IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
Palanivel – Appellant
Versus
Keerthi – Respondent
Cont.P. No. 314 of 2020
Decided on : 29-01-2021
Contempt of Court - Violation of Court Order - Section 41A of Cr.P.C. - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging that the respondent police willfully disobeyed the court's order to issue notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. and arrest the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused was absconding and the police had made efforts to secure her, therefore dismissing the contempt petition.
Issues: Violation of court order, willful disobedience, and absconding of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a direction to arrest the accused cannot be granted when the accused is absconding, and the police had made efforts to comply with the court's order.
Final Decision: The Contempt Petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was given liberty to explore other avenues as provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondent for contempt of Court in willfully disobeying the order dated 18.09.2019 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Crl.O.P.No. 23623 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.No. 12839 of 2019.)
1. This Contempt Petition has been filed by the petitioner for alleged violation of the Order of the Court in Crl.O.P.No. 23623 of 2019 dated 18.09.2019.
2. Crl.O.P.No. 23623 of 2019 had been filed by Mrs.Shanthi Meena, the first accused, in Cr.No. 65 of 2019 on the file of the Sub Inspector of Police, Lawspet Police Station, Pondicherry -605 008, seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. While examining this Contempt Petition, it may not be appropriate to traverse into the necessity for the filing of Cr.No. 65 of 2019 or the reasons advanced seeking anticipatory bail.
3. When that petition came up for consideration, this Court had passed an order on 18.08.2019 on hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate, Pondicherry, and also the learned counsel for the intervenor/counsel for the contempt petitioner herein directing the respondent police to issue notice under Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code following the procedures therein. The first accused was directed to appear before the respondent police. It was also stated that the respondent police may decide the issue and if it is required, arrest the petitioner in accordance with the guidelines given in said provision, but they should record the reasons in writing.
4. It is the grievance of the present petitioner that the respondent police neither issued notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C., to the first accused, nor have they arrested her.
5. It was stated that an advocate notice was issued on 31.01.2020 and thereafter, the present Contempt Petition has been filed.
6. The Contempt Petition has come up for hearing and a status report had been filed by the Investigating Officer stating that summons to the accused was sent to the address shown in the accused’s affidavit on 07.09.2019, with directions to appear before the respondent on 10.09.2019. The accused did not appear. A second summons was sent on 12.09.2019 with directions to appear on 17.09.2019. The summons issued by speed post was returned back without being delivered. It was stated that the accused did not appear before the respondent police. It was stated that the respondent attempted to arrest the accused in the third week of November 2019 and again in second week of November 2019 at the addresses given at Devakottai and at Chennai, but the accused was not present at the addresses. The mobile phone was continuously switched off. Again an attempt was made in the third week of February 2020. Again, the accused was not available. The complainant had given three mobile numbers and it was stated that they were all continuously switched off.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the police are deliberately not taking any steps to arrest the accused. This has been countered by Mr. Bharatha Chakravathy, learned Public Prosecutor, Pondicherry, stating that the complainant himself had accompanied the police party to the various addresses given by the complainant but still the accused was not available and therefore, it was not possible to either issue notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C., or to arrest the accused.
8. The learned Public Prosecutor stated that whenever information is received about the presence of the accused, the respondent would take necessary steps to issue notice under Section 41(A) and would take necessary steps to arrest the accused if required and in accordance with law.
9. It is seen that a direction to arrest the petitioner cannot be granted, and moreso when in the order dated 18.08.2019, this Court had directed the respondent to serve notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C., and then proceed in accordance with law.
10. A notice can be issued by the respondent police under Section 41A of the Co
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.