IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Arvind Singh Sangwan, J.
Court On Its Own Motion - Appellant
Versus
Yogesh Chaudhary, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari - Respondent
COCP No. 834 of 2016 (O&M)
Decided On : 17-10-2022
Contempt of Court - Jurisdictional Overreach - Sections 420, 448, 380 IPC - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - [CONTEMPT OF COURT] - [JURISDICTIONAL OVERREACH] - [Sections 420, 448, 380 IPC, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971] - The court initiated contempt proceedings against the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari for not adhering to the stay order, but the proceedings were dropped as the accused had concealed the dismissal of his contempt petition and SLP before the Supreme Court. The court expunged adverse remarks and directed the District Legal Services Authority to pay Rs.1.00 lac to the Chief Judicial Magistrate towards litigation expenses. The court also allowed the complainant/victim or the prosecution to move an application before the successor Chief Judicial Magistrate for revival of trial and to pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of hearing to all concerned.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a contempt petition against the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari for not adhering to a stay order. The accused had concealed the dismissal of his contempt petition and SLP before the Supreme Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court dropped the contempt proceedings and expunged adverse remarks against the Chief Judicial Magistrate. It directed the District Legal Services Authority to pay Rs.1.00 lac to the Chief Judicial Magistrate towards litigation expenses. The court allowed the complainant/victim or the prosecution to move an application before the successor Chief Judicial Magistrate for revival of trial and to pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of hearing to all concerned.
Issues: The issues involved the jurisdictional overreach of the court in initiating contempt proceedings against the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the concealment of facts by the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the contempt proceedings were unjustified due to the deliberate concealment of facts by the accused. It also observed that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had acted in accordance with the law and due procedure.
Final Decision: The court dropped the contempt proceedings, expunged adverse remarks, and directed the District Legal Services Authority to pay Rs.1.00 lac to the Chief Judicial Magistrate towards litigation expenses. It allowed the complainant/victim or the prosecution to move an application for revival of trial before the successor Chief Judicial Magistrate.
JUDGMENT
Arvind Singh Sangwan J. - Vide this order, a reference made by this Court on its own motion, is decided.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 19.02.2016, this Court while deciding CRM-M No.32467 of 2015 and CRR No.3410 of 2015, arising out of FIR No.143 dated 14.05.2007 registered under Sections 420, 448, 380 IPC, at Police Station City Rewari against one Purshottam Dass Soni, by his own mother Rawati Devi, has made the following observations:-
'Thus, the sole question that comes up before this court in these petitions is whether the learned Courts below in their spirit of dispensation of justice have exceeded their jurisdiction quite in oblivion to the said orders passed by this Court and the likely result of such an intentional lapse on the part of the presiding Officer of the trial Court. The general principle is that once a stay order has been passed should be deemed to take effect as soon as it is passed irrespective whether it is communicated or not. Since such order of stay both in CRM Nos. 5961 and 5962 of 2014 were meant for the Court, wherein no one else is involved in for obeyance being served immediately and becomes effective without even communication to the Court concerned. In this case it is writ large on the records that these orders of stay were well communicated by this Court to the Court below and which apparently has set up a subterfuge to escape such a serious misconduct on the part of the Presiding Officer to the orders of the higher Court. Thus, to the mind of this Court even if such a Court proceeds with the case showing ignorance what to say of being in knowledge of the stay order such a Court will not only render itself liable to administrative action which is quite independent but also the result of whatever proceedings are made consequent after passing of the stay order which will be deemed to be without jurisdiction and, thus, a nullity. Thus, as soon as this Court passed order in the present case on 13.2.2015 and 18.2.2015 as the case may be the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari and even the learned Appellate Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari both were divested of their jurisdiction to pronounce any further order and, therefore, the judgment of conviction is a nullity which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate acted without jurisdiction and his decision has, thus, ceased to hold good being a mere nullity and needs to be outrightly disregarded. Such orders are certainly not immune to review by way of revision or petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as it is the very basic fundamental rule of law that stood destroyed by such an outrageous conduct of the Court below. Furthermore, orders dated 11.9.2015 issued by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari by way of issuance of non-bailable warrants of the petitioner consequent upon passing of stay order by this Court are also without jurisdiction and needs to be set aside, therefore, the orders cancelling the bail and forfeitures of bail bonds are outrightly set aside holding that same too were exercised without jurisdiction. Exercising inherent power this Court deems it appropriate to hold that all the orders passed by the Court below subsequent to the stay order of this Court are a nullity whatever consequences they may be of.
In the light of this intentional gross misconduct and total arrogance by then learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari as well as his utter disrespect and disregard to judicial orders of Superior Court entails not only initiation of contempt of Court proceedings as well as separate administrative action against him. Registrar Judicial to do the needful as per law and rules. The same be also intimated to the Hon'ble Administrative Judge, wherever, this officer is presently posted.
In the light of what has been discussed and detailed above all the impugned orders/judgment of conviction passed by the Court below are hereby set aside and, thus, quashed. Both the instant petitions stand allowed in thos
The judgment emphasizes the need for a speaking order to extend the stay beyond six months, as per the judgment in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited and another Vs. Central Bureau of I....
Contempt of court - LPA against the orders passed in contempt petition is not maintainable as said orders are interlocutory in nature.
An appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act is maintainable only against orders imposing punishment for contempt; non-punitive orders are not appealable.
Contempt Petition - Wilful and deliberate disobedience of order - Mere disobedience is not sufficient unless it is shown and proved that disobedience is wilful, deliberate and intentional.
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.