Point of Law: 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.

JUDGMENT :

Suneet Kumar, J.

Heard Shri Indra Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material brought on record.

2. Applicant had filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being Matter Under Article 227 No. 4889 of 2019, assailing the cognizance order and entire proceeding pending before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar. The Court vide order dated 8 July 2019, stayed the further proceedings of the case till the next date of listing. Operative portion of the order reads thus:

“Till the next date of listing further proceedings of case No. 1663 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No.102 of 2014, u/ s 147, 420, 406, 467, 468, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.-Swaroop Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar, with regard to petitioner namely Sitanshu Dutta, shall remain stayed.”

3. The instant application under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, has been filed alleging that order dated 8 July 2019, and general orders dated 26 March 2020 & 1 December 2020, passed by the Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 4889 of 2019 and Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 564 of 2020, providing that the interim order operating in pending cases to continue in view of Covid-19 pandemic.

4. It is urged by learned counsel for the applicant that the interim order was filed/submitted before the court below on 7 August 2019. The general orders/interim order came to be extended from time to time until 5 January 2021. It is submitted that despite having knowledge of the general orders, opposite party/learned Court below issued bailable warrant against the applicant on 30 January 2021. It is further submitted that applicant made an application, duly supported by an affidavit on 8 February 2021, to recall the warrant, inter alia, stating therein that the interim order granted by this Court staying further proceedings of the trial stands extended by the general orders passed by the Division Bench. Despite the application and knowledge of the orders, opposite party issued non bailable warrant against the applicant on 8 February 2021. It is, therefore, alleged that opposite party has wilfully and deliberately flouted the interim order, as well as, general orders passed by this Court.

5. On specific query, learned counsel for the applicant admits that the general order was not extended after 5 January 2021, however, learned counsel would insist that the orders dated 30 January 2021 and 8 February 2021, passed by the Court below tantamounts to flouting the general orders passed by the Division Bench. It is an act of impropriety by the court below. Further, it is submitted that the order of the trial court summoning the applicant is not in terms of the declaration of law rendered by the Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Raod Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. CBI, 2018 SCC Online SC 310 for short ‘Asian Resurfacing’. He further submits that an application seeking extension of the stay in terms of Asian Resurfacing (supra) is pending consideration before this Court. In other words, it is urged that until pendency of the stay extension application, the Court below could not have proceeded with the trial.

6. Pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Asian Resurfacing, Registry of this Court vide Circular dated 26 April 2018, addressed to all judicial officers subordinate to the High Court, directed them to follow the mandate of the decision scrupulously. The Circular reads thus:

"To,

All the Judicial Officers,

Subordinate to High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

C.L. No. 12 / Admin. 'G-II' Dated: Allahabad 26.04.2018

Sub: Order dated 28.03.2018 of Hon'ble the Supreme Court passed in Criminal Appeal Nos 1375-1376 of 2013 titled Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Central Bureau of Investigation.

Madam/Sir,

While hearing the above-mentioned Criminal Appeals, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has directed that in all cases pending before the High Courts or other courts relating to PC Act or all other civil or criminal cases, where