Judgment M.L.Visa, J. 1. The present application by petitioners has been filed for initiating Contempt of Court proceeding against Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3 for wilfully and deliberately violating the order dated 2-12-1997 passed by this Court in Cr. Misc. Mo 20398 of 1997. 2. The case of petitioners is that they were made accused in Dumka Sadar Police Station Case No. 97 of 1997 registered under Secs. 406, 420, 120-B, Indian Penal Code and they filed anticipatory bail application before this Court which was numbered as Cr. Misc. No. 20398 of 1997 and this application was heard on 2-12-1997 by a Bench of this Court (since retired) and the Court was pleased to issue notice to informant of aforesaid case after adding him as Opposite Party No. 2 in Cr. Misc. 20398/97 and it was further pleased to order that in the meantime, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners (Annexure-1). On 9-12-1997, petitioners filed an application before the Court below annexing the photo copy of order dated 2-12-1997 passed by this Court. On 10-12-1997, the order dated 2-12-1997 passed by this Court was received by Opposite Party No. 2 who was at that time posted as Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka and he was pleased to order that the aforesaid order be sent to Officer-in-charge, Dumka Town Police Station for information (Annexure-2). According to petitioners, the aforesaid facts show that the concerned Court and the Officer-in-charge of Town Police Station, Dumka were aware of the order dated 2-12-1997 passed by this Court but inspite of this order, Opposite Party No. 3, who was the Investigating Officer of the case, filed an application on 27-11 -1998 in the Court of Opposite Party No. 2 for issuance of processes u/s. 83, Code of Criminal Procedure (Annexure-3) and Opposite Party No. 2 on 22-12-1998 passed orders for issuing processes against the petitioners (Annexure-4). On 13-1-1999, Investigating Officer complied the processes issued u/s. 83, Code of Criminal Procedure and attached the properties of petitioners. According to petitioners, they are cousins to each other and they were residing in the same house at the time of attachment The further case of petitioners is that on 18-2-1999, their application for anticipatory bail was finally allowed by this Court (Annexure-5). According to petitioners, they are cousins to each other and they were residing in the same house at the time of attachment The further case of petitioners is that on 18-2-1999, their application for anticipatory bail was finally allowed by this Court (Annexure-5). The case of petitioners is that inspite of order dated 2-12-1997 for not taking coercive steps against the petitioners, Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3 violated the direction of this Court and they are liable for Contempt of Court proceeding. 3. Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3 have appeared and filed their replies to show cause notice issued to them. 4. The case of Opposite Party No. 2 is that he joined as Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka in the month of May, 1997 where he worked till May, 2000 and while he was working as Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka and petitioners on 9-12-1997 filed a petition in his Court alongwith a copy of this Courts order passed in Cr. Misc. No. 20398 of 1997 (wrongly typed as C.W.J.C. No. 20398 in reply to show cause). According to him, on the same day, he sent the copy of that order to Dumka Police Station and Investigating Officer of this case and his order was complied vide Dispatch No. 589 dated 9-12-1997 and his order was received at Town Police Station, Dumka on 10-12-1997. The further case of Opposite Party No. 2 is that after a lapse of one year, the Investigating Officer of this case filed an application for issuance of processes under Sec. 83, Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioners stating that processes u/s. 82, Code of Criminal Procedure had already been served and the office clerk of Opposite Party No. 2 placed this application of Investigating Officer before him and he passed orders for issuing processes under sec. 83, Code of Criminal Procedure. 83, Code of Criminal Procedure. The case of Opposite Party No. 2 is that the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate is a very busy Court and when an application is filed by any Investigating Officer, the same application is placed before him by office clerk for passing orders and although on 10-12-1997, the Police Station, Dumka had already received the copy of order of this Court but inspite of it, Investigating Officer filed an application for issuance of processes against the petitioners and his office at the time of placing the application of Investigating Officer before him for passing orders did not point it out the earlier order passed by this Court. According to Opposite Party No. 2, he passed order for issuance of processes against the petitioners on the basis of prayer made by investigating Officer of this Court. He has expressed unqualified apology. 5. In his reply, Opposite Party No. 3 has stated that investigation of Dumka Police Station Case No. 97 of 1997 was endorsed to Sub-Inspector Arun Kumar on 18-12-1997 who visited the house of petitioners on 7-1 -1998 and 8-2-1998 and has noted the same in paras 124 and 135 of case diary (Annexure-1). Thereafter, investigation of the case was handed to Officer-in- charge Madhu Kashyap who on 2-4-1998 has rioted in para-145 of case diary that attempts were being made to arrest the accused persons. The case was then supervised by Deputy Superintendent of Police who, in his supervision note, observed that attempts were being made to arrest petitioners and Dhananjay Tiwary and he further observed that Investigating Officers were not serious about arresting the petitioners and they were simply doing paper works and he directed to take steps for issuing processes against accused persons under Secs. 82, 83, Code of Criminal Procedure (Annexure-3). According to Opposite Party No. 3, the case was again supervised by Deputy Superintendent of Police (first), Dumka on 23-5-1998 and 