Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Mad) 1319

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, V. SIVAGNANAM, JJ.
Nishar Ahamed - Petitioner
Versus
Mrs. Naseema - Respondent
Cont. P. No.2981 of 2023
Decided On : 13-08-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ms. R. Lakshmi.
For the Respondent: Mr. E. Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor.

IMPORTANT POINT
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.

Headnote:
CONTEMPT - DISOBEDIENCE OF COURT ORDER - The court addressed a contempt petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, concerning the alleged willful disobedience of a Supreme Court judgment. The court emphasized that not every procedural lapse by police constitutes contempt, referencing the guidelines established in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar regarding the necessity of issuing notice under Section 41-A of the Criminal Procedure Code before arrest. The court concluded that the petitioner should seek remedies through appropriate channels rather than through contempt proceedings, ultimately dismissing the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a contempt petition against the respondent for allegedly willfully disobeying a Supreme Court order regarding the issuance of notice under Section 41-A of the Criminal Procedure Code before arrest.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the alleged procedural lapse by the police officer did not warrant contempt proceedings, as not every procedural error constitutes contempt. The court highlighted that the petitioner should pursue remedies through the appropriate legal channels.
Issues: Whether the failure to issue notice under Section 41-A before arrest constitutes willful disobedience of a court order warranting contempt proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that procedural lapses by police officers do not automatically lead to contempt of court. The guidelines from the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar's case require notice under Section 41-A, but failure to comply does not necessarily imply contempt unless it causes significant prejudice.
Result: The contempt petition was dismissed, with no costs awarded.

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 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