2019 Supreme(Mad) 1468

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUBBIAH, R. PONGIAPPAN, JJ.
P. Vimal and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
M. Kannan and Ors. - Respondents
L.P.A. No. 2 of 2017
Decided On : 30-01-2019

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 506(i) - Contempt of Courts Act - Sections 12,19, and 19(1)(a)- Suit for bare injunction - Charge-sheet - Sale Deed - Preliminary Enquiry - First Respondent herein has given a Complaint against Appellants herein to Superintendent of Police Economic Offences Wing Villupuram alleging that Appellants have created a forged and fabricated Power of Attorney and Sale Deed in respect of his property without any valid title - According to First Respondent subject matter of property comprised in Survey admeasuring an extent of acres out acres situated in Salavathy Village Tindivanam Taluk was purchased by his wife in an Auction conducted by Court in an Insolvency proceedings and a Sale Certificate was executed in favour of his wife which was registered as Document on file of Sub-Registrar Avarapakkam - First Respondent also stated in his Complaint that he has filed a Suit in on file of District Munsif Court Tindivanam against Appellants herein for a bare Injunction - Further according to First Respondent Second Respondent herein did not take any action on his Complaint and therefore he has approached this Court with Criminal Original Petition praying for a direction to direct Second Respondent herein to register a case on basis of his Complaint - By Order this Court issued a direction to Second Respondent herein to register a case if any cognizable offence is made out in Complaint given by First Respondent - Pursuant to such direction Deputy Superintendent of Police Villupuram conducted a Preliminary Enquiry and closed Complaint given by First Respondent by submitting a Report concluding that dispute raised in Complaint is purely Civil in nature and such dispute has to be adjudicated by a Competent Civil Court - Aggrieved by said Order of closure of Complaint First Respondent herein filed Contempt Petition before this Court alleging that Second Respondent has disobeyed and flouted Order passed by this Court in Crl - According to First Respondent Order of Closure passed by Second Respondent is in gross violation of Order passed in Crl - Whether Application for impleading as a Defendant in Suit should have been allowed or not - Whether instant Letters Patent Appeal filed by Appellants on ground that they are persons aggrieved against Order passed by Single Judge impleading them as parties to Contempt proceedings is maintainable when they are not parties to Original proceedings and no Direction or Order was passed against them - Whether Appellants are entitled to file present Contempt Appeals - Whether or not person enjoined has had notice of Injunction - Whether impleading Appellants as party Respondents to Contempt Petition would result in effective and proper disposal of Contempt Petition or not - Whether argument of Counsel for First Respondent that instant Appeal is maintainable or not under Clause of Letters Patent has to be considered - Held, Assuming that an Appeal under Section 19 was technically not maintainable having regard to fact that Interim Injunction was granted till disposal of Contempt Application in our opinion it was a Judgment within meaning of Clause of Letters Patent of Madras High Court - Court will however proceed on assumption that no Appeal was maintainable - An aggrieved person cannot be left without a remedy - Access to justice is a human right - In certain situations it may also be considered to be a fundamental right - Court find that there is no cause of action to implead Appellants in Contempt Petition - Admittedly Appellants were not parties to Criminal Original Petition or Contempt Petition while so seeking to implead Appellants in subsequent Contempt Petition would only indicate that such impleadment was sought without any cause of action - In fact in Affidavit filed in support of Sub-Application in Contempt Petition there was no reason assigned as to why Appellants are sought to be impleaded or what is sought to be achieved by impleading them in Contempt proceedings - Affidavit merely re-produces factual claim of First Respondent with respect to purchase of property in favour of his wife in Court Auction Sale Deed executed in her favour and eventual death of wife of First Respondent and thereby First Respondent and his children have succeeded to estate of deceased wife of First Respondent - Court are also inclined to point out that Contempt Petition itself was filed complaining that Investigation Officer did not file Charge-sheet within period of four months granted by this Court in earlier Contempt Petition - However fact remains that Investigation Officer also filed a referred Charge-sheet before Criminal Forum and therefore relief sought for in Contempt Petition itself has become infructuous - Notwithstanding same subsequent Contempt Petition was filed - On notice Investigation Officer namely Deputy Superintendent of Police District Crime Branch Villupuram has filed a Status Report August indicating compliance of Order passed by this Court in Order in Contempt Petition of inter alia intimating factum of filing of a referred Charge-sheet before Special Court Villupuram - Above all Appellants also on Notice in Sub-Application in Contempt Petition filed a Counter Affidavit during October - It is also seen from records that Sub-Application was listed for hearing on several dates as indicated supra - However when Sub-Application was taken up for hearing it appears that Counsel for Appellants did not appear since their name was not printed in Cause List - In that case Attorney General had brought action against two Newspapers seeking Permanent Injunction restraining them from publishing material from a book written by a person who was formerly a member of Security service and by terms of his employment was bound by confidentiality which would stand breached if his memoirs were published - Patent Appeal Allowed