Naveen Soni vs State - 2023 Supreme(Raj) 1698

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Raj) 1698

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
FARJAND ALI, J.
Naveen Soni - Petitioner
Versus
State - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 339 of 2020
Decided On : 27-04-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Abhishek Mehta.
For the Respondent: Gaurav Singh, P.P. and Arun Dadhich.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections pertaining to framing of charges - Trial court issued a non-speaking order failing to adhere to previous court directives - Court emphasizes the necessity of a speaking order that reflects legal compliance and considers evidence. (Paras 1-3)

(B) Contempt of Court - Failing to comply with a higher court’s order can constitute contempt; the trial court’s actions display utter disregard for established judicial direction. (Paras 3)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner sought revision after a prior court ruling mandated the trial court to issue a proper speaking order for charges. The trial court's subsequent order was found to be non-compliant with higher court’s directives, necessitating further explanation from the presiding judge.

Findings of Court:
The court highlighted a contemptuous situation and decided to seek an explanation for the failure to follow previous instructions.

Issues: The main issues were the trial court's adherence to higher court directions and the implications of non-compliance.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that failure to comply with its orders amounts to contempt and instructed the trial court to clarify its disregard for prior mandates.

Result: The court sought an explanation from the trial judge regarding the failure to comply with the order.

Table of Content
1. requirement for a speaking order in trial courts. (Para 1)
2. disregard of court orders is contemptuous. (Para 2)
3. extension of interim orders in pending cases. (Para 4)
4. future hearing scheduled. (Para 5)

JUDGMENT :

Farjand Ali, J.

In an earlier round of litigation, when the learned trial court framed charges by a very cryptic, mechanical and non-speaking order, the petitioner moved a revision petition before this court, which came to be allowed by a co-ordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 08.03.2019 with a specific direction to the trial court to pass an appropriate and speaking order of framing charge, in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties and taking into consideration the evidence available on record. The operative part of the order is felt appropriate to be reproduced herein below :—

“In view of above, the order impugned dated 11.01.2019 passed by the learned trial Court is set aside and the case is remanded back to the trial court with the direction to pass an appropriate and speaking order of framing charge, in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties and taking into consideration the evidence available on record.”

2. Thereafter the matter was taken up by the learned trial court, but not heed has been paid to honour the order passed by this court on 08.03.2019. Apparently, the impugned order dated 03.02.2020 has been passed by the trial court in utter disregard of the order passed by this court. The order impugned in this petition reads as under :—

3. In my considered opinion, it is contemptuous situation, but before proceeding further, it is deemed appropriate to seek explanation from the learned trial Judge, who passed the order dated 03.02.2020 as to under what circumstances he flouted the directions of this court.

4. The further proceedings of the Sessions Case No. 40/2018 pending before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Woman Atrocities Cases), Udaipur were stayed vide order 11.08.2020 and while disposing of the stay petition, the said stay order was made absolute vide order dated 12.08.2021. However, despite that, the learned counsel for the petitioner has sought and was granted extension of interim order on every date of hearing. Thus, it is clarified that the interim order passed earlier shall remain in currency till disposal of the revision petition.

5. List on 12.05.2023.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document