17-6-1998 who, in his report dated 17-6-1998 directed the Investigating Officer to comply the directions given in the supervision report (Annexure-4) and, thereafter, Investigating Officer Madhu Kashyam again visited the village of petitioners on 7-6-1998 which he noted in paras-154 and 156 of case diary (Annexure-5). According to Opposite Party No. 3 on 28- 8-1998, investigation of the case was handed over to him and he visited the house of petitioners on 10-9-1998 but he could not find them and family members of petitioners did not inform him about the order dated 2-12-1997 passed by this Court. The case of Opposite Party No. 3 is that he did not have any knowledge about the order passed by this Court on 2-12-1997 and he honestly believed that investigation was pending for the arrest of petitioners and he, in good faith, executed the processes issued against the petitioners by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka. His further case is that after his appointment as Sub- Inspector of Police in 1994 and completing institutional and practical training, he was posted as Senior Superintendent of Police in April, 1998 and prior to that, he had very little experience of investigation as he was undergoing training as a probationer. He has also tendered unqualified apology. 6. From the perusal of replies of show cause filed on behalf of Opposite Party No. 3 and its annexures, it appears that inspite of order passed by this Court on 2-12-1997 for not taking coercive steps against the petitioners, the previous Investigating Officers of the case had made attempt to arrest the petitioners by visiting their houses and they found them absconding and all these facts were mentioned in different paragraphs of case diary, I further find that Deputy Superintendent of Police (first) Dumka, in his supervision note, also was displeased by the action of Investigating Officers and observed that Investigating Officers were not making attempts to arrest the petitioners and were merely doing paperworks and directed the Investigating. Officer for taking steps for issuing processes under Secs. 82 and 83, Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioners,. When Opposite Party No. 3 took up the charge of the investigation of the case, he found aforesaid facts mentioned in the case diary and he then filed a petition for issuing processes u/s. 83, Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioners. It appears that Opposite Party No. 3 was misguided by the aforesaid observations made in case diary by his predecessors and Deputy Superintendent of Police (first), Dumka and following the direction of his-superior officer for taking steps for issuing processes under Secs. It appears that Opposite Party No. 3 was misguided by the aforesaid observations made in case diary by his predecessors and Deputy Superintendent of Police (first), Dumka and following the direction of his-superior officer for taking steps for issuing processes under Secs. 82, 83 Code of Criminal Procedure, he applied before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka for issuing processes u/s. 83, Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioners. 7. So far case of Opposite Party No. 2, who was Chief Judicial Magistrate at the relevant time is concerned, I find that order of this Court, for not taking any coercive steps was passed on 2-12-1997. The day when he came to know about the order of this Court, he immediately sent the copy of order to concerned Police Station and Investigating Officer. This is clear from the copies of his order dated 9-12-1997 and 10-12-1997. It was only on 24-12-1998 that is after a lapse of more than a year, Opposite Party No. 3 filed a petition in his Court for issuing processes u/s. 83, Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioners. It is the usual practice in lower Courts in this State that when an application or petition is filed in a case which is not listed before the Court on that day, the Court directs its office to place the application or petition alongwith concerned records and office, thereafter, places it with records before the Court below. Because in the present case application by Opposite Party No. 3 for issuing processes against the petitioners who were accused in criminal case was filed and the application was placed by the office alongwith the record before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, he, accordingly, passed order for issuing processes against the petitioners. The office should have pointed it out to him that earlier order for not taking any coercive step against the petitioners had already been passed by this Court but because as per the own statement of Opposite Party No. 2, the office did not point him this order which was received in his Court about a year back, therefore, he, due to ignorance, passed the order for issuing processes against the petitioners. The submissions of Opposite Party No. 2 that he issued orders without knowing that there was stay of passing such order appears to be quite genuine because it was not possible for him to pass order in a case which was not listed on that date before him after going through the entire ordersheets right from the beginning specially in this case when the order of this Court was received a year ago. To me it appears to be a mistake of office. I do not find that there was any reason for Court below to deliberately violate the direction of this Court. Besides this, Opposite Party No. 2 has also tendered unqualified apology and in his reply to show cause, he has stated that he has unblemished record of service. 8. In this particular case, I find that inspite of order of this Court for not taking coercive steps against the petitioners, such steps were taken but then circumstances of the case show that mistake, committed by Opposite Parties No, 2 and 3, was not intentional and they were misled by the circumstances which they have stated in their replies to show cause. Besides all these, both Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3 have tendered unqualified apology. 9. In the result, the apology tendered by Opposite parties No. 2 and 3 is accepted and the matter is dropped.