V.Kanagaraj, J. - (1.)THE Contempt Petition has been filed to punish the contemner for violating the order dated 25.8.2003 made in Crl. O.P. No. 28404 of 2003 on the file of this Court.
(2.)WHEN the matter was taken up for hearing on perusal of the materials placed on record what comes to be known is that the petitioner herein is the second respondent in the Criminal Original Petition No. 2404 of 2003; that the 'C' form licences relating to two theatres viz., Jagan & Mini Jagan at Ramanathapuram were originally standing in the name of the father of the petitioner and respondent, the 'C' from licence in respect of Jagan Theatre was issued by the District Collector, Ramanathapuram, who is the licence issuing authority in favour of 1. J. Sukumar; 2. J. Ramesh Babu; 3. J. Dhinesh Babu; 4. S. Jeyaraj and 5. M. Vijayarani and in respect of Mini Jagan the 'C' from licence was issued in favour of 1. J. Sukumar; 2. J. Ramesh Babu 3. J. Dhinesh Babu; that there was a family partition between the family members of late S. Jaganathan and partition list was prepared on 2.8.1999; that as per the partition list the aforementioned two theatres have to be administered and maintained by 1. J. Sukumar, 2. J. Ramesh Babhu, and 3. J. Dhinesh Babu for one year each by rotation and the petitioner's turn for administration of these two theatres commence from 1.7.2003 for one year. Though the respondent handed over the charge in respect of the two theatres on 1.7.2003, he took possession forcibly by engaging unruly elements on the same day when the petitioner and his brother were performing Pooja. Hence, the petitioner has approached the Executive Magistrate -cum -Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram, the first respondent in Crl. O.P. No. 28404 of 2003 under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. for restoring possession in respect of the two theatres;
On receipt of the said complaint, the first respondent in Crl. O.P. issued notice on 28.7.2003 directing the petitioner as well as the contemner to appear on 31.7.2003 with relevant records for enquiry; that the contemner/respondent appeared on that day and took time for filing reply; that a second notice dated 6.8.2003 was issued by the first respondent in Crl. O.P. to the petitioner and contemner by fixing 8.8.2003 as the hearing date; that having received the notice dated 6.8.2003 the contemner suppressing the notice dated 28.7.2003, filed the aforesaid Crl. O.P. for quashing the proceedings in M.C. No. 33/2003 and filed an affidavit before the first respondent on 29.8.2003 stating that this Court quashed the entire proceedings in M.C. No. 33 of 2003 further stating that filing of any counter by him will amount to contempt of Court and prayed time only to file the order copy; that the above -referred order was passed at the admission stage without notice to him and in such circumstance he was not in a position to know the order and on receipt of the order copy and perusing the same, he came to understand that this Court set aside the notice dated 6.8.2003 only and not the entire proceeding; that after verification it came to be known that the contemner has not only suppressed the notice dated 28.7.2003 issued by the first respondent in Crl. O.P. but also filed an affidavit with misleading facts to appear as if the suit in O.S. No. 69/2003 on the file of Sub -Court, Ramanathapuram is connected to the issue involved in the proceeding pending before the Executive Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram; that suppressing the material facts and filing a false affidavit before the first respondent in Crl. O.P. amounts to violating the order dated 25.8.2003 made in Crl. O.P. No. 28404 of 2003 on the file of this Court. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with this contempt Petition seeking to punish the respondent.

(3.)IN reply to the affidavit filed in the support of the petition, the respondent has filed counter affidavit stating that on 6.8.2003, the Revenue Divisional Officer issued a notice to him stating that there is likelihood of breach of peace in the premises of our theatres; that aggrieved, he preferred Cr. O.P. No. 28404 of 2003 to quash the entire proceeding; that when the matter came up for admission, this Court set aside the notice dated 6.8.2003 holding that the impugned notice was not in accordance with law and gave liberty to the Revenue Divisional Officer to pass fresh order in the manner required under Section 145(1) of Cr. P.C.; that on 29.8.2003 the Revenue Divisional Officer posted the case for filing his counter; that he gave instruction to his counsel to file an affidavit stating the order passed by this Court and to seek time for producing the certified copy of the above order; that accordingly his counsel prepared an affidavit on the lines of the fax message which he received from the counsel at High Court; that the fax message from his counsel at High Court stated that "our Honourable High Court has set aside the notice having issued by the learned R.D.O. in M.C. No. 33 of 2003 and quashed further proceedings on it"; that in the above lines the word 'it' mentioned in the fax message dated 27.8.2003 only means the notice of the R.D.O., but it was communicated to his counsel that the notice dated 6.8.2003 was set aside and all further proceedings on that notice was quashed; that therefore at no point of time an attempt was made to mislead the R.D.O. or commit contempt of order dated 25.8.2003 passed by this Court.