JUDGMENT Hon’ble M.C. Jain, J.—We have heard Sri Rajeshwar Yadav, learned Counsel for the applicant and have perused the record. The applicant Manoj Kumar Kesharwani seeks to invoke criminal contempt jurisdiction of this Court by means of this application to punish six opposite parties for their alleged intentional, wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 21-9-2004 passed by Sri Prabhakar Rao, IInd Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 14, Allahabad in Civil Suit No. 856 of 2004, Jagdish Prasad Kesharwani and others v. Pitambar Lal Kesharwani and others. 2. The gist of the averments made in the application is that applicant, his brothers and uncle Jagdish Prasad Kesharwani filed Original Suit No. 856 of 2004 against Pitambar Lal Kesharwani and others in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad for cancellation of a sale deed dated 24-8-2004 executed by Pitambar Lal Kesharwani in favour of Sanjai Kesharwani and Ashok Kumar Kesharwani (opposite party Nos. 1 and 2) to the extent of 4/6th shares of house No. 1522/1037, Mohalla Mutthiganj, Tahsil Sadar, District Allahabad and also for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering in the peaceful possession and occupation of the applicant and other plaintiffs otherwise than in due course of law. The temporary injunction application was also filed by the applicant and plaintiffs. By order dated 21-9-2004 the Court granted interim injunction directing the parties to the suit to maintain status quo till 17-11-2004 and this interim injunction order was extended from time to time, being still operative. 3. The applicant and other plaintiffs had allegedly been in occupation and possession of the said house since the time of their ancestors. But opposite parties No. 1 and 2, pursuant to the registered sale deed dated 24-8-2004 executed by Pitambar Lal Kesharwani attempted to interfere in their occupation and possession with the help of opposite parties Nos. 5 and 6 (Ramji Yadav, Ex-Station Officer, Police Station Mutthiganj, District Allahabad and Sunil Kumar Singh S.I., Police Chauki Hatia, Police Station Mutthiganj, District Allahabad respectively). The design of all of them was to grab the house unlawfully by dispossessing the plaintiffs, disobeying the temporary injunction order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad. A Contempt Application No. 29 of 2004 under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A, C.P.C. against opposite party Nos. 1. 2, 5 had also been moved which was pending. 4. The design of all of them was to grab the house unlawfully by dispossessing the plaintiffs, disobeying the temporary injunction order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad. A Contempt Application No. 29 of 2004 under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A, C.P.C. against opposite party Nos. 1. 2, 5 had also been moved which was pending. 4. On 24-3-2005, at about 11.30 A.M. the applicant, his brothers and uncle Jagdish Prasad Kesharwani with their family members were inside the house. Opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 with a dozen anti-social elements armed with deadly weapons used abusive language against the applicant, his brothers and uncle, extending threats with a warning to vacate the house and permit them to occupy the same. They locked the main gate of the house from outside. The opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 instigated their other anti-social associates to put the house on fire. A large number of people collected. The opposite parties No. 3, 4, 5 and 6 also reached the spot within half an hour and under the pressure of the local people opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 were taken in custody and directed to open the main gate of the house locked by them. Thereafter, opposite party Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 asked the applicant, his brothers, uncle and other family members to vacate the house within an hour as otherwise they would be arrested. At about 2.00 P.M. the same day the opposite party Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 locked all the rooms and main gate of the house from outside, taking the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 as also the applicant, his brothers, uncle etc. to the police station. Proceedings under Sections 151/107/116 of Cr.P.C. were drawn against the applicant and others as also opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. Opposite Parties No. 3 and 4-Additional City Magistrate, III Allahabad and Circle Officer III Allahabad respectively also directed the opposite party Nos. 5 and 6 to get the keys of the lock of the house in police custody and not to hand over the same to either of the parties till final adjudication of the dispute between them by a competent Court of law. Thus, by their acts all the opposite parties allegedly committed contempt of temporary injunction granted by the Civil Judge, amounting to wilful obstruction and interference in the administration of justice. Thus, by their acts all the opposite parties allegedly committed contempt of temporary injunction granted by the Civil Judge, amounting to wilful obstruction and interference in the administration of justice. The opposite party Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 in collusion with opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 allegedly forcibly and unlawfully compelled the applicant, his brothers, uncle and other family members to leave their house in their occupation and possession, thereby deliberately and wilfully obstructing and causing interference in the order of temporary injunction granted by the lower Court. The opposite party Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 also allegedly handed over the keys of the lock of the house in dispute to opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 on 4-4-2005 to occupy the house in question. The criminal contempt application is founded on the above allegations. 5. It should be pointed out that earlier Criminal Contempt Application No. 25 of 2005 was moved by the applicant against opposite parties which was finally heard and dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to the applicant to file fresh application. He was also permitted to make an application to take sanction of Advocate General who was to consider the application within a reasonable time. The said order was passed by another Bench of this Court on 12-9-2005. The applicant made an application to the Advocate General who rejected the same on 19-12-2005. 6. The submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that in spite of consent having not been granted by the Advocate General, this Court should entertain this contempt application and initiate criminal contempt proceedings against the opposite parties exercising suo motu powers. We have given our anxious consideration to the whole gamut keeping in view the bundle of averments made in the contempt application. The suo motu powers of this Court to prosecute and punish the opposite parties for the criminal contempt need not and cannot be exercised merely at the request of a party. Much would depend upon the facts of the matter. Contempt jurisdiction is of discretionary nature and we are not bound to take action for contempt even if contempt has been committed. 7. In the present case, we do not think that this Court should exercise suo motu powers to proceed for criminal proceedings against the opposite parties. Several reasons are lined up to back our this view. Contempt jurisdiction is of discretionary nature and we are not bound to take action for contempt even if contempt has been committed. 7. In the present case, we do not think that this Court should exercise suo motu powers to proceed for criminal proceedings against the opposite parties. Several reasons are lined up to back our this view. First, as per the own case of the applicant the lower Court has passed a temporary injunction order directing both the parties to maintain status quo. It would be debatable question as to who actually was in possession of the disputed property when the temporary injunction order was passed. It would naturally be in the range of the factual controversy. Second, the order passed by the lower Court was an order ‘in personam’. To say in other words, it was not an order ‘in rem’. Such an order binds only the parties to it. The opposite party Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 were not at all parties to that suit. Third, this is own case of the applicant that he has already moved an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A, C.P.C. for the breach of order of temporary injunction against the opposite party Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Those proceedings are seemingly still pending. During their pendency, he has sought to invoke criminal contempt jurisdiction of this Court. It should be stated in passing reference that Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of C.P.C. also deals with consequences of the disobedience or breach of an injunction. Fourth, if according to the applicant some criminal offence has been committed by the opposite parties or any of them, he could lodge the F.I.R. and in case of the same being not taken down by the police authorities, he could lodge complaint before a criminal Court of competent jurisdiction. 8. For the above reasons, we see no justification to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against any of the opposite parties. The applicant simply wants to embarrass the administration and police authorities through these proceedings while trying to satisfy his grudge against his adversary in a litigation. The criminal contempt jurisdiction of this Court cannot be permitted to be harnessed by a party in this way. We do not think it proper to say anything further and would like the matter to rest here. The criminal contempt jurisdiction of this Court cannot be permitted to be harnessed by a party in this way. We do not think it proper to say anything further and would like the matter to rest here. The criminal contempt application is rejected at the threshold without issuing notices to the opposite parties. Application Rejected. ———