Mukul Gopal Mukherji, J. - (1.) This application filed on 5.3.92 by the petitioners urges us to craw up a proceeding suo motu against the contemnors for abusing the process of the court and for obstructing due course of judicial proceeding and administration of justice. The main grievance of the petitioner is to the effect that the contemnors respondents Madao Mohan Shroff and Sahadud Ul Haque are persistently taking proceedings against them under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It has been specifically alleged that on 12.2.92 the respondent No. 2 moved a petition under Section 144 Cr. P. C. against the petitioner No.1 as well as one Tapan Bhsttacharjee in which be falsely elated that the petitioner No.1 along with its associates had been systematically trespassing at 10, Sunny Park and contended that the respondent No.2 was given to understand that the petitioners would not allow him as well members of his family to live in that flat and they would disturb hit peaceful possession thereto. In the said application under Section 144 Cr.P.C. the respondent No, 2 falsely stated that the Southern flat of the first floor of 10, Sunny Park was given in monthly tenancy to him by the contemnor respondent No. 1 Madan Mohan Shroff on and from 16.10.91 on rental basis @ Rs. 3000/- per month and he became a tenant under the contemnor respondent No. 1 and others and is residing in the raid flat. It was more or less admitted in the said application under Section 144 Cr.P.C. filed by him that the petitioners at all material times bad been tenants in respect of Southern flat on the first floor of 10, Sunny Park as a monthly tenant prior to his induction into the premises as a tenant under the contemnor respondent No.1. We are however, not materially concerned with other averments made by the contemnors respondent No. 2 in the said application. If has been alleged by the petitioner No 1 company that it became monthly tenant on the first Boor of 10, Sunny Park which it has been peacefully occupying by paying rent to the landlady Smt. Neena Shroff, wife of Hari Mohan Shroff (who is the brother of contemnor respondent No. 1) at a monthly rent of Rs. 12,00/- per month which rent was regularly paid to landlady till 19.12.91. It has been further alleged that the contemnor respondent No. 1 had been trying to oust the petitioner company from the tenancy in respect of the said flat and to that end had been indulging in false and frivolous litigation against the petitioner company one after another. On 17.1.92 the respondent No. 2 filed Title Suit No. 0 of 1992 against the petitioner No. 1 company, in which the respondent No. 1 Madan Mohan Shroff was Impleaded as a party defendant only to show his bonafides. In fact the suit was filed on 17.1.92 in collusion with the contemnor respondent No. 1. In the Title Suit the respondent No.2 filed an application for injunction whereupon the Ld. Munsif by his order dated 17.2.92 directed the parties to maintain status quo. He however, did not disturb the petitioner No. 1 company any manner whatsoever since it was already in possession of the said premises. The respondent No.2 thereafter filed an application under Section 144(2) Cr P C. before the executive Magistrate, Alipore being M.P. Case No. 138 of 1992. In hit application he completely suppressed that he bad filed a title suit earlier and even prayed for injunction and only had obtained an order or status quo. In that proceeding be contended that he was inducted by respondent No.1 as a monthly tenant on 16.10.91 in respect of the flat which comprised of three bedrooms with attached bath and privy, one drawing room, one dining room, one separate kitchen, one pantry and a corridor where he had been living with the members of his family. It was falsely alleged in the said proceeding under Section 144 Cr. P. C. that the petitioner No. 1 company vacated the flat on or about October 14.15.1991 by removing all their articles and materials from the premises. It was falsely alleged that since the financial position of the company was not sound and it has faced difficulties in retaining the fiat and to pay monthly rents and in fact defaulted in payment of monthly rents from March 1991 onwards, it expressed its intention to quit and vacate the premises on receipt of some money as shifting charges upon which the respondent No. 1 agreed to pay the petitioner No. 1 company such shifting charges of Rs. 25,000/-. The petitioner No. 1 company having already received the said amount vacated the premises on or about October 14/15, 1991. On the said application being moved the learned Executive Magistrate, 1st Court, Alipore by bis order dated 18.1.92 in M.P. Case No 138 of 1992, without drawing up a proceeding under Section 144 Cr. P. C. directed the Officer-in-Charge, Bailygunge Police Station to enquire and report