The High Court has the discretion to initiate contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, even when an alternative remedy is available under Order 39, Rule 2-A, CPC, but it should not normally do so.

I.P. Singh, J.

This Civil Contempt Application at present is at the admission stage.

2. In this case injunction order that is said to have been violated by the contemners, to commit 'contempt of court' is that of Civil Judge, Agra.

3. During the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the applicants a legal point has arisen as to whether for the alleged contempt this Court should proceed to punish the contemner u/s 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) or should the matter be left to be dealt with by the court below whose injunction order is said to have been violated.

4. It may here be conceded at the very outset that Section 10 of the Act confers jurisdiction, power and authority of this Court in respect of Contempt of Courts subordinate to it.

5. At the same time Order 39, Rule 2-A, CPC provides:

Consequences of disobedience or breach of injunction:

(1) In the case of disobedience of any injunction granted or other order made under Rule 1 or Rule 2 or breach of any of the terms on which the injunction was granted or the order made, the Court granting the injunction or making the order, or any Court to which the suit or proceeding is transferred, may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached, and may also order such person to be detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding three months, unless in the meantime the Court directs his release.

(2)....

6. The learned Counsel for the applicants has argued that when 'remedies' are open in two forums then it is for the applicant to choose the forum. So the mere fact that remedy under Order 39, Rule 2-A, CPC is open can be no bar to the present application in this Court for the exercise of its jurisdiction, power and authority under the Contempt of Courts Act. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners has in this connection referred to the decision in State v. S.N. Dikshit 1973 AWR 80 (DB) In it 'criminal contempt' u/s 2(c) of the Act concerning writing of defamatory letter was under consideration. It was observed in column 2 page 85:

It was also submitted that the contents of the letter at the most amounted to libel against the officer concerned, which was an offence under the Indian Penal Code. The officer concerned, therefore, could seek his appropriate remedy against Shri Dikshit but the latter was not liable for punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act. This contention is untenable. A distinct remedy may be available to a person who has been defamed or against whom a complaint his been made but if the same action does constitute contempt the person responsible for such action is liable to be punished under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. The two remedies are not naturally exclusive.

7. It was, therefore, argued that availability of alternative remedy is no bar to the maintenance of the present contempt application in this Court under the Act.

8. But the above decision is distinguishable. In that decision the alternative remedy was by way of criminal prosecution for a distinct offence of defamation under Indian Penal Code. But, in the present case the alternative remedy of action under Order 39, Rule 2-A, CPC in my view, is also an action for contempt of Court. No other offence is involved. Thus the choice is only about the forum in which the contempt proceedings should commence. In this view of the matter, the above decision of the Division Bench is not of direct application to the point involved in the present case.

9. The learned Counsel for the applicants again stressed that even where the 'same remedy' lies in two forums the choice is of the Petitioner to select the forum. But, at the same time, it is to be remembered that where the question of 'same remedy' by way of contempt action is involved, the power and authority to be exercised by this Court under the Contempt of Courts Act to initiate contempt proceedings against the alleged contemner is discretionary. The applic