Back
2009 Supreme(Kar) 438
High Court of Karnataka
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA
R. Sadagopan
Versus
K. Rajaiah
CCC (CRL.) No. 12 of 2008
Decided on : 03-07-2009
For the Complainant:G.R. Mohan, Advocate.
For the Accused:S.G. Bhagawan, Advocate.
Headnote:CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 - Sections 2(c) & 13: [Mrs. Manjula Chellur & A.N.Venugopala Gowda, JJ] ’Criminal Contempt’- Accused resorting to multiple suits - Courts made to consider different proceedings, which have arisen on one and same cause of action, namely Will - Accused having chosen to put his case in one way by filing first suit he cannot thereafter bring same transaction before Court, put his case in another way and say that he is relying on a new cause of action - Other causes of action stated, appeared to be only superficial which lies more in clever drafting than in their content to file multiple suits - Held, By resorting to multiple suits, accused has indulged in abuse of process of Court. Because, it is an abuse for a party to re-litigate a question or issue, which is already an issue either in a case pending or decided - that apart, act of the accused withdrawing three suits, after framing of charge in this case depicts continuing contumacious conduct of accused and amounts to criminal contempt. No formal apology tendered by accused. Keeping in view age of accused and fact that, he was a former scientist, accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the remaining part of day i.e., till the rising of Court and pay fine of Rs.2,000/-.
Venugopala Gowda, J.
This is a petition filed under Section 2 (c)(iii) and 12 read with Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (‘the Act’ for short), to initiate Criminal Contempt of Court proceedings against the accused and punish him under Section 12 of the Act. The learned Advocate General for Karnataka, has granted permission under Section 15(1)
(b) of the Act, to the complainant, to initiate Criminal Contempt Proceedings against the accused.
2. Brief facts, which are necessary to consider this petition, could be stated as follows:
K. Kuppuswamy, S/o.Late. N. Kodandarama Naidu and his brother K. Rajaiah, the accused herein, were the Directors of M/s. Chamundeswari Studio and Laboratory Private Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act. Said K. Kuppuswamy, has formed a Trust, under the name K.K. Foundation and Public Charitable Trust, which is registered. K. Kuppuswamy is stated to have executed a Will dated 27.09.2006, bequeathing therein, his estate to various beneficiaries, including the complainant, his wife and also the accused person herein. K. Kupuswamy has passed away on 04.03.2007.
3. The accused has filed a suit for decree of permanent injunction, in the City Civil Court, Bangalore, in O.S No.25543/2007 against the Executors of the said Will, the complainant, his wife, daughter, son-in-law and also his parents. An ad-interim order of temporary injunction granted in the suit, was later vacated by the Trial Court. Subsequently, the accused has filed O.S Nos.25660/07, 25716/07, 25487/07 & 26992/07 in the City Civil Court, Bangalore and Company Petition No. 35/2007 in Company Law Board at Chennai. He has also filed O.S.No.25413/2008 in the City Civil Court, in the form of Administrative Suit for Administration of the estate of Late K. Kuppuswamy. There is no mention about the filing and/or of pendency of the earlier suit in the latter suits. According to the complainant, the filing of repeated suits, not only obstructs, but prevents due course of justice. This petition has been filed contending that, the action of the accused in filing multiple suits, amounts to an abuse of process of court.
4. Notice of this petition was ordered to the respondent, who entered appearance through Advocate. Statement of objection was filed by the accused. The parties were directed to prepare a comparative chart of different to prepare a comparative chart of different suits and file it. The same was filed.
5. Learned counsel on both sides were heard and in view of the prima facie case of abuse of process of law and interference with administration of justice being found, the charge was framed and was read over to the accused on 12.12.2008, to which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Sri S.B. Pavin, learned State Public Prosecutor was directed to conduct the prosecution case keeping in view the provision contained in Rule 11 of Contempt of Court Rules.
6. A typographical error in mentioning the suit number as 25487/2007, instead of 25847/2007, in the charge was noticed and the same was corrected, pursuant to the order dated 19.03.2009.
7. The complainant deposed as CW-1, Exs.C-1 to Ex.C-5 were marked and Exs.A-1 to A-3 were also marked during his cross-examination. Evidence of accused was recorded and Ex.C-6 was marked in his cross-examination. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C on 31.03.2009.
8. Considering the averments made in the petition and the statement of objection of the accused, the following charge was framed against the accused:
“That after the death of Mr. K. Kuppuswamy, you have filed O.S.25543/2007 in the City Civil Court, Bangalore and thereafter you have filed multiple suits in O.S 25660/2007, 25716/2007, 26048/2007, 25847/2007 and 26992/2007. That you have also filed an affidavit in O.S. No.25413/2008 without mentioning the filing of earlier suits arising out of the cause of action i.e., death of K. Kuppuswamy and by filing multiple suits which a
