IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
IRSHAD ALI, J.
Mahesh Chandra Shukla - Applicant
Versus
Achal Mishra Basic Shiksha Adhikari Lakhimpur Kheri and Anr. - Opposite Parties
Contempt Application (Civil) No. 695 of 2013
Decided On : 26-07-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226, 215 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 506 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 161, 173(8) -Examination of witnesses by police - Offence for criminal intimidation - Game of appointing teachers - Regarding alleged offence - Contempt petition - Held, Court observed that for several years, in State of Uttar Pradesh, game of appointing teachers by management of educational institutions without prior permission for creation of posts and then coming to court for payment of salary has been going on and several thousands crores of rupees of tax-payers money has been paid to such appointees on basis of interim/ final orders passed by this Court - Therefore, it is not only committee of management and such appointees, who are culprits, but officials in Education Department have equal share in culpability - Allowed.
JUDGMENT :
C.M. Application No.11 of 2022
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This is an application filed under Article 215 of the Constitution for the following directions :
(2) to direct initiation of legal proceedings including criminal proceedings against those responsible for initiation and continuance of false case under Section 506 I.P.C.
(3) issue such other order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be passed in the interest of justice and equity."
3. Factual matrix of the case is that one person Mr. Krishna Kumar Pandey, who was holding the post of Accounts Officer at District Ambedkar Nagar at relevant point of time in the year 2013 and who was facing grave charges of financial embezzlement and against him, serious criminal cases are registered, has apparently succeeded in using Hon’ble High Court order passed on 10.05.2013 as a tool not only to protect him from effective enquiry against him, but also to affect the pairvi of the cases and to wreck vengeance against the then Basic Education Officer, the deponent who was making pairvi of cases and the then APP I/ Special Counsel/ respected and renowned member of the Awadh Bar at Hon’ble High Court, Lucknow who was appearing for the government servant in the above contempt petition at the relevant time on 10.05.2013 and affidavit was also filed by the government through him.
Since the order dated 10.5.2013 passed by this court in this contempt petition has been used as a tool against the deponent and two other innocent persons, the deponent is having no other alternative remedy except to file this application before this Court so that the actions taken in violation of the order dated 10.05.2013 may be declared void. It is well settled that no person can be allowed to suffer because of the action of Hon’ble court and the proceedings/ order, the basis of which is fraud, is to be set at naught/ nullified.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that order dated 10.5.2023 in the above contempt petition was passed on asking of Krishna Kumar Pandey and the same was affirmed on 18.02.2020. The order dated 10.05.2023 was against the then Senior Registrar (Sri Alok Mukherjee). The then Senior Registrar (Sri Alok Mukherjee) wrote letter dated 10.05.2013 to the S.S.P., Lucknow. The S.S.P., Lucknow wrote letter dated 10.5.2013 to the Station House Officer, Wazirganj, Lucknow. Though the order dated 10.5.2013 of the High Court and letter dated 10.5.2013 of the Senior Registrar finds mention in letter of S.S.P. dated 10.05.2013 but it is ensured with ulterior motive that the FIR be not lodged as per direction contained In the order dated 10.5.2013 of the Hon’ble High Court and the order dated 10.05.2013 of the Court and letter dated 10.5.2013 of the Senior Registrar be not made part of the case-diary.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that Krishna Kumar Pandey, a man of bad incident, managed to lodge FIR dated 10.05.2013 with ulterior motive and ensure that the order of the Hon’ble High Court as well as letter of Registrar dated 10.05.2013 be not made part of the case diary.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that deponent has inspected the file of Hon’ble High Court on 24.11.2022 and from perusal of the same which finds place at page no.3 of the record, makes it clear that Mr. Krishna Kumar Pandey initially did not name any person and his version of FIR is totally absent in original application given to Senior Registrar Sri Alok Mukherjee.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant n
ABCD v. Union of India and others
Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others
A.V. Papyya Sastry and others v. Govt. of A.P. and others
Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma
P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of T.N.
DDA v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd.
Mohd. Idris v. Rustam Jehangir Babuji
Century Flour Mills Ltd. v. S. Suppiah
Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (India) (P) Ltd.
Smith v. East Elloe Rural Distt. Council
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh
Nemchand Tantia v. Kishinchand Chellaram (India) Ltd.
S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath
Ram Preeti Yadav v. U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education
Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley
State of A.P. v. T. Suryachandra Rao
Point of Law : Contempt Judge did not have the power to revive its own order.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that contempt proceedings are subject to strict limitation periods, and the concept of a continuing wrong does not apply to single acts of non-compliance with court order....
The court established that fabricating court orders constitutes criminal contempt, interfering with justice and warranting severe penalties under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Availing legal remedies does not amount to obstruction in the course of justice, and filing a contempt petition on false and flimsy grounds and suppressing material facts is an abuse of process of th....
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice, ruling that all parties must be included in property disputes to ensure fair adjudication.
(1) Contempt of court – A litigant who attempts to pollute stream of justice or who touches pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.(2) Grant of b....
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.