Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 494
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Robert Prabhat Minz, son of Late Mathias Minz - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and Ors. – Respondents
Cont. (Civil) Case No.263 of 2025
Decided On : 09-05-2025
For the Petitioner: In Person
For the State : Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG-II Mrs. Shweta Shukla, AC to AAG-II
For the Contemnors :Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG-III Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, Advocate Mr. Karbir, Advocate Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate
Contempt proceedings cannot be sustained without evidence of the alleged contemptuous act.
Headnote:(A) Contempt of Court - The case involves a contempt proceeding initiated against respondents for allegedly demolishing a boundary-wall constructed by the petitioner in violation of a court order dated 18.06.2024. (Para 2)
(B) Legal Principles - The court emphasized that without evidence of the boundary-wall's existence, the contempt proceedings cannot be sustained. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner claimed that the respondents demolished a boundary-wall that he had sought permission to construct, but he later admitted that he never built it due to non-availability of materials. (Para 4)
Findings of Court:
The court found no evidence of the boundary-wall's existence and concluded that the contempt case lacked merit. (Para 5)
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondents could be held in contempt for demolishing a boundary-wall that was never constructed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that without any material evidence of the boundary-wall's existence, the contempt proceedings were unjustifiable.
Result: Contempt (Civil) Case dropped.
JUDGMENT :
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Heard the parties.
2. This Contempt (Civil) Case has been filed with a prayer to initiate contempt proceeding against the contemnors/respondents as the contemnors/respondents without giving any notice demolished the temporary boundary-wall built by the petitioner in violation of the order dated 18.06.2024.
3. Learned counsel for the contemnors/respondents submits that the allegation against the contemnors/respondents is out and out false. The petitioner has never constructed any boundary-wall, hence, the question of demolition of the same does not arise still they have tendered unconditional apology, hence, prayed that the contempt proceeding be dropped.
4. On being asked by the Court, the petitioner appearing in-person fairly submits that though the petitioner sought permission of this Court on 18.06.2024 to construct the boundary-wall but because of non-availability of sand, he could not construct the boundary-wall and ensured that some earth is dumped to prevent rain water entering inside his premise. The petitioner in- person has enclosed the photographs but none of the photographs shows existence of any boundary-wall at any point of time, over the land in question.
5. Under such circumstances; in the absence of any material in the record to suggest that the petitioner constructed any boundary-wall, this Court is of the considered view that the question of demolition of the boundary-wall which was never constructed does not arise. Hence, there is no justifiable reason to continue with this Contempt (Civil) Case.
6. Accordingly, this Contempt (Civil) Case, being without any merit, is dropped.
