SAHWINI KUMAR Vs. STATE
LAWS(DLH)-1995-1-88
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on January 31,1995

ASHWINI KUMAR Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF DELHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Cyriac Joseph - (1.)This is a civil contempt petitoin filed by the petitioner impleading (1) The State, (2) Shri Amarjit Singh Choudhary, Station House Officer, Police Station Darya Ganj, New Delhi and (3) Shri Sanjay Garg, Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi as respondents/contemnors.
(2.)According to the petitioner, Smt. Nisha; wife of the petitioner had filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner under secction 498-A/406 of the Indian Penal Code with the Crime Against Women Cell pursuant to which a FIR was lodged with the police station Darya Ganj, New Delhi bearing No.29/92. The petitioner filed Crl.M(M) No.1389/94 before this Court for quashing FIR No.29/92 lodged in Darya Ganj police station. Smt Nisha, wife of the petitioner, was respondent No.2 in Crl.M(M) 1389/94. She appeared before the Court and submitted that she was not interested in prosecuting the complaint any longer and accordingly this Court on 24th August, 1994 disposed of Crl.M(M) 1389/94 quashing FIR No.29/92 of Darya Ganj police station and the proceedings pending before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. However, on 20th October, 1994 the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Shri Sanjay Garg (third respondent herein) finding that the accused was' not present in Court issued non-bailable warrant against the accused (petitioner herein) and also issued notice to the surety for 6th December, 1994. Pursuant to the said order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, the petitioner was arrested by the second respondent SHO Darya Ganj police station on 7th November, 1994 at about 7.00 p.m. and was kept in lock up. He was also humiliated and insulted by hand-cuffing before the public in his area. The counsel for the petitioner appeared before the third respondent Metropolitan Magistrate on 8th November, 1994 at about 10.15 a.m. and apprised him about what had hapened. Thereupon, the Metropolitan Magistrate called the second respondent and directed to produce the petitioner before him. the petitioner was produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate by the second respondent at 11 a.m. on 8th November, 1994 and immediately he was released by the third respondent. It is on these allegations that the petitioner has filed the civil contempt petition against the respondents.
(3.)According to the learned counsel for the petitioner both the second and the third respondents were aware of the order dated 24th August, 1994 of the High Court, in Crl.M(M) petition No.1389/94 but they deliberately and negligently disobeyed the order of this Court. The submission is that in view of the orders of the High Court quashing the FIR and the proceedings pending before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate, the accused (petitioner herein) was not bound to appear before the Metropolitan Magistrate on 20th October, 1994 and that on 20th October, 1994 the Metropolitan Magistrate was aware of the order of the High Court since the same had been communicated to him by. the Registrar of the High Court in the month of August 1994 itself. It is also submitted' that when the second respondent went to the petitioner's house to arrest him on 7th November, 1994, the petitioner had told the second respondent about the order of the High Court but the second respondent having admitted to be aware of the order proceeded to arrest the petitioner staling that in view of the non-bailable warrant issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate, he was bound to arrest the petitioner and to produce him before the third respondent. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner both the respondents wilfully disobeyed the order of the High Court in Crl.M(M) No.1389/94 and thereby committed civil contempt of Court.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.