- (1.) PRESENT application has been preferred by the applicant hereinoriginal complainant of FIR being CRINo. 79 of 2006 registered with Dahod Police Station, Dahod to initiate appropriate proceedings under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act against respondent no.2 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dahod making a grievance that despite there was a stay of further proceedings / trail against original accused no.5 pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court dated 10.03.2010 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.468 of 2010, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dahodrespondent no.2 herein has proceeded further with the trial against the original accused no.5 along with other accused and by judgment and order dated 11.09.2013 has acquitted the original accused no.5 also.
(2.) THE facts leading to the present application in nutshell are as under: 2.1. That the applicant hereinoriginal complainant lodged the FIR against the accused being CRINo. 79 of 2006 registered with Dahod Police Station, Dahod for the offences punishable under Sections 498 A, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Thereafter on conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet against all the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498 A, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the case was registered as Criminal Case No. 2544 of 2006. It appears that original accused no.5 Linaben d/o Virendrasing Verma approached this Court by way of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 468 of 2010 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the criminal proceedings against her. It appears that by order dated 10.3.2010, the learned Single Judge issued the Rule in the aforesaid Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.468 of 2010 and granted interim relief in terms of para 7(C) qua her. Thus, pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, trial against the original accused no.5 Linaben came to be stayed. 2.2. It appears that the trial against other accused original accused nos. 1 to 4 was not being proceeded further, original complainant submitted application Exh.71 requesting the learned Judge to proceed further with the trial against the original accused no. 1 to 4 and by order dated 27.7.2010 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dahod order to proceed further with the trial against the original accused nos. 1 to 4 only. That thereafter, the trial of Criminal Case No.2544 of 2006 proceeded further and by judgment and order dated 11.09.2013 passed in Criminal Case No. 2544 of 2006, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dahod respondent no.2 herein has not only acquitted original accused nos. 1 to 4 but has also acquitted original accused no.5, though the trial against original accused no.5 was stayed by this Court. Hence, the applicant hereinoriginal complainant has preferred Miscellaneous Civil Application to initiate appropriate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act against respondent no.2 herein learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dahod in proceeding further with the trial against the original accused no.5 despite stay of further proceedings of the trial against the original accused no.5 granted by this Court. It is also required to be noted at this stage that thereafter Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 468 of 2010 preferred by the original accused no.5 came up for final hearing before the learned Single Judge and by order dated 5.2.2014 the learned Single Judge ( Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravi R. Tripathi) has dismissed the said Criminal Miscellaneous Application and vacated the interim relief granted earlier. It is required to be noted that as such though by judgment and order dated 11.09.2013, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted all the accused inclusive of original accused no.5, neither learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant herein original complainant nor learned advocate for the original accused no. 5 drew the attention of the learned Single Judge about the judgment and order passed by leaned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dahod dated 11.09.2013 passed in Criminal Case No. 2544 of 2006 acquitting all the accused including original accused no.5. 2.3. That thereafter, the applicant original complainant has preferred present Miscellaneous Civil Application to initiate appropriate proceedings against respondent no.2learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dahod under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act submitting that despite the stay order granted by this Court dated 10.3.2010 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.468 of 2010 staying further proceedings of Criminal Case No.2544 of 2006 against original accused no.5, the learned Judge has proceeded further with the trial against the original accused no.5 also and has acquitted the original accused no.5.
(3.) SHRI Hemant Makwana, learned advocate for the applicant original complainant has vehemently submitted that proceeding further with the trial against the original accused no.5 and thereafter to acquit the original accused no.5 is in breach and / or in violation of interim order passed by this Court dated 10.3.2010 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 468 of 2010. It is further submitted that by interim order dated 10.3.2010 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 468 of 2010, the learned Single Judge granted the stay of further proceeding with the trial against the original accused no.5. It is submitted that even thereafter the predecessor learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dahod specifically passed the order dated 27.7.2010 below Exh.71 ordering to proceed further with the trial against the original accused nos. 1 to 4 only, respondent no.2 in utter disregard to the interim order passed by this Court dated 10.3.2010 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.468 of 2010 as well as order passed below Exh.71 dated 27.7.2010 has proceeded further with the trial against the original accused no.5 and has acquitted the original accused no.5 and therefore, respondent no.2 has rendered himself liable for action under the Contempt of Courts Act and consequently liable for punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act. By order dated 21.03.2014 this Court directed the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dahodrespondent no.2 herein to submit the report as to why despite the interim order passed by this Court dated 10.3.2010 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 468 of 2010 granting stay of further proceedings of the trial against the original accused no.5, he proceeded further with the trial against original accused no.5 also. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 21.3.2014, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dahodrespondent no.2 herein has submitted the detailed report submitting inter alia that as such he has not proceeded further with the trial against the original accused no.5 and through oversight and by mistake of the typist, in the operative portion of the order and while acquitting other accused original accused nos. 1 to 4, name of original accused no.5 is also mentioned thereby acquitting all the accused including original accused no.5. It is submitted that as such it was a bonafide mistake on his part and on the part of the typist and he had not slightest intention to flout interim order passed by this Court. Along with report, he has also produced the purshis submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant herein original complainant specifically submitting that the learned Judge has not proceeded further with the trial against the original accused no.5. The learned Judge has also submitted that even the further statement of the original accused no.5 was not recorded which would go to show that he had not proceeded further with the trial against the original accused no.5. It is also further submitted that even the original accused no.5 thereafter did not remain present before the Court and even the judgment and order of acquittal has not been signed by the original accused nos. 1 to 4 only. Therefore, it is requested to pardon him and has assured that such bonafide mistake shall not occur again.;