Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Mansoor Ansari - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Opposite Party
Cr. M.P. No. 1489 of 2013
Decided On : 05-07-2024
[CONTEMPT] - [CONTEMPT OF COURT] - [Sections 15, 18 of the Contempt of Courts Act] - [The court discussed the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, particularly Sections 15 and 18, which outline the procedures for contempt proceedings. The court emphasized the need for clear and specific averments in affidavits and highlighted the consequences of misleading the court, including potential contempt charges against high-ranking police officials. The court's decision was influenced by the need to uphold the integrity of the judicial process and ensure accountability among law enforcement officials.]
Fact of the Case:
The case has been pending since 2013, with the court directing the State to file a supplementary counter affidavit regarding the investigation. The Director General of Police, Jharkhand, submitted a supplementary affidavit that contained misleading information about the status of the petitioner, who was reported as absconding despite being on bail. The court found discrepancies in the affidavits filed by the police officials.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the affidavits filed by the Director General of Police and the Superintendent of Police were misleading and potentially contemptuous. The court noted that the explanations provided for the discrepancies were unsatisfactory and indicated a lack of responsibility in discharging their duties.
Issues: The main issues included whether the affidavits filed by the police officials constituted contempt of court, the adequacy of the explanations provided for the misleading information, and the appropriate procedural steps to be taken in light of the findings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that misleading the court through false affidavits constitutes contempt, emphasizing the importance of accountability among law enforcement officials. It also highlighted the need for a fair and reasonable opportunity for the alleged contemners to defend themselves in contempt proceedings.
Final Decision: The court decided to keep the matter pending for further consideration of the contempt proceedings against the Director General of Police and the Superintendent of Police, while also referring the matter to a larger bench for consideration of procedural issues related to contempt.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
A reference may be made to the orders dated 08.04.2024, 29.04.2024 and 06.05.2024 and those orders are quoted as follows :
2. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State submits that he has already written a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribag and also to the Officer-in-Charge of Barkatha P.S., however, till date, instruction has not been received by him.
3. The above submission is the matter of concern as Superintendent of Police, Hazaribag and the concerned officer-in-charge, has not responded to the letter of Mr. Chatterjee, learned Spl.P.P. for the State, who has written the letter in light of the order of this court for filing the supplementary counter affidavit.
4. In that view of the matter, the Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi is directed to look into the matter and file the supplementary counter affidavit within two weeks.
5. Let this matter appear on 29.04.2024.
6. Interim order, granted earlier, shall remain in force till the next date of listing.
7. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi for the needful.”
*** *** ***
“12/ 29.04.2024 Pursuant to the order dated 08.04.2024, the Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi has filed the supplementary counter affidavit in the matter.
2. In Para-7 of the supplementary counter affidavit, it has been disclosed that it has been informed by the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribag that upon further investigation, supplementary chargesheet was submitted on 19.01.2016 against the petitioner and Md. Shane Raja, shown them to be absconder and found offence true against Munna Khan.
3. Annexure-C is the supplementary chargesheet, where in Column-14, it has been disclosed that the petitioner is on bail, however, in para-7 of the counter affidavit, disclosure has been made that the petitioner is absconding in the case. In the said supplementary chargesheet, in Column-13, nothing has been disclosed, which is meant for witnesses supporting the case of the prosecution. It appears that the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh has misguided the Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi and the Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi has filed the present supplementary counter affidavit.
4. In view of the above, prima facie, it appears that in a mechanical way, the affidavit has been filed before the court by none other than the Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi himself. As such, the Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi is directed to explain the above misappropriation in the supplementary chargesheet as well as the disclosure made in para-7 of the supplementary counter affidavit by way of filing further supplementary counter affidavit.
5. Let this matter appear on 06.05.2024.
6. It is open for the Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi to make explanation from the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribag, who is misleading the Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi.
7. Interim order, granted earlier, shall remain in force till the next date of listing.
8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi for the needful.”
*** *** ***
“13/06.05.2024 A reference may be made to the orders dated 08.04.2024 and 29.04.2024.
2. In the present case earlier Mr. Prabir Chattrjee, learned counsel was appearing on behalf of State. Today, Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned A.A.G.-III has taken the command.
3. This Court was compelled to pass the order dated 08.04.2024 as by the order dated 06.03.2024 the State was directed to take instruction with regard to investigation of the case and was directed to file supplementar
The court emphasized the necessity of maintaining judicial dignity and the procedural safeguards required in contempt proceedings, highlighting that failure to frame specific charges violates natural....
The court emphasized the necessity of strict adherence to procedural rules in contempt proceedings, particularly regarding the requirement for clear allegations and the proper initiation of actions u....
Strict adherence to procedural requirements under the Contempt of Courts Act is essential; defects in initiation cannot be cured, leading to discharge of the respondent.
An appeal against a contempt order is maintainable only if it involves punishment for contempt; the court found justifiable reasons for the delay in compliance with the order.
The act of fabricating and filing documents on behalf of the Union of India by an individual constitutes criminal contempt and is punishable under the Contempt of Courts Act.
A learned Single Judge must adhere to procedural rules in contempt proceedings and refer matters to a Division Bench when questioning prior rulings, maintaining judicial discipline and propriety.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