by 18.2.92 directing the police to see that no breach of peace took place. Hi further passed direction on the Officer-in-Charge to see that the petitioners and their men might not illegally take forcible occupation or disturb the peaceful possession of the respondent No, 2 and his men at the scheduled premises until further order. He asked the Officer-in-Charge, Ballygunge Police Station to maintain peace and to post police pickets as necessary at the cost of the respondent No. 2. A notice was issued upon the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 to appear and fils show-cause. On getting this order the respondent No, 2 collected men and material on 19.1.92 and on the subsequent days the respondent No. 2 in collusion with respondent No. 1 prevented the members of the company and its staff and employees from entering the disputed Premises on 20.1.92, They also caused one of the employees of the company Parimal Bag to be abducted on 19.1.92 under the cover of the order dated 18.1.92. The respondent No. 2 prevented the members of the company and its staff from entering the disputed premises. Thereafter the petitioner No. 1 company went in revision against the order dated 18.1.92 end a learned Single Judge of this Court stayed operation of the impugned order until further orders. We are given to understand that after the expiry of 60 days the proceeding Id M. P. Case No. 138 of 1992 had been dropped as infructuous and the revisional application stood disposed of. The petitioners contacted the Ballygunge Police Station so as to help the company to got back to its rightful possession in respect of the disputed flat. The petitioner No. 2 was contacted over phone at his residence by a polios Sub-Inspector. As and when the petitioner No. 2 went Io police station on 29.1.92 he found both the contemnors together. The petitioners were escorted by several police personnel to the premises at 10, Sunny Park but the police did not enter on the plea that they saw some women in the said flat. On 30.1.92 an application was again moved by the contemnor respondent No. 1 who acted in collusion with contemnor respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 1 filed an identical application as that of the previous M. P. Case No. 138 of 1992. The self-same learned Executive Magistrate passed an order on identical terms with the previous one. The learned Executive Magistrate in M. P. Case No. 253 of 1992 directed the Officer-in charge, Ballygunge Police Station to enquire and report by 29.2.92 and directed him farther to tee that do breach of peace took place aDd that the petitioners and their management might not lake forcible or illegal possession of the said flat including garage or any portion of the flat or Including garage of the respondent No. 2 and any portion of the building at N a. 10 Sunny Park. The petitioners were called upon to appear and file show cause by 29.2.92. The petitioner Nos. 1 & 3 thereupon moved a revisional application before this Hon'ble Court impugning the order of Executive Magistrate dated 30.1.92 whereupon anther learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court directed the revisional application to come up as a contested one three weeks from the date of the order i.e. from 13.2.92 and stayed operation of the impugned order dated 30.1.92 passed by the Executive Magistrate. Just one day before the aforesaid order was passed by this Hon'ble Court staying operation of the order purportedly made under Section 44 Cr.P C. the contemnor respondent No 2 filed another application under Section 144 Cr. P C. alleging that there was a threat to breach of peace by the petitioners and their men and agents whereupon the learned Executive Magistrate paned yet another order in M. P. Case No. 363 on 12.2.92 directing the Officer in Charge, Ballygunge Police Station to enquire and report by 13.3.92 directing him further to see that no breach of peace took place.
(2.) In the background of the sequence of events the petitioners prayed that in view of the contemnor respondents retorting to frivolous litigation one after another, there is really an abuse of the process of the court. In order to cover up their misdeeds end preventing Inter alia the petitioners and the staff from entering the office premises at 10, Sunny Park from 20th January, 1992 onwards, the respondents are resorting to repealed false applications thus making them guilty of abusing the process of the Court rendering them liable for criminal contempt.
(3.) A preliminary objection was raised by the opposite party No. 1 who entered appearance through Mr. Balai Chandra Roy, Mr. Sekhar Bose and Mr. Subrata Chatterjee Advocates contending inter alia that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application tor criminal contempt under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.;