JUDGMENT - PATIL J.A., J.:---Rule. Returnable forthwith. Shri Oka and Shri Apte waive service. By consent heard finally. 1-A. The petitioner has filed this application under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act and prayed for punishing the respondents for having committed contempt of the Court's order passed by this Court in Criminal Application No. 3304 of 1997 on 15-6-1998. For proper appreciation, a few relevant facts need to be stated. 2. The respondent No. 1 filed Criminal Case No. 338 of 1995 against the petitioner and two others in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kalyan on 5-12-1995 alleging that they had committed offences punishable under section 3 of the Maharashtra Flat Ownership Act, 1993 and under sections 403, 406, r/w section 34 of I.P. Code. The learned Magistrate issued process against all the 3 accused on 19-8-1996. The petitioner feeling aggrieved thereby filed Criminal Revision Application No. 119 of 1996. The Court of Additional Judge, Kalyan by his order dated 19-9-1997 partly allowed it and quashed the order of the issue of process in so far as it related to the offence punishable under section 406 of I.P. Code. The petitioner thereafter, filed Criminal Application No. 3304 of 1997 in the High Court challenging the order of issue of process against her. The said application was admitted by a learned Single Judge of this Court by his order dated 15-6-1998 and the further proceedings of the criminal case was stayed. It is not disputed that the stay issued by this Court was operative at the relevant time since the criminal revision application was still pending. Despite this fact the said case appears to have been proceeded with. Roznama dated 13-10-2000 in the said criminal case records that both the parties were absent when called out. Therefore, notices were directed to be issued to both the parties. Accordingly notice (Annexure A-8 page 56) came to be issued to the respondent No. 1 whereby she was informed that her case was lying unattended and the same was therefore, fixed on 21-11-2000. By the same notice she was called upon to attend the Court, failing which ex parte order would be passed against her. The said notice was served on respondent No. 1 on the same day. By the same notice she was called upon to attend the Court, failing which ex parte order would be passed against her. The said notice was served on respondent No. 1 on the same day. Although similar notice was also directed to be issued to the other side i.e. accused, no such notice appears to have been issued to the petitioner. Therefore, she did not remain present before the Court on 21-11-2000. On that day respondent No. 1 and the other accused were not present. The respondent No. 2 who is the Advocate of the respondent No. 1, therefore, moved an application (page 59) on the same day and prayed for issue of non-bailable warrant against the accused. The Court allowed that application and directed to issue non-bailable warrant against accused. It appears that thereafter, the case was adjourned from time to time for about a year ignoring the fact that the criminal revision application filed by the respondent No. 1 in the High Court was still pending and that the stay order passed on 15-6-1997 had not been vacated. It appears that respondent No. 1 attended the Court on several dates but she found that none of the accused had remained present before the Court. Hence finally on 4-10-2001 respondent No. 4 who appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 1 as her Advocate and who is said to be the Assistant of respondent No. 2, moved an application (Annexure A-9 page 58) pointing out that the accused had remained absent on several dates and that on that date also they were absent. It was therefore, prayed that the Court should issue warrants against them and that the warrants should be handed over to the respondent No. 1 for execution. The said application was allowed by the Court who directed issue of non-bailable warrant against the accused including the petitioner. 3. The petitioner resides at Pune. Non-bailable warrant issued against the petitioner was executed at Pune on 21-10-2001 and the petitioner was arrested and produced before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kalyan on the same day. Later on she was directed to be released on P.R. Bond. 4. 3. The petitioner resides at Pune. Non-bailable warrant issued against the petitioner was executed at Pune on 21-10-2001 and the petitioner was arrested and produced before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kalyan on the same day. Later on she was directed to be released on P.R. Bond. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the conduct of the respondent in getting petitioner arrested was deleberate and they intended to humiliate her despite the fact that the criminal case in which the said warrant of arrest was issued was stayed. It may be pointed out that initially the learned Magistrate who directed to issue non-bailable warrant was added as respondent No. 3, but later on as per the order dated 21-12-2001 passed by a Single Judge in this proceedings, his name was deleted. The petitioner was however, allowed to implead respondent No. 4 who had given the application dated 4-10-2001. 5. I have heard Shri A.V. Anturkar for the petitioner, Shri Abhay Oka for respondent No. 1 and Shri R.S. Apte for respondents No. 2. Shri Anturkar contended before me that the respondent were knowing fully well that the criminal case filed by them, had been stayed by the High Court and that the stay was not vacated. Despite this fact, Shri Anturkar alleges that the respondents moved the trial Court for issuance of non-bailable warrant against the petitioner and got her to be arrested. This act on the part of the respondents, according to Shri Anturkar, is contumacious. He submitted that respondents did not take care to ascertain whether the stay granted by the High Court had been vacated or not. Shri Oka and Shri Apte on the other hand submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the respondents have committed breach of the order of stay passed by the High Court. Both of them pointed out that the trial Court on its own motion, issued notice to respondent No. 1, requiring her to attend the Court and in obedience of the said notice, respondent No. 1 went on attending the Court on the dates fixed by the trial Court. They pointed out that the petitioner, however, did not attend the Court on any of the dates and, therefore, an application for issue of non-bailable warrant was moved against her. They pointed out that the respondents have tendered their unconditional apology for the same. 6. They pointed out that the petitioner, however, did not attend the Court on any of the dates and, therefore, an application for issue of non-bailable warrant was moved against her. They pointed out that the respondents have tendered their unconditional apology for the same. 6. It is an admitted fact that Criminal Case No. 338 of 1995, filed by respondent No. 1 against the petitioner and others, had been stayed by the High Court, in view of the order passed in Criminal Application No. 3304 of 1997 on 15th June, 1998. It is also not in dispute that the stay order was in operation on the date on which the application was moved on behalf of respondent No. 1 for issuance of non-bailable warrant against the petitioner as also on the date on which the said warrant was executed. As a matter of fact, when a case is stayed by a superior Court then the subordinate Court is bound to stay all the proceedings in the said case unless and until the stay is vacated or any other direction is given by the superior Court. It is not open to the trial Court to take any further steps in the case which has been stayed by the order of the superior Court. It is strange to note that despite this position, the trial Court all of a sudden proceeded with the case by directing issuance of notices to both the parties to attend the Court on 21st November, 2000 as according to it, the case was lying unattended. This was an obvious mistake on the part of the trial Court to have issued such notice to the parties. The case was not lying unattended but it was stayed. It is, however, not known as to how the trial Court got the impression that the case was lying unattended. Such an obvious mistake could have been easily avoided if the Rozanama in the case had been properly maintained. It was expected that after the receipt of the order of stay from the High Court, proper entry ought to have been taken in the Rozanama, indicating that all further proceedings in the matter had been stayed. In my opinion, the trial Court should also have directed the parties not to appear before the Court unless and until the stay granted by the High Court was vacated. In my opinion, the trial Court should also have directed the parties not to appear before the Court unless and until the stay granted by the High Court was vacated. Because that would have avoided their unnecessary trips to the Court. After the vacation of the stay, the trial Court could have issued notices to the parties, requiring them to attend the Court and proceed with the case. This was, however, not done and as pointed out above, all of a sudden, notices came to be issued to the parties, requiring them to attend the Court on 21st November, 2000. Shri Anturkar pointed out that although such a notice (Annexure A-8, page 56), was issued to respondent No. 1, no such notice was ever issued and served on the petitioner and therefore, there was no question of the petitioner's attending the Court on 21st November, 2000. This position was not disputed before me and I think that this explains as to why the petitioner did not attend the trial Court on 21st November, 2000 or on any other respondent date. 7. There is no dispute of the fact that on 21st November, 2000, respondent No. 2, who represents respondent No. 1 as her Advocate, moved an application Exhibit 59, page 59, requesting the Court to issue non-bailable warrant against the petitioner. The application was granted. However, there is nothing on record to show that any such warrant was actually issued against the petitioner accused. This state of affairs appears to have continued for about 11 months, during which period the case appears to have been adjourned from time to time. Finally on 4th of October, 2001 respondent No. 4, who represented respondent No. 1 as her Advocate, moved the application Exhibit A-9 page 58, for issue of non-bailable warrant against the petitioner. Accordingly, the said warrant was issued and executed on 21st November, 2000 and the petitioner was arrested. 8. The question which arises for consideration is whether the aforementioned Acts on the part of the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4 could be said to have been actuated by mala fide intention of harassing the petitioner and with wilful object of committing breach of the stay order dated 15th June, 1998. What is important to be noted is that it is not respondent No. 1 nor respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 could be said to have been actuated by mala fide intention of harassing the petitioner and with wilful object of committing breach of the stay order dated 15th June, 1998. What is important to be noted is that it is not respondent No. 1 nor respondent Nos. 2 or 4, who had ever represented the trial Court that the order of stay passed by the High Court had been vacated and that therefore, the case should be proceeded with. As already pointed out, it was the trial Court itself who under an erroneous impression and being unmindful of the fact that the stay order was still in operation, proceeded to direct issuance of notices to both the parties, requiring them to attend the Court on 21st November, 2000. It was in pursuance to the said notice, respondent No. 1 took care to attend the Court in-person. However, the petitioner did not attend the Court on that day or any other day thereafter, as she was not served with any such notice. It appears that respondent No. 1 attended the Court on several dates thereafter before the application dated 4-10-2001 for issue of non-bailable warrant against the petitioner came to be moved on her behalf by her Advocate, respondent No. 4. Shri Anturkar contended that it was the duty of respondents to ascertain before praying for issuance of non-bailable warrant against the petitioner, whether the stay granted by the High Court was vacated or not. He alleged that an ugly haste was made on behalf of respondent No. 1 to get the warrant executed. He highlighted the fact that a request was made to the Court that the warrant should be handed over to respondent No. 1 for execution. This conduct, according to Shri Anturkar on the part of the respondent Nos. 1 and 4 clearly indicates that they have no bona fides and that they were actuated with malice against the petitioner. He submitted that the warrant could have been executed in due course of time and there was no propriety on the part of respondent No. 1, to pray for handing over the warrant to her for execution. 9. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions of Shri Anturkar and I do not think that there is much force in the same. 9. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions of Shri Anturkar and I do not think that there is much force in the same. It is true that none of the respondents made any attempt to ascertain whether the stay order issued by the High Court on 15th June, 1998 was then in operation or not. However, in my opinion, the respondents cannot be blamed for the same because it was clearly a fault on the part of the trial Court itself who had directed issuance of notice to both the parties to remain present in the Court as the case was lying unattended. Such a notice by the trial Court to respondent No. 1 was very much apt to mislead the respondent No. 1 to believe that the stay had been vacated and that the proceedings in the case would be resumed. Any litigant placed in the similar situation would have thought the same. It is also quite likely since the trial Court itself had issued such a notice, the respondents might not have thought it is necessary to ascertain whether the stay was vacated or not. The fact is that after the notice, the respondent No. 1 continued to attend the Court on several dates. It may be noted that respondent No. 1 is the original plaintiff. Admittedly, the petitioner did not attend the Court on 21st November, 2000 or any other subsequent date. Therefore, there is nothing wrong on the part of the respondents to apply for issuance of non-bailable warrant against the petitioner. At any rate the said act on their part cannot be attributed with any malice or evil intention nor it can be even prima facie said that the said Act amounts to wilful disobedience of the stay order dated 15th June, 1998. The matter would have been otherwise, if the respondents had moved any application misleading the trial Court, that the stay order had been vacated though the High Court had not vacated the said order. 10. It is true that on account of the application dated 4th October, 2001 filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, the petitioner came to be wrongfully arrested. There can also be no dispute of the fact that due to her arrest the petitioner has been subjected to a great humiliation and mental agony without any fault on her part. 10. It is true that on account of the application dated 4th October, 2001 filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, the petitioner came to be wrongfully arrested. There can also be no dispute of the fact that due to her arrest the petitioner has been subjected to a great humiliation and mental agony without any fault on her part. However, this was all due to the mistake committed by the trial Court. Had the trial Court been a little more careful and methodic, then such an unhappy incident could have been easily avoided. Apart from this, none of the respondents could be said to be liable for the wrongful arrest of  the petitioner and much less they could not be said to have committed contempt by violating the stay order dated 15th June, 1998 passed by this Court. Thus in my opinion, there is no case made out against the respondents for punishing the respondents for committing contempt. 11. Petition is, therefore, dismissed. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court to note the observations made in this order. An ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar of the Court is allowed. C.C. expedited. -----