KAN SINGH Vs. USHA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This contempt petition was heard along with the main writ petition No. 198/94 as being linked with the said writ petition. The opposite party No. 1 had filed an F.I.R. against petitioners on 29-3-1992 and on her request, the Deputy Secretary, Home, passed an order dated 14-10-1993 to transfer the investigation from one officer to another. However, the said order was not given effect to and the police report was filed before the competent Court, by the Investigation Officer, who had been restrained to investigate vide order dated 14-10-93. However, the same was rejected by the Court vide order dated 26-10-1993 which directed another officer to investigate the case as per earlier order dated 14-10-1993. Order dated 26-10-1993 was also not complied with. The competent criminal Court issued proceedings for contempt vide order dated 30-3-1994. Applicants filed writ petition No. 198/1994 wherein by way of passing an interim order dated 10-5-1994 this Court stayed operation of orders dated 14-10-1993, 26-10-1993 and 30-3-1994 till further orders.

(2.) The non-petitioner No. 1 filed another F.I.R. on 30-3-1995 as contained in Annexure R1/2 to this petition. Newspapers, namely, "Teesra Prahar" and " Punjab Kesri" whereof non-petitioners Nos. 4 and 5 are the editors, published the news about lodging of the said F.I.R. on 4-4-1995. The instant contempt petition has been filed on the basis that the said F.I.R. has been lodged to circumvent the interim order dated 10-5-1994 and it amounts to interference with the administration of justice and, relief sought in this petition is that the proceedings be quashed and investigation be stayed.

(3.) In reply to this petition, the non-applicants Nos. 4 and 5 i.e. Sri Raj Kumar Vyas and Sri Vijay Kumar, came forward with a plain and simple defence that they are the editors of newspapers and their correspondents had sent them the news after verifying it from the police station and they published it in good faith. They were not aware of the earlier proceedings and the Court order. The news was published in a routine manner and no ulterior motive can be attributed to them and there was no wilful defiance of any order of the Court by them. They also stated that had they been aware of earlier Court proceedings, they could not have published the said news and they also tendered their absolute and unconditional apology.