SHAILESH KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed by a practicing Advocate of this Court under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. According to the petitioner, on 21-8-2003 the party of which respondent No. 6 was the District President, had called for a Ranchi Bundh. While he was coming to Court driving his own car to attend to his work, he was stopped on the way by 50 to 60 persons who surrounded the car and threatened him saying that if he breaks the bundh he will be finished. Four persons came up to the car shouting that he be burnt and one of them started to sprinkle some thing from a container on to the car with a view to set it on fire. He was not allowed even to come out of the car. He was not allowed to take the car in reverse gear so that he could escape the threatened violence. The supporters of the bundh pounced upon the car and started attacking it with iron rods and sticks leading to the wind screen and the window panes being broken. Though the petitioner saw a patrolling party of police men stationed near the place on the incident at Kokar Chowk, yet none of the police personnel took any steps to come to the rescue of the petitioner and to save his property from the attack of the mob which consisted of persons who claimed to be the members of the political, party that had called the bundh. He had lodged a First Information Report with the Senior Superintendent of Police about the incident and of the alleged attempt to kill him and the damage caused to his car in the presence of police personnel.

(2.) Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in the petition are the State of Jharkhand and the police officials and respondent No. 6 is the District President of a political party which had allegedly called for the bundh. According to the petitioner. Contempt of Court has been committed by those belonging to the party represented by respondent No. 6, since they had called a bundh and enforced it, thus, committing contempt of the decision of the Supreme Court in Communist Party of India (M) v. Bharat Kumar, 1998 (1) SCC 201. His further case is that he being an officer of Court, obstructing him from performing his duties as an Advocate by appearing in Court, amounts to obstructing the course of justice and consequently the commission of a criminal contempt as defined in the Contempt of Courts Act. Thus, two aspects were put forward, first commission of civil contempt by disobeying the decision of the Supreme Court and criminal contempt by obstructing the performance of duties by a lawyer, amounting to obstructing the course of Justice.

(3.) In the affidavits filed, respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have conceded that a bundh was called for on 21 -8-2003 and it was held. But they pleaded that they had taken all possible steps to meet the situation arising out of calling for the bundh and they had done their best to ensure that there was no violence during the bundh or any Illegal obstruction to others caused by the supporters of the bundh. They submit that the complaint filed by the petitioner was registered and investigation is going on and they are not guilty of either civil contempt or of criminal contempt as alleged by the petitioner. They have denied the allegation of inaction on their part and attempted to say that at or about the spot where the Incident allegedly took place, there was no police party as claimed by the petitioner. But as it appears from the materials furnished by them there was a police party in the vicinity as per the directions issued for deployment of forces on that day.