- (1.) MISHRI Lal has filed present contempt application, requesting therein that respondent Nos. 2 to 7 be summoned, prosecuted and punished for non compliance of the directives issued by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shri D. K. Basu v. State West Bengal, J. T. 1997 (1) S. C. 1, by contending that at the time of effecting arrest he was beaten badly and maltreatment was extended to him.
(2.) BRIEF background of the case is that the applicant had filed Criminal Misc. Writ petition No. 11992 of 2006, requesting therein that the police of police station Manjhanpur, Chauki Incharge be restrained from making domiciliary visit in the day and night hours of his house and bringing the applicant, his family members and the ladies of his house in police station. On presentation of the aforementioned writ petition, this Court passed following order: "heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A. G. A. for the State and perused the record. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Chandra Pal Singh was posted as S. I. at Samsabad outpost within the limit of P. S. District Kaushambi. The case as case crime No. 64/06 under Section 7/13 (1) (D) 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against him at P. S. Manjhanpur, wherein the petitioner happens to be a witness. It is contended that the above mentioned S. I. was released on bail and has been posted at the said police station a d is adopting every coercive measures to harass the petitioner and domiciliary visit is always made at his house in the day and night. The act of police coerces the petitioner and his family members to live peacefully at their residence and his act violates the liberty of the petitioner and his family members as guaranteed under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, issued notice to respondent No. 5 to file counter affidavit within ten days. List on 30. 10. 2006 as unlisted. The S. O. concerned shall ensure that no such visit shall be made or any harassment be extended to the petitioner and his family members. Let a copy of this order be furnished to the learned A. G. A. free of cost by tomorrow for intimating the authority concerned. "
(3.) THEREAFTER, said writ petition was finally decided in following terms: "heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned A. G. A. In this case a counter affidavit was was filed by the Sate as far back as 2. 11. 2006, which states that Station Officer against whom allegations were made has even been transferred outside the outpost, hence now the petitioner can have no apprehension, as alleged in the writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition has become infructuous. Furthermore, the petitioner has already filed a writ petition in which an order has been passed for checking domiciliary visits by the police. If there is any violation of the said order, it may be open for him to file a contempt petition. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. ";