JUDGMENT 1. - This is a contempt petition in S. B. Criminal Misc. petition no. 249/82 in respect of stay order passed by this Court on 16th September, 1982 which reads. as under: "16-9-82 Hon'ble Mr. G.M. Lodha, J. Mr. S.R. Surana for the petitioner.Issue notices to the non-petitioners. Meanwhile status quo be maintained. Sd/-" 2. While admitting the contempt petition on 20th April, 1983, the notices to the non petitioner no.2, 5 & 6 were issued. 3. The case of the petitioner Rameshchand is, that an attachment order was issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, 1st class, Bharatpur on 5th October, 1981 & in pursuance of this order Laxminarain was appointed as receiver & the possession was handed over at the instance of Police Station Nagar (Bharatpur); that on 1st September, 1982 this attachment order was set aside alongwith preliminary order which was passed in proceedings under section 145 Cr. P.C.; that against that order, the petitioner Rameshchand filed a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. before this court & obtained a stay order on 16th September, 1982 for maintenance of the status quo in the matter, as mentioned above. 4. It is the petitioner's case that after the order of 1st September 1982 till 16th September, 1982 the status quo continued to be so what it was in pursuance of the order dated the 5th October, 1981 & the situation need not be changed. On 17th September, 1982 at 10 a.m. the petitioner appeared before the Asstt. Collector-cum-Executive Magistrate. Bharatpur and as the Presiding Officer Shri Ram Khilari Meena who was on leave he submitted an application alongwith photostat copy of the stay order of this court dated the 16th September, 1982. One Rajendrasingh the respondent no. 4 was present in the court who asked the petitioner to go to the police station & show the stay order. Then, the petitioner went to the police station at about 2 p.m. on the same day accompanied by Sureshchand. There, only one Harikishan, incharge polies station, the respondent no.2, was present The petitioner moved an application along with the copy of the stay order passed by this court, but Harikishan, the respondent no.2 alleged to have thrown it as he was hand in gloves with the respondent no. There, only one Harikishan, incharge polies station, the respondent no.2, was present The petitioner moved an application along with the copy of the stay order passed by this court, but Harikishan, the respondent no.2 alleged to have thrown it as he was hand in gloves with the respondent no. 6 Keshavdev & further Harikishan, the respondent no.2 has alleged to have said that he is not bound by the stay order of this court. 5. The petitioner then came to Bharatpur, again along with Sureshchand & Prahlad Prasad & then, on 18th September, 1982 all about 10 a. m. he again went to the court of Sub-divisional Magistrate. No.1 Bharatpur & submitted a photostat copy of the stay order of this Court alongwith stay petition. Since the reader of the court was helping Keshavdev & was not prepared to help the petitioner. he went to the court of the Sessions Judge. Bharatpur at about 10.45 a. m. & the Sessions Judge sent Dasti to the Asstt. Collector-cum Executive Magistrate, Bharatpur. The court of the Asstt. Collector received this menage at about 11 a.m. on the same day but the reader ignored & avoided this letter of Sessions Judge. According to the petitioner the contemner non-petitioner no. 6 Keshavdev was present & he read the order from the reader & remained in the court upto 3 p. m. Harishanker Sharma, Executive Magistrate to whom the petitioner narrated the entire story was approached by the petitioner but, Mr. Harishanker simply made an endoresment on the application, 'information of this order be sent to the SHO, Nagar' but, did not direct that no steps should be taken in pursuance of the earlier order of the Sessions Judge. 6. The petitioner requested Mr. Hari Shanker to send the order immediately otherwise Keshavdev who was knowing of the stay order, would try to defy it but, the Executive Magistrate, did not send it for two days and it was sent only on 20th September, 1982. 7. When the petitioner reached the Nagar police station & approached the police station he came to know that the possession has been forcibly taken from the court receiver Shri Laxminarain, though the contemners were knowing that there was stay order yet they tried to overreach the court & defy the order by taking forcible possession. 8. 7. When the petitioner reached the Nagar police station & approached the police station he came to know that the possession has been forcibly taken from the court receiver Shri Laxminarain, though the contemners were knowing that there was stay order yet they tried to overreach the court & defy the order by taking forcible possession. 8. The case of the petitioner is that Harikishan, Sub Inspector, police station Nagar, came to know of this order on 17th September 1982 but he acted contrary to it as he was hand in gloves with Keshavdev the contemnor. Hari Shanker Sharma was the presiding officer & the order was shown to him also and, inspite of that, he sent letter in favour of Keshavdev for delivery of possession & did not inform that letter should not be complied with which could have done by a telegram or wireless message. The contemner did not pay any heed to it. 9. The contemnor Keshavdev new of the stay order on 17th September, 1982 and thereafter steps were taken on 18th September 1982 with malafide intention to defy the High Court's order. 