Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1103 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Ridhkaran

2005-04-11

HARBANS LAL, V.K.BALI

body2005
Judgment V.K. Bali, J.-This reference of contempt has been received by this Court in view of the letter dated 24.04.2003 sent by the learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur addressed to the Registrar General of this Court. In the letter aforesaid, the learned Sessions Judge has brought to the notice of this Court the letter/notice sent by Shri Ajay Upadhyaya. Judicial Megistrate No. 2, Bharatpur to Shri Ridhkaran Chouhan, respondent in the present contempt and it is on the basis of letter/notice sent by Shri Ajay Upadhyaya to Ridhkaran Chouhan and the reply given by the latter to the letter aforesaid, that the Court took cognizance of the matter and issued notice to the respondent to face the charge of criminal contempt against him. Available on record is also a letter received from Shri Ajay Upadhyaya, RJS, Additional Civil Judge (JD) and Judicial Megistrate No. 2, Bharatpur addressed to the Registrar General with the subject-petition under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act against Ridhkaran Chouhan, Investigating Officer in FIR No. 105/94 P.S. Atal Band, Bharatpur, wherein detailed facts of the case pertaining to FIR No. 105/94, letter/notice sent by Shri Ajay Upadhyaya to Ridhkaran Chouhan and the reply have been mentioned. 2. In brief , the facts said to be constituting contempt reveal that a final report was submitted in FIR No. 105/94 under Sections 147, 332, 353, 379 and 365, IPC by the SHO P.S. Atalband, Bharatpur on the recommendation of the Investigating Officer respondent herein . The said FIR was against five persons. Earlier the respondent was fully satisfied with the investigation conducted and recommended by the C.O. (Rural) for proceeding against five persons under the sections of the IPC as mentioned above. Later, however , on the basis of reports, Shri Ajay Upadhyaya took cognizance of the offences mentioned above which also included Section 8 of the Fisheries Act. Ridhkaran Chouhan, the Investigating Officer, respondent herein, later in point of time, came to the conclusion that no offence was committed by the five named accused while doing so, he did not record any reasons nor any new evidence that came to his notice. 3. On the facts as mentioned above, Shri Ajay Upadhyaya vide his letter/notice dated 16.05.2002 demanded reply/explanation upto 30.05.2002 before he was to comment adversely or proceed against him . 3. On the facts as mentioned above, Shri Ajay Upadhyaya vide his letter/notice dated 16.05.2002 demanded reply/explanation upto 30.05.2002 before he was to comment adversely or proceed against him . In the last paragraph of the letter aforesaid , Shri Ajay Upadhyaya mentioned that before he was to make adverse comment or proceed against him, the principles of natural justice required that he may give his reply/explanation with regard to his changed opinion, upto 30.05.2002. 4. In reply to the letter/notice aforesaid, the respondent on 17.05.2002 addressed a letter to the concerned Judicial Magistrate. The offending language employed in the reply aforesaid , which is said to have constituted criminal contempt, read as follows:-“In this regard it is stated that I had come to know through my most reliable and confidential sources in the month of February that you had been planning to write against me in connivance with Shri Sanjay Jagariya , the then correspondent of Rajasthan Patrika, And about this I had also casually brought into the notice of the District and Sessions Judge, Bharatpur and the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur in the presence of Collector and District Magistrate , Bharatpur on 05.03.2002 at the time of meeting in the chamber of District & Sessions Judge , Bharatpur………………. My senior officer to the findings given by me and after approval the then S.P. directed the SHO concerned to finalise the case as FR unoccoured. It is premature, on the part of the Court concerned to comment regarding veracity of the facts mentioned in the FR.” 5. In the foot-note of the reply, while sending a copy of the same, the Superintendent, of Police Bharatpur mentioned as follows:-“The District and Sessions Judge, Bharatpur with the request that a senior police officer should not be harassed unnecessarily and the Court concerned should act in an impartial, objective and transparent manner keeping itself above, other than Judicial considerations. The same Court has also passed premature orders against me in the same manner in case FIR No. 59/94 P.S. Udhog Nagar.” 6. The respondent Superintendent of Police also gave reply on merits of the case and primarily stated that if the Magistrate was not satisfied with the findings given by the police , he could take cognizance and start trial in the case. The respondent Superintendent of Police also gave reply on merits of the case and primarily stated that if the Magistrate was not satisfied with the findings given by the police , he could take cognizance and start trial in the case. After trial, at the time of decision of the trial Court, if the trial Court convicts the accused or finds facts other than the police finding, the Court may pass strictures against the investigating officer but without trial, the Court could not reach the conclusive decision that the investigating officer but without trial, the Court could not reach the conclusive decision that the investigating officer has committed any irregularity during the course of investigation. He also stated that the case was investigated by various investigating officers and factual report was finally sent by him to the then Superintendent of Police who also agreed to the findings given by him and after his approval , he had sent the file to the concerned SHO for finalising the case under Section 169, CrPC and sending final report to the concerned Court. 7. Pursuant to the notice of this Court, the respondent has filed reply. In the context of the arguments that however have been advanced in this Court, we do not wish to give details of the reply filed by the respondent. 8. Learned Additional Advocate General , at the very outset contends that in the back drop of the events as fully detailed above, the contemner, at the most has committed an inadvertent mistake and, therefore , the Court should take a lenient view in the matter and accepting his unqualified apology which he has indeed tendered, rule against the respondent should be discharged. 9. Learned Counsel defending the respondent likewise at the very out set tendered unqualified apology and has not even tried to join the issue that the respondent has committed criminal contempt as defined under Section 15(2) of the Act. 10. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and with their assistance have examined records of the case. 11. 9. Learned Counsel defending the respondent likewise at the very out set tendered unqualified apology and has not even tried to join the issue that the respondent has committed criminal contempt as defined under Section 15(2) of the Act. 10. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and with their assistance have examined records of the case. 11. Shri Ajay Upadhyaya who was dealing with the report/challan submitted by the police pertaining to FIR No. 105/94 under Sections 147, 332, 353, 379 and 365, IPC in our view was free to deal the matter and proceed with the case despite the later report of the respondent where the case was sought to be tried only under Section 169, CrPC. He was not bound to accept the opinion of the respondent that no case under various provisions of the IPC and Section 8 of the Fisheries Act had been made out. It thus appear to us that there was no provision under the CrPC or any other statute by virtue of which the concerned Magistrate could ask for explanation of the respondent and if he was not satisfied with regard to the same, then to proceed against him or make adverse comments with regard to the investigation conducted by him. If , therefore, in response to the letter dated 16.05.2002 sent by the concerned Magistrate the respondent mentioned some words which indeed are objectionable and tend to undermine the honour and prestige of the Court the respondent surely deserves to be excused. As mentioned above, since the respondent has not even chosen to join the issue as to whether contempt is made out or not, we do not wish to go into this question but considering the background of the case, the facts and circumstances leading to the reply given by the respondent to the show cause notice, we are of the considered view that the request of the respondent made at the very out set to accept his unqualified apology deserves to be accepted. We order accordingly and thus while accepting the unqualified apology tendered by the respondent, we discharge the rule issued against him.