JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner had preferred a writ petition before this court being SBCWP No. 6386/2002 with a prayer that inspite of his attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.1.2001 he has not been paid his retiral benefits on the pretext of an FIR being No. 30/1992 registered against the petitioner. The petitioner specifically pleaded in the writ petition that even in the FIR No. 30/92, Final Report has already been submitted. Neither any criminal case nor any departmental enquiry/proceedings are pending against him. This court while deciding the writ petition on 30.11.2006, has passed the following directions : "The respondents are required to verify these facts and if it is observed that no enquiry or criminal case is pending against the petitioner after verification, the respondents are further directed to release the retiral benefits forthwith including pension, gratuity, commutation, leave encashment etc. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of." 3. After passing the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner approached to the respondents for compliance of the order of this court dated 30.11.2006, but till filing of the contempt petition, no steps were taken by the respondents. Therefore, the petitioner has to file this contempt petition on 6.4.2007. 4. On 9.8.2007, this court was pleased to issue the notices to the respondents to show cause as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them. After due service, the respondents have filed a detailed reply stating therein that they have not committed any contempt to this court nor the order of this court has been flouted. Alongwith the reply, Photostat copy of the report of S.P, Jaipur city, Jaipur (South) dated 27.1.2007 was also filed which shows that a criminal case being FIR No. 30/92 for the offence under Sections 418, 420, 465, 468, 201 and 120-B IPC and Section 13(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, is pending against the petitioner. In that criminal case, the police has already filed challan against the petitioner and other co-accused persons for the aforesaid offences before the court of Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.) and Judl. Magistrate, Ist Class No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 5.9.94. It is further averred in the reply that the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Jaipur has taken cognizance against Prabhu Dayal, Chunni Lal