10. The contempt petition was admitted on 24th November, 1982 and on 17th Feb. 1983 this court passed an order that the respondents may purge from the contempt. However the respondents have not taken any steps in that respect. 11. The stay order of 16th September 1982 is still in force as it has not been modified or vacated. 12. As long as stay order continues to be in force, the non-petitioner could not have changed the situation and therefore, they are guilty of contempt to this court, argued Shri S. R. Surana the learned counsel for the petitioner. 13. Shri C. K. Garg the learned counsel for the non-petitioner no. 6 vehemently opposed this contempt petition. According to him no overtact of Keshavdev has been proved. The fact that Keshavdev saw the order from Rajendra, has been denied. The case of Keshavdev is that inspite of attachment Keshavdev never got the premises vacated. Shri Garg admitted that three rooms were locked by the police in the house of dispute but, Keshavdev stayed on the roof and used the kitchen for cooking. 14. It was stated that the locks were opened on 30th Oct. 1981 after the attachment order was suspended by the Sessions Court. Shri Garg admitted that three rooms were locked by the police in the house of dispute but, Keshavdev stayed on the roof and used the kitchen for cooking. 14. It was stated that the locks were opened on 30th Oct. 1981 after the attachment order was suspended by the Sessions Court. According to Shri Keshavdev he took the possession of the house on 30th Oct. 1981. 15. The revision was allowed by the Sessions Judge on 1st September, 1982. 16. Shri Garg argued that exparte stay order has not been confirmed & on 16th September 1982 when this court passed the stay order. Keshavdev continued to remain in the property. It was pointed out that earlier order dated, 5th Oct, 1981 was suspended on 26th Oct, 1981 and that was complied with on 30th Oct. 1981. According to Shri Garg on 19th September 1982 the proceedings of giving the house back to the petitioner were taken which were merely a paper formality & which, therefore, did not factually & virtually change the status quo as Keshavdev was in possession & he took it completely on 30th Oct, 1981. It was also argued that Keshvdev was never informed of the stay order dated 16th September, 1982. According to Shri Garg no notice was sent to Keshavdev & therefore, there was nothing against him. 17. Shri Ram Khilari Meena, the Asstt. Collector & Executive Magistrate, Bharatpur the respondent no. 5 has filed reply & according to that reply dated 5th April 1983 he was on leave on 16th September, 1982 when the stay order was passed by this court & he was further on leave on 18th September 1982. According to him, he was on leave from 4th September, 1982 to 29th September 1982 & 3rd Oct. 1982 to 23rd November, 1982. 18. Mr R.K. Meena has submitted that he has got highest regard for the High Court's order & he has not committed any contempt, whatsoever. Hari Shanker Sharma District Transport Officer, Bharatpur has also filed reply as respondent no. 5 in which he has stated that on 18th September 1982 Shri R. K. Meena was the presiding officer who was on leave & he was looking after the work of Asstt. Collector, Executive Magistrate court, Bharatpur. Hari Shanker Sharma District Transport Officer, Bharatpur has also filed reply as respondent no. 5 in which he has stated that on 18th September 1982 Shri R. K. Meena was the presiding officer who was on leave & he was looking after the work of Asstt. Collector, Executive Magistrate court, Bharatpur. Harishanker Sharma stated that original file was received from the court of Sessions Judge, Bharatpur with the copy of judgment dated 1st September 1982 vide no. 8461 dated 17th September 1982. According to him, he passed an order on 18th September 1982 to the effect that the order dated 5th Oct. 1981 has been quashed & for that. SHO P. S. Nagar may be informed, Harishanker Sharma submitted that when he received a copy of the order of this court dated 16th September 1982 on 18th September 1982 he sent that copy to the SHO, police station Nagar. According to him, aforesaid order of this court was forwarded vide letter which was signed by him on 18th September, 1982 & was despatched by the office vide no. 722 dated 20th September 1982. It has been further alleged that the letter of the Sessions Judge Bharatpur dated 18th September 1982 vide no. 8492 was received after the despatch of the letter no. 703 of 18th September 1982 from the court of A. C. M(l) on 18th September 1982 & he had no intention to flout the orders. 19. The respondent no. 2 namely Harikishan, SHO, S.I.P.S., Nagar has not filed any reply. 20. There is no doubt from the above facts that the order dated the 16th September, 1982 of this court which was repeatedly produced in the police & the Magistrate's court was not given its due effect & contrary to it on 18th September, 1982 the SHO was informed of the judgment quashing the attachment by the Sessions court. 21. Another important feature of this case is that on 18th September, 1982 Harishanker Sharma the officiating ACM received the stay order passed by this court from the Sessions Judge but this was despatched from his office to the SHO on 20th September, 1982 vide no. 722. 21. Another important feature of this case is that on 18th September, 1982 Harishanker Sharma the officiating ACM received the stay order passed by this court from the Sessions Judge but this was despatched from his office to the SHO on 20th September, 1982 vide no. 722. In my opinion this cannot he ignored as per the hot contest between the parties and the manner in which the stay order was produced Again it is obvious that after obtaining the order on 16th September 1982 the petitioner was anxious to see that it is given some effect to by the Magistrate & the S.H.O. 22. Unfortunately the Magistrate the respondent no. 5 as well as the police authorities did not take serious notice of it even on 18th September, 1982. 