Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 4909
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T. Mathivanan, J.
Dr. C.A. Mohmed Abdul Huq
Versus
S. Manoharan, Superintendent of Police, Kanchipuram Range, Collector Office, Kanchipuram-631 502 and Another
Cont. P. No. 1390 of 2012 in Crl.O.P. No. 25046 of 2011
Decided On : 21 December, 2012
Dr. A.E. Chelliah, Senior Counsel for C. Saifullah for Petitioner
S. Shanmugavelayutham, Public Prosecutor assisted by A.N. Thambidurai Addl. Public Prosecutor (Crl.Side) for Respondents
Headnote:A. CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 - Sections 2(b), 11 & 12 - Tamilnadu Police Standing orders - Section 196, 211, 560, 562, 566 and Constitution of India - Article 215 & Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 154, 196 - Crl.O.P. filed in High Court seeking to punish respondents (R1)(DSP) and R2 (Inspector of Police) for disobedience of order of High Court - On failure of Police to take action on their complaint against 2 persons alleging land grabbing etc, directions sought in above Crl.O.P. - Contention of respondents that complaint was closed after summoning and enquiry with parties and that amendmend police officer filed status report without appearance for enquiry - On facts, R1 found having received notice for enquiry and having refused it - R2 filed second counter stating that he had registered a case in District Crime Branch Crime No.30 of 2012, under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C., on 08.05.2012 on the complaint dated 23.05.2011 and took up the investigation - Responsibility for station administration - Scope as per PSO 196 - Inspector’s case diary as per PSO 211 - Registry in FIR book, as per PSO 551 -Instruction regarding FIR’s as per PSO 560 - Refusal of investigation etc - Considerations as per PSO 562 Investigation asto complaint to be impartial- PSO 566). (Para 61, 72 & 73)
B. FIR and FIRST INFORMATION - Distinction - Held, an information at the first instance received by a police officer, who is in charge of the police station with regard to a particular incident is called first information. Whereas, a report prepared and registered based on the first information is called first information report - Preliminary enquiry, permission of, before recording FIR - Held, to permit preliminary enquiry before recording the First Information is to diminish if not destroy the value of the First Information Report itself - The report filed by the police amounted to a charge sheet and not First Information Report affording a starting point for a fresh investigation - Further held ’m’ officer who had who had dealt with this case at first had not only furnished false information to this Court, but also failed to place correct information about the non-registration of the case before this Court - Impleadment of office - Held, M, former inspector of Police attached to District Crime Branch, Kanchipuram Range, who himself has become the reason for filing this contempt petition has not been impleaded as one of the respondents. (Paras 75, 76 & 88)
C. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - Article 215 - Whether a person, who is not a party to the contempt petition could be found guilty and punished. By way of answer for this question, this Court would like to say that this Court being the Courts of record has been fully fortified to find him guilty and also to punish him under Article 215 of the Constitution of India - Power of court to prove in contempt - Following Division Bench of Madras High Court in 2010 (4) CTC 407, held, court is Court is empowered to proceed against the contemnor for civil and criminal contempt. There is also power to a Court of record to punish for contemnor in terms of Article 215 of the Constitution of India. High Courts are superior Courts of Record. They have inherent and plenary powers, independent of provisions of Contempt of Courts Act - Article 215 does not restrict power of Court to impose punishment, which it considers to be appropriate - Under Article 215 of Constitution, High Court can consider as to whether quantum of punishment and nature of orders by way of cost or compensation, could meet ends of justice - Verdict of court - Held, Mr. M Inspector of Police, formerly attached to the District Crime Branch, Kanchipuram Range and Mr. N. Ramadoss, Inspector of Police, presently attached to the District Crime Branch, Kanchipuram District are found guilty under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Because, they have not only caused prejudice to the petitioner being the complainant in this case and undermined the dignity and majesty of the High Court. Therefore, they are punished to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default they shall be liable to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days. The above fine amount shall be remitted to the Hon’ble Chief Justice’s Relief Fund. (Paras 76, 81, 82 and 88)
D. TAMILNADU POLICE STANDING ORDERS - Section 196, 211, 560, 562, 566 - Duties and responsibilities of police station administration - See Contempt of Courts Act - Section 2 (b) 11 & 12.
E. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - Article 215 - Duty and powers of court to proved in contempt - See Contempt of Courts Act - Section 2 (b) 11 & 12.
F. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - Section 154, 156 - See Contempt of Courts Act - Section 2(b) 11 & 12.
Result : Contempt petition allowed.
1. Invoking the provisions of Sections 2(b) and 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the relief of punishing the respondents for having committed contempt of Court by their wilful disobedience of the Order of this Court dated 25.1.2012 and made in Crl.O.P. No. 25046 of 2011.
2. Before entering into the merits of the case, this Court finds that it may be appropriate to quote the lamentation made by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh, AIR 2002 SC 1405 : (2002) 4 SCC 21
“The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been introduced in the Statute Book for the purposes of securing a feeling of confidence of the people in general and for due and proper administration of justice in the country undoubtedly a powerful weapon in the hands of the law Courts but that by itself operates as a string of caution and unless thus otherwise satisfied beyond doubt, it would neither be fair nor reasonable for the law Courts to exercise jurisdiction under the Statute.”
3. In an another recent decision, a Division Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court of India, headed by His Lordship The Honourable Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia, Chief Justice of India (as he then was), has explained the impact of the disobedience of the Orders of the Court by the officials, who are bound to abide and the role of the higher Courts to safeguard the dignity and majesty of the law and also to infuse confidence in the minds of people in the following manner:
“Disobedience of orders of the Court strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which the judicial system rests. The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. The Judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. If the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and remain true to the spirit with which it is sacredly entrusted, the dignity and authority of the Courts have to be respected and protected at all costs...........”
4. The excerpts of the facts:
4.1. The petitioner herein had lodged two complaints dated 23.5.2011 and 25.5.2011 respectively before the first respondent viz., the Superintendent of Police, Kanchipuram Range to take necessary actions against one Ms. Rahmathunissa, Mr. Mohammed Ilyas and Mr. P. Suresh Kumar for the offences of cheating, conspiracy, misappropriation of property, land grabbing etc., with regard to properties worth about Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Only), situated at Plot Nos. 62, 63 and 79, comprised in S.F. Nos. 1047/2, 1049/1 and 1049/3, Chella Perumal Nagar, Sriperumbudur, measuring an extent of 7,200 sq.ft., (3 Grounds). Since no action was taken on the above said complaints by the first respondent, the petitioner was constrained to file a petition in Crl.O.P. No. 25046 of 2011 before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to register a case based on the complaints dated 23.5.2011 and 25.5.2011, take up the investigation and to file the final report before the competent Court of law.
4.2. When that petition viz., Crl.O.P. No. 25046 of 2011 came up for hearing on 19.1.2012, the learned Government advocate (Crl.side) had informed that in the earlier complaint, the parties were called for enquiry and subsequently, the complaint was closed on 19.8.2011.
4.3. While denying the information furnished by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), Dr. A.E. Chelliah, learned senior counsel appearing for Mr. C. Saifullah, learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner was summoned by the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Kanchipuram Range, who is the second respondent herein, to appear on 12.12.2011 for enquiry. In this regard, he had raised a question that if the complaint was closed on 19.8.2011 as informed by the learned Government advocate (Crl.Side), how the petitioner, who is the complainant could have been summoned by the second respondent Inspector of Police, directing him to appear on 12.12.2011?
4.4. In this connection, he h
