- (1.) This criminal contempt has been placed before us on the directions as contained in the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 24.6.2015. The direction of the Division Bench contained in para-14 of the judgment giving rise to this criminal contempt is extracted hereunder. "14. Before parting, we also cannot ignore to notice the facts that the affidavit accompanying writ petition has been sworn by one Neetu Yadav, aged about 39 years, wife of late Raj Yadav, resident of House No. 56, Pahadi Gali, Meergunj, Police Station Kotwali, Allahabad, giving wholly incorrect and wrong facts which included not only the name of petitioner but her parentage, address etc. The girl has specifically stated that she is not resident of Meergunj, Allahabad, and she expressed totally unacquaintance to the deponent of the affidavit. It is thus clear that the aforesaid deponent has filed a false affidavit before the Court. Filing of a false affidavit intentionally before this Court amounts to criminal contempt. Therefore, we issue notice to Neetu Yadav to show cause as to why a proceeding for criminal contempt be not initiated against her and she be not punished under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The criminal contempt proceeding shall be registered by the Registry separately. The aforesaid contemnor shall file reply within three weeks of issuing notice. This matter shall be listed before the appropriate Bench after obtaining nomination from Hon'ble The Chief Justice for further proceedings in the matter of criminal contempt. "
(2.) We have gone through the entire judgment and in order to seek assistance in the matter, we have heard learned AGA as well as Sri Daya Shankar Mishra, counsel who had appeared in the Habeas Corpus Petition for the detenue on the issue so raised.
(3.) It appears that a Habeas Corpus Petition was preferred in the name of Chandni Yadav. The FIR which was registered in Case Crime No. 326 of 2014, police station Kotwali, district Allahabad on 18.11.2014 is stated to contain the names of several females including one Chandni Yadav. It appears that she was sent to the Women's Protection Home, Agra under the orders of the Magistrate thereafter. The petition seeking her release for the benefit of the above named Chandni Yadav was supported by an affidavit of Neetu Yadav contending that the detention of Chandni Yadav is unlawful, in inasmuch, as it is contrary to the provisions of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and is even otherwise violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 3. The Court, it appears that, had summoned the detenue from the Women's Protection Home. Sri Daya Shankar Mishra who was the counsel for the detenue informs that through out the investigation including the FIR, the statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C and her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. describes the detenue as Chandni Yadav and no other name of this detenue was indicated. This was further fortified by the report which was sent for the purpose of detaining her in the Women's Protection Home by the CO as well. It nowhere indicated her name to be Lipi Das and it was for the first time she has stated before the Court that her name is Lipi Das and that she wants to reside with her husband Palash Das who was also present in the Court. Her identity as such namely Chandni Yadav which was mentioned in the entire investigating documents as referred to hereinabove was a matter of record. Sri Mishra informs that it is on the basis of record that the deponent had mentioned her name. In such circumstances to construe that Neetu Yadav has deliberately filed a false affidavit does not appear to be borne out from the facts of the case in as much as in all the prosecution documents the detenue who was identified and released by the court was mentioned as Chandni Yadav and not as Lipi Das.;