23. The question which now emerges for consideration is whether any one of them is guilty of committing contempt of court. 24. The respondent no. 2 Harikishan who has now been demoted has not contradicted the assertions & the allegations of the applicant petitioner that on 17th September, 1982 in police station Nagar the petitioner produced the High Court's order before Shri Harikishan Sub Inspector who threw it away & said he is not bothered about the High Court's order & he used the abusive language for High Court's order. This allegation is contained in para 5 of the contempt application has not been rebutted by Harikishan & there is no room for doubt that this amounts to gross & serious contempt of court. Harikishan who was working as Sub-Inspector has no authority to throw the stay order passed by the High Court & use abusive language. It has been repeatedly observed by this court as well as by other High Courts that the proceedings of contempt are not for self aggrandizements of the judicial officer or Judges nor they are taken with any false sense of ego or other over exorbitant sense of status but they are taken very reluctantly & springly in exceptional cases for holding the dignity of Majesty of law & authority of courts. A police officer is expected to protect the law & enforce the law. Ira protector of the law and enforcement agency of law becomes breaking agency of the law & instead of protecting. A police officer is expected to protect the law & enforce the law. Ira protector of the law and enforcement agency of law becomes breaking agency of the law & instead of protecting. violate or breaks the law openly & challenge the majesty of law the entire fabric & constitutional institution of rule of law would be broken on the wheels of arrogance & violation by such officers conduct. 25. In my opinion the unrebutted allegations duly proved by the affidavit clearly shows that Harikishan police officer has challenged the majesty of law. undermined the authority of courts, scandalised the orders of this court by throwing it & abusing it. If an order of the High Court is thrown in the manner it has been done by Harikishan the respondent no.2 it is virtually throwing out the majesty of law & not only challenging it but, breaking & cracking it by ridiccle and abusive language & an abusive hurdle at the High Court is not against any particular Judge but against the majesty of law & the Entire sanctity of judicial institutions under the constitution. This cannot be tolerated & should not be by all those who believe in rule of law & who wants that the court's order should not be reduced to waste-papers to be thrown in filth. I would therefore hold Harikishan the respondent No 2 guilty for committing wilful contempt of court both by wilful disobedience & scandalising the courts orders under the circumstances mentioned above. 26. So far as Ramkhilari Meena is concerned, he was on leave & was not working A.C.M. at the relevant time. I am satisfied from his reply that he did not commit any act of contempt and therefore is not guilty of contempt. 27. The case of Hari Shanker Sharma DTO, Bharatpur who was working as ACM at the relevant time, now requires to be considered. According to his own reply, he was ACM at the relevant time & lie admits that on 18th September, 1982 he received communications from the Sessions Judge: Bharatpur about the stay order of the High Court. 27. The case of Hari Shanker Sharma DTO, Bharatpur who was working as ACM at the relevant time, now requires to be considered. According to his own reply, he was ACM at the relevant time & lie admits that on 18th September, 1982 he received communications from the Sessions Judge: Bharatpur about the stay order of the High Court. Hari Shanker wants this court to believe that on 18th September, 1982 first he sent the letter to the police mentioning that the Sessions Judge has quashed the attachment order & then he directed the copy of the stay order passed by the High Court to be sent to the SHO but his office sent first one on the same day but did not send the High Court's order on the same day of signature & sent it after two days. In my opinion this version of the Magistrate cannot be believed because if on 18th September, 1982 he directed two orders to be sent to the same SHO he must become conscious of the fact that the High court has granted stay order & therefore first order of Sessions Judge which has been sent should not be complied with in view of the High Court order directing maintenance of status quo. 28. It is impossible to believe that he would not understand that implications of the two orders one of the Sessions Judge and the other one of the High- Court which he directed to be sent to the SHO on 18th September, 1982. 29. It is not possible to believe that in spite of the directions, the office will have the audacity to not to send the High Court's order on that very day when it was forwarded & signed & to send the Sessions Court's order on that day detaining the High Court's order for two more days. 30. In my opinion from the admission of this officer Hari Shanker Sharma it becomes clear that he was ceased of the matter on 18th September, 1982 itself & the High Court's order was received on 18th September, 1982 if the High Court's order would have been sent to the SHO on 18th September, 1982 itself then on 19th September, the proceeding for giving, possession to Keshavdev would not have taken place. 31. 31. I am therefore clearly of the opinion that by not taking appropriate action in appropriate manner on 18th September, 1982 to get the Sessions Court order enforecement slaved. Harishanker Sharma has committed wilful disobedience & scandalisation & therefore contempt of court in this case. 32. It must be observed that the public have an interest, an abiding & a real interest & a vital stake in the effective & orderly administration of justice because unless, justice is so administered. there is danger of all rights & liberties perishing. The court has the duty of protecting the interest of the public in the due administration of justice & so it is entrusted with the power to commit for contempt of court, not in order to protect the dignity of the court against insult or injury as the expression 'Contempt of court' may seem to suggest but to protect & to vindicate the right of the public that the administration of justice shall not be prevented, prejudiced. obstructed or interfered with. It is mode of vindicating the majesty of law in its active manifestation against the obstruction & outrages. The law should not he seen to sit by limply, while those defy it go free & those who seek its protection lose hope. 33. It is serious situation where not only for the benefit of maintaining the dignity of the court for the purposes of keeping people's confidence & to eradicate such serious impediments in the system of administration of justice by such willful disobedience & scandalisation of contempt of court & from the point of view of the public whose right & interests in the due administration of justice has to be protected. I have to discharge the unpleasant duty binding on me by constitutional oath to not to avoid punish such contempts. 34. Now remains the case of Keshavdev the respondent no. 6. It appears from the proceedings of the contempt case that Rajendrasingh is not being prosecuted & the allegation against Keshavdev is of being in collusion with Rajendrasingh. It is not the case of the petitioner that Keshavdev was served with stay order & he stilt took possession on 19th September, 1982. 6. It appears from the proceedings of the contempt case that Rajendrasingh is not being prosecuted & the allegation against Keshavdev is of being in collusion with Rajendrasingh. It is not the case of the petitioner that Keshavdev was served with stay order & he stilt took possession on 19th September, 1982. That being so, Keshavdev cannot be punished for contempt of court even though I have got strong feeling that Keshavdev must have known of the stay order by that time Keshavdev's reply that he had taken possession earlier to the passing of the stay order is neither relevant nor corroborated or proved by the relevant record. If he would have taken possession earlier to 16th September, 1982 there was no occasion for getting possession on 19th September, 1982. In fact in view of the seriously contested nature of the case, if the possession would have been taken earlier then in spite of taking possession again on 19th September, 1982, all that was required by Keshavdev was to move this court in the matter & mention that the stay application should be dismissed as possession was taken much before 16th September, 1982 & there is nothing to be done now. No such attempt was made by Keshavdev the respondent no.6 at any stage & therefore I am not inclined to accept this version of the respondent no.6 35. Even otherwise this version has got no relevance because if in spite of stay order & having full knowledge of it the Magistrate &/or the police violates it by going on the spot & giving possession which means changing of status quo then abuse of contempt is made out clearly irrespective of the fact, whether the possession was given forcibly or substantially. 36. The result of the above decision is that the contempt application is accepted so far as contemners Harikishrn the respondent no.2 police officer. now said to be Head constable & Harishanker Sharma who was working as ACM. Bharatpur at the relevant. time, are concerned. Both are held guilty for committing contempt of this Court's order under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Both of them are punished to undergo imprisonment for two weeks S.I & pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each. The possession would be restored back to the applicant Rameshchand. 37. Bharatpur at the relevant. time, are concerned. Both are held guilty for committing contempt of this Court's order under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Both of them are punished to undergo imprisonment for two weeks S.I & pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each. The possession would be restored back to the applicant Rameshchand. 37. So far Ramkhilari Meena & Keshavdev the respondent no.6 are concerned the allegations have not been proved against them therefore the Contempt application is dismissed & the notices issued in the contempt proceedings are hereby discharged. 38. Shri Ramkhilari Meena who was on leave has been unnecessarily dragged by the petitioner before this court in the contempt case therefore the petitioner would pay cost of Rs. 500/- to him. The petitioner would get cost of Rs. 500/- from Harishanker Sharma & Rs. 200/- from Harikishan. 39. There would be no order as to costs so far as Keshavdev is concerned.Petition partly allowed. *******