Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Mad) 1318

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, V. SIVAGNANAM, JJ.
Arul - Petitioner
Versus
Mr. N. Settu - Respondent
Cont. P. No.3057 Of 2023
Decided On : 13-08-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. N. Ponraj.
For the Respondent: Mr. E. Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. V. Sivalingam for Mr. V. Vijaya Kumar.

IMPORTANT POINT
Contempt proceedings are not appropriate for every procedural lapse by police officers; such issues should be resolved through proper legal channels rather than contempt of court.

Headnote:
CONTEMPT - DISOBEDIENCE OF COURT ORDER - The court addressed a contempt petition regarding the alleged wilful disobedience of a Supreme Court order, emphasizing that not every procedural lapse by police constitutes contempt. The court highlighted the necessity of issuing notice under Section 41-A of the Criminal Procedure Code before arrest, as established in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar. However, it concluded that procedural lapses should be addressed through appropriate legal channels rather than contempt proceedings, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a contempt petition against a police officer for allegedly failing to issue a mandatory notice under Section 41-A of the Criminal Procedure Code before making an arrest, claiming this constituted wilful disobedience of a Supreme Court order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while the police officer may have committed a procedural lapse, such lapses do not automatically warrant contempt proceedings. The court emphasized that the petitioner should seek remedies through appropriate legal channels rather than through contempt.
Issues: Whether the failure to issue a notice under Section 41-A before arrest constitutes contempt of court and whether every procedural lapse by police officers can lead to contempt proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that not every procedural lapse by police officers amounts to contempt. The guidelines from the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar's case require notice under Section 41-A, but procedural errors should be addressed through other legal remedies rather than contempt.
Result: The contempt petition was dismissed, with the court ruling that allowing such petitions for every procedural lapse would hinder police officers' ability to perform their duties effectively.

ORDER :

(S.M. Subramaniam, J.) :

(Prayer: Contempt Petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, pleased to punish the respondent for his wilful disobedience of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1277 of 2014 on 02.07.2014.)

The contempt proceedings has been initiated to punish the respondent for his wilful disobedience of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the mandatory requirement of Notice under Section 41-A of the Criminal Procedure Code has not been issued to the petitioner before carrying out the arrest. Thus, the Police Officer has committed contempt wilfully and therefore, liable to be punished.

3. Every procedural lapses by the Police Officer would not provide cause for initiation of contempt proceedings. In the case of Arnesh Kumar cited supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India laid down guidelines for initiation of action. Wherever required, Notice under Section 41-A is to be issued before effecting arrest.

4. In the present case, the allegation of the petitioner is that the respondent violated the procedure and also Section 41-A. Therefore, liable to be punished.

5. It seems to be hard to accept such proposition mooted out by the petitioner, since it may be a procedural lapse on the part of the Police Officer. If at all such procedural lapse caused any prejudice, the petitioner has to seek appropriate remedy before the Court concerned or make a complaint against such Police Official to the Department for initiation of disciplinary proceedings. Contrarily, contempt petition would not lie.

6. In the event of allowing the contempt proceedings for each and every lapse being committed by the Police Officer, they may not be in a position to perform their duties freely in the manner contemplated. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain the contempt petition.

7. Accordingly, the Contempt Petition stands dismissed. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document