr. Misc. Stay Petition No. 344/93, it was further ordered that meanwhile, petitioners (1) Mishrilal and (2) Hans Raj shall not be arrested for the offence u/sec. 3 (1) (x) of the Act in Crime No. 131/93, Police Station, Shahpura, Distt. Bhilwara. It was further directed that however investigation in respect of other offences mentioned in the aforementioned case shall continue in accordance with law. Notices were sent to the Public Prosecutor as also to complainant-respondent Ugma. Ugma was served on 25. 9. 93. The Public Prosecutor was also served. Thus, the service was complete. However, the office did not list the case after four weeks before the Bench for one reason or the other. The case was listed on 21. 2. 94 and that thereafter on 8. 3. 94 but no effective hearing took place nor the stay order dated 10. 9. 93 was expressly extended. It appears that the contemner Vidhyadhar Singh Puniya, Dy. S. P. , Shahpura arrested the petitioner on 26. 11. 93 under the impression that the stay order dated 10. 9. 93 was effective for four weeks only and thereafter no extension of the said order was communicated by the court. Mr. Vidhyadhar Singh Puniya in his reply has tendered unconditional and unqualified apology for any contempt committed by him advertently or inadvertently. He has submitted that he did not deliberately disobey the order of this court but bonafidely believed that the ad interim order dated 10. 9. 93 was effective only for a period of four weeks arid had come to an end.