R.K. Dash, J. - (1.) These two case are off-shoot of the Writ Petitions 7087 of 2002 and 7192 of 2002. The petitioners, arrayed as accused in Case Crime No. 193 of 2002 under section 498-A, I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act at P.S. Mirzapur, district Shahjahanpur filed the aforementioned writ petitions praying for issuance of writ, order of direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the F.I.R. and restrain the police to arrest them. The Court while rejecting the prayer directed that upon the petitioners making payment of compensation Rs. 1000/- per month to the victim lady, their arrest shall remain stayed until further orders. It is the case of the petitioners that they applied for certified copy of the said order and since it was not made available to them at an early date, they submitted an affidavit to the Station House Officer Mirzapur P.S. indicating that their arrest has been stayed by this Court. They also sent copies of the affidavit through registered post to other authorities which were duly received by them on 8th December, 2002. Despite that, the police arrested them and sent them to jail. Since the concerned police officer flouted the Court's order/direction and arrested the petitioners, it is urged that he should be suitably punished for violating the Courts' order. Notices were issued to respondent Nos. 2 to 5 to show cause as to why action be not taken against them for violating the Court's order/direction. Pursuant thereto, Narendra Singh Burgoti, Station Officer Mirzapur, P.S. who was the investigating officer filed affidavit admitting that part of the petitioners' case that an affidavit indicating Court's order was received by him. His case however, is that the petitioner No. 1 Rakesh assured him that he would produce certified copy of the said order within three to four days, but when he failed to produce the same, he, in good faith arrested the petitioners on 14th December, 2002 believing that the averments made in the affidavit were incorrect. He has further stated that his action in arresting the petitioners was not intentional or deliberate and he never intended to flout the Court's order. Making such submissions, he has tendered unconditional apology.
(2.) When these two applications came before us, we were astonished to find how our order restraining the police to arrest the petitioners which was dictated in open Court was flouted by the police. On our query as to whether our order was communicated by the State Counsel to authorities concerned, learned A.G.A. submitted that since large number of orders are being passed everyday, it is not practically possible to communicate the same. It was also submitted that necessary infrastructure has not been provided to the Government Advocate's office to communicate Court's order passed everyday to various authorities. In view of such submission, we directed the Principal Secretary (Home), Government of U.P., Lucknow to enlighten the Court through affidavit as to the reason for not providing necessary infrastructure to comply the Court's order. In pursuance thereof, Principal Secretary (Home) filed affidavit stating therein that the copy of Court's order dated 5.12.2002 was received in the department on 26th March, 2003 sent by the Additional Government Advocate, but by then the petitioners had already been arrested by the police. With regard to question of providing necessary facilities to the Government Advocate's office to communicate Court's order, it is stated that since it relates to Law Department he referred the matter to the Principal Secretary of the said department for taking appropriate steps.
(3.) From the petitions, affidavits and other materials available on record what appears to us is that the State and its officials do not give importance to Court's order. They at their whims and unhesitatingly violate Court's order. They are of the impression that the Court's orders are to be obeyed and respected by the citizens and not by them. It is the age old practice that the orders dictated in open Court are communicated to the concerned authorities without any delay for compliance and due respect is given to such orders. But presently this practice has been given a good-bye. In the case on hand, the petitioners in order to protect their interest filed affidavit before Narendra Singh Burgoti, respondent No. 4 informing the Court's order staying their arrest. This was so done since they could not obtain certified copy of the order. Respondent No. 4 who is expected to be a responsible officer-should have given due importance to such affidavit and if at all he entertained doubt about truth of the averments made therein, he should have either made inquiry as to if such order was passed by the Court or he should have obtained necessary instruction from his higher authorities. He, however, did not do so. Instead, he misused his power, wilfully disobeyed Court's order and arrested the petitioners. It is thus established that he has committed contempt of this Court.;