HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

CPCR No. 4/2016

Sonia Gupta

..... petitioner (s)

Through :- Mr. Koshal Parihar Advocate

V/s

Varun Gupta

.....Respondent(s)

Through :- None

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.A. CHOWDHARY, JUDGE

ORDER

1

This is a petition seeking initiation of contempt proceedings

against the respondent for suppression of relevant information from this Court

in the proceedings launched by the respondent under Section 561-A Cr. P.C. It

is submitted that, along with the quashment petition, the respondent had also

moved an application for grant of interim relief praying, inter alia, for the

following reliefs:

(i)

FIR No. 62/2015 be stayed;

(ii)

Investigation in the impugned FIR be stayed or in the

alternative, the respondent herein be released on bail till

pendency of the petition.

2

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that aforesaid

application was supported by an affidavit and the respondent had deliberately

not brought to the notice of this Court the factum of pendency of bail

application before the trial Court.

Sr. No. 2

2

3

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the

matter, we do not find it a fit case for initiating criminal contempt proceedings

against the respondent. It may be true, that, at the time the respondent filed the

petition under Section 561-A Cr.P.C along with application for stay, his bail

application was pending before the trial Court, but, in the aforesaid petition

filed under Section 561-A Cr.P.C, where the respondent was seeking

quashment of FIR No.62/2015, he also made a prayer for his release on bail. It

may be seen that the aforesaid relief was claimed by the respondent in the

alternative, whereas the main interim relief was for staying the investigation in

the aforesaid FIR.

4

Be that as it may, we do not find it a case of serious lapse on the

part of the respondent which would entail initiation of criminal contempt

proceedings. Otherwise also, as per opinion of the learned Advocate General, it

is not a fit case for initiating criminal contempt proceeding.

Accordingly, the proceedings in this contempt petition are closed.

(M.A. CHOWDHARY) (SANJEEV KUMAR)

JUDGE

JUDGE

Jammu

14.03.2022

Sanjeev

Whether order is speaking:Yes