Back
2020 Supreme(SC) 655
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.A. BOBDE, CJI., A.S. BOPANNA, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.
T.S.K. Ashwin Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Tubati Srivalli and Others – Respondent
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 444 of 2020 in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10686 of 2020 with Diary No. 17301 of 2020
Decided On : 06-11-2020
For the Appellant :Mr. B.H Marlapalle, Senior Advocate, Mr. Gaichangpou Gangmei, AOR
For the Respondent:Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Sr. Advocate, Mr. N. Ashwani Kumar, Mr. Pai Amit, Mr. Rajesh Inamdar, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINT
Contempt of Court – Any attempt to overreach an order of this Court passed by consent should be discouraged and deprecated.
Headnote:
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12 – Contempt of Court – Matrimonial matter – Grievance of petitioner-husband in Contempt Petition is that after having consented to cooperate in conclusion of trial within a period of two months, 1st respondent-wife has been dragging on the matter under some pretext or other – However, 1st respondent-wife has filed a statement of objections claiming that she is not in any way responsible for delay – Apart from party/parties responsible for protracting proceedings, it is unfortunate that State, Trial Court as well as High Court have also omitted to take note of time frame fixed by this Court – Any attempt to overreach an order of this Court passed by consent should be discouraged and deprecated – Order of stay granted by High Court is liable to be vacated and trial directed to be proceeded – Contempt Petition can be closed without going into rival claims – Contempt Petition closed without going into rival contentions – Special Leave Petition allowed and order of stay of further proceedings, granted by High Court in Criminal Petition set aside – Trial Court directed to proceed further with trial of criminal case, from the stage where it got struck due to stay order of High Court – Trial Court may endeavour to dispose of matter within a period of two months. (Paras 4, 6, 14 and 15)
Facts of the case:
While the Contempt Petition arises out of an order passed by this Court on 16.07.2019 by consent of parties in SLP(Crl)No.10686 of 2018, the Special Leave Petition arises out of an interim order passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, staying the trial of a criminal complaint, during the pendency of a criminal petition arising out of an order of the Trial court refusing to reopen and recall PW1 to PW4.
Findings of Court:
As against the well-considered order of the Trial Court, 1st respondent/wife moved a petition before the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This petition was entertained by the High Court and stay of further proceedings was granted. The High Court should not have granted such a stay on 07.02.2020, in the teeth of order passed by this Court on 16.07.2019 for the disposal of proceedings within two months.
Result : Special Leave Petition and Contempt Petition disposed of with directions.
JUDGMENT :
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
1. While the Contempt Petition arises out of an order passed by this Court on 16.07.2019 by consent of parties in SLP(Crl)No. 10686 of 2018, the Special Leave Petition arises out of an interim order passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, staying the trial of a criminal complaint, during the pendency of a criminal petition arising out of an order of the Trial court refusing to reopen and recall PW-1 to PW-4.
2. We have heard Mr. Marlapalle, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Devadatt Kamat, learned senior counsel appearing for the 1st respondent.
3. The facts sufficient for the disposal of these proceedings are as follows:-
(a) The sole petitioner in the Contempt Petition (who is also the first petitioner in the SLP) is the husband of the 1st respondent in both these proceedings. They got married at Hyderabad on 07.12.2008 and a male child was born in the wedlock on 04.04.2010;
(b) After the marriage, the couple went to the United States of America and they came back to India in November, 2015;
(c) On 20.12.2015 the 1st respondent-wife filed a criminal complaint in Crime No.477 of 2015 against the 1st petitioner herein as well as his parents and other close relatives, for alleged offences under Section 498A read with Section 120B and Sections 420 and 365 of the IPC;
(d) A charge-sheet was filed on 12.03.2017. A supplementary charge-sheet was also filed on 20.12.2017. However, the proceedings against persons shown as Accused Nos.4 to 6 were quashed by this Court by an order dated 21.08.2018 in Criminal Appeal No. 1045 of 2018, on the ground that they are not the immediate family members of the 1st petitioner-husband, but distant relatives;
(e) In the meantime, the petitioner who was on bail by virtue of an order passed by the Trial Court on 29.12.2017, subject to the condition that he shall not leave the State of Telangana or the country without prior permission of the Court, approached the Trial Court for relaxation of the bail condition, so that he could travel to USA. But the said petition was dismissed by the Trial Court by an order dated 20.06.2018;
(f) Therefore, the 1st petitioner approached the High Court and the High Court, by an order dated 08.11.2018 passed in Criminal Petition No. 11411 of 2018 granted relaxation of the bail conditions and allowed the 1st petitioner to go to USA after furnishing bank guarantee in a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-(Three Lakhs Only), for his appearance as and when called upon to do so;
(g) Challenging the order of the High Court granting relaxation of the bail conditions, the 1st respondent-wife filed a Special Leave Petition in SLP (Crl) No. 10686 of 2018;
(h) The SLP (Crl) No. 10686 of 2018 was disposed of by this Court by an order dated 16.07.2019, by consent of parties. By this order this Court directed the Trial Court to conclude the trial of the criminal case within a period of two months;
(i) Though a period of 15 months has now elapsed from the date of the said order passed by this Court, the trial has not concluded;
(j) Blaming the 1st respondent-wife for adopting dilatory tactics and not allowing the trial to get completed within the period stipulated by this Court, the husband has come up with the Contempt petition. On 28.07.2020 notice was ordered in the Contempt Petition;
(k) It appears that in the meantime, the State, through the Assistant Public Prosecutor filed a petition before the Trial Court on 17.01.2020 to reopen the evidence and to recall PWs 1 to 4. The said petition was dismissed by the Trial Court by an order on 23.01.2020;
(l) Challenging the order of the Trial Court refusing to recall PWs 1 to 4 the 1st respondent-wife filed a criminal petition in Criminal Petition No.896 of 2020 under Section 482 CrP.C. While entertaining the said petition, the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad granted interim stay of further proceedings in the criminal case. Though the High Court posted the crimi
