Back
2020 Supreme(All) 83
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ABDUL MOIN, J.
Mili Nigam – Appellant
Versus
Kalanidhi Naithani,S.S.P.Lucknow & Ors. – Respondent
Contempt No. 89 of 2019
Decided on : 10-02-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Applicant : Shiv Raj Mohan Nigam
Point of Law
Section 345 of the Cr.P.C., it is apparent that where any offence as is described in section 175, section 178, section 179, section 180 or section 228 of the Indian Penal Code is committed, the Court may cause the offender to be detained in custody and may take cognizance of the offence and, after giving an opportunity may also impose penalty upon him.
Headnote:
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Sections 10, 11 and 12 – Contempt of order of Court – Non-compliance of the orders issued by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate – Held, Section 175 of IPC, it is apparent that omission to produce document or electronic record by person legally bound to produce up to a Court of justice is an offence punishable with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both. Thus, in case learned Magistrate is of the view that the officials concerned have not produced the document/report deliberately as were directed by him to be produced it is always open for the learned Magistrate to proceed against the officials concerned under the powers vested with him under the aforesaid provisions of law. However, this Court records that it has not gone into the merits of the orders passed by the learned Magistrate but has only considered as to whether learned Magistrate has got the power to have his own orders complied with whereby not requiring this Court to interfere and invoke its jurisdiction under the Act of 1971 – Contempt petition dismissed. (Paras 15 and 16)
Facts of the Case
Chief Judicial Magistrate through various orders had required the officials concerned to submit a report but despite sending various letters, as would be apparent from perusal of the order sheet, the said report has not been sent and consequently the respondents run in contempt of the orders passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate.
Finding of the Court
Section 175 of IPC, it is apparent that omission to produce document or electronic record by person legally bound to produce up to a Court of justice is an offence punishable with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both. Thus, in case learned Magistrate is of the view that the officials concerned have not produced the document/report deliberately as were directed by him to be produced it is always open for the learned Magistrate to proceed against the officials concerned under the powers vested with him under the aforesaid provisions of law. However, this Court records that it has not gone into the merits of the orders passed by the learned Magistrate but has only considered as to whether learned Magistrate has got the power to have his own orders complied with whereby not requiring this Court to interfere and invoke its jurisdiction under the Act of 1971.
Result: Contempt petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Abdul Moin, J.
1. Heard. At the very outset, Sri Shiv Raj Mohan Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner, made a request that he is unable to see clearly as such his friend, colleague and Advocate Sri H.M. Mathur be permitted to argue the matter on his behalf.
2. Accordingly, seeing the personal difficulty of Sri Nigam, this Court permitted Sri H.M. Mathur, Advocate, to argue the matter.
3. Heard Sri Shiv Raj Mohan Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri H.M. Mathur, Advocate, who has assisted the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. Present contempt petition has been filed under Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1971) alleging non-compliance of the orders issued by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, as per the order sheet, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the contempt petition.
5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, through various orders had required the officials concerned to submit a report but despite sending various letters, as would be apparent from perusal of the order sheet, on 20.07.2018, 24.09.2018, 29.10.2018, 27.11.2018 and 11.12.2018 the said report has not been sent and consequently the respondents run in contempt of the orders passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow.
6. From perusal of the record, it is clearly apparent that it is not the order of a writ Court against which contempt is alleged but an order which has been issued by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow requiring the officials concerned to send a report and thus Section 10 of the Act of 1971 has been invoked for punishing the officials for not responding to the orders passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow for sending a report.
7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. From the pleadings on record, it is apparent that the petitioner seeks initiation of contempt proceedings of non-compliance of the orders issued by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow to the officials concerned for sending a report which has not been sent by them.
8. Whether this Court while exercising power under Section 10 of Act of 1971 would have jurisdiction to entertain the present contempt petition alleging contempt of orders passed by a subordinate court is an issue which has to be considered by this Court.
9. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the Apex Court in the case of E. Bapanaiah vs. K.S. Raju reported in (2015) 1 SCC 451 wherein it has been held as under:-
"25. Powers of the High Courts to punish for contempt including the powers to punish for contempt of itself flow from Article 215 of the Constitution of India. Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 empowers the High Courts to punish contempts of its subordinate courts which reads as under: -
“10. Power of High Court to punish contempts of subordinate courts. – Every High Court shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction, powers and authority, in accordance with the same procedure and practice, in respect of contempts of courts subordinate to it as it has and exercises in respect of contempts of itself:
Provided that no High Court shall take cognizance of a contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a court subordinate to it where such contempt is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
27. The present case relates to a civil contempt wherein an undertaking given to Company Law Board is breached. Normally, the general provisions made under the Contempt of Courts Act are not invoked by the High Courts for forcing a party to obey orders passed by its subordinate courts for the simple reason that there are provisions contained in Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to get executed its orders and decrees. It is settled principle of law that where there are special law and general law, the provisions of special law woul
