Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, V. SIVAGNANAM
Nishar Ahamed – Appellant
Versus
Naseema – Respondent
ORDER :
(S.M. Subramaniam, J.) :
(Prayer: Contempt Petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, pleased to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondent and punish her for willfully disobeying the order passed in Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.1277 of 2014 on 02.07.2014.)
The contempt proceedings has been initiated to punish the respondent for her 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
Procedural lapses by law enforcement do not constitute contempt of court unless they result in significant prejudice, and appropriate remedies should be sought through other legal avenues rather than....
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.
The court cannot grant a direction to arrest the accused when the address is unknown and the accused is absconding. Onus is on the complainant to provide the correct address of the accused.
The court cannot grant a direction to arrest the accused when the accused is absconding, and the police have made efforts to comply with the court's order.
Failure to comply with procedural requirements under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. during arrest was ruled as a violation of personal liberty and contempt of court.
The court considered the appellant's apology, joint settlement between the parties, and the appellant's service record in taking a lenient view and quashing the orders holding the appellant guilty of....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
