JUDGMENT - J.A. PATIL, J.:---The petitioner who is an accused in a criminal case has filed this petition against respondent No. 1 who is the Investigating Officer in the same case and prayed for an order holding respondent No. 1 guilty for having committed contempt of Court. The facts which give rise to the alleged contempt may be stated in brief as follows :

The petitioner is a trustee of Bafna Charitable Trust which is a public charitable trust. This trust owns certain land at village Nahur, Taluka Kurla, Mumbai. It appears that there was some transaction entered with M/s. Konark Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. in connection with the said land. One Umesh C. Karia is the director of the said firm of Builders and Developers. On 13-4-1992, said Umesh Karia filed a private complaint in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 33rd Court, Mumbai against petitioner and two others alleging that they had agreed to transfer the development rights of the said property and obtained various amounts by making representations but failed and neglected to carry on their obligations. Shri. Umesh Karia alleged that the petitioner and two others had committed offences punishable under section 420 r.w. section 120(B) and 109 of the I.P.C.

2. The learned Magistrate upon receipt of the complaint forwarded the same to the Crime Branch (C.I.D.) for investigation under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. It may be pointed out that incidentally the investigation of the said case came to be entrusted to respondent No. 1 who is Inspector of Police attached to the Crime Branch. The petitioner has stated that pursuant to summons issued by respondent No. 1, he attended the office of the Crime branch on several occasions and also produced relevant documents concerning the case. The petitioner has alleged that respondent No. 1 was acting as a tool in the hands of the complainant Umesh Karia and that he (respondent No. 1) tried to force the petitioner to settle the matter with the complainant. It is further alleged that respondent No. 1 even threatened to arrest the petitioner in case he failed to settle the matter.

3. In view of the continuous threats given by respondent No. 1, petitioner reasonably apprehended that he was likely to be arrested by the police. Therefore, on 6-7-1993 the petitioner moved anticipatory bail Application No. 575 of 1993 which came up before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai for hearing on 7-7-1993. According to the petitioner, at that time learned Public Prosecutor appearing in the matter made a statement that the petitioner would not be arrested until final disposal of the application for anticipatory bail. He also made a request to the Court to direct the petitioner to attend the office of the respondent No. 1 as and when called for interrogation. It appears that hearing of the application for anticipatory bail was thereafter adjourned to several dates. According to the petitioner, during the period from 26-6-1993 to 8-9-1993, he attended the office of respondent No. 1 on 11 occasions. The petitioner has pointed out that on all the adjourned dates of hearing, the Public Prosecutor repeated the undertaking that the petitioner would not be arrested until final disposal of the application.

4. On 21-09-1993 at about 5.15. p.m., the petitioner received summons dated 17-9-1993 issued by respondent No,. 1 calling upon him to attend his office at 3.00 p.m. on 22-9-1993 and produce all the documents which were called as per the previous summons. According to petitioner at about 6.30 p.m. he came down from his office and was almost getting into his car when he found respondent No. 1 and two members of his staff who were awaiting for him to come down. The petitioner has alleged that the respondent No. 1 forced him to accompany to the office of the crime branch on the pretext that the Jt. Commissioner of Police wanted to meet the petitioner immediately. The petitioner has further alleged that he and his three staff members who had ac

Click Here to Read the rest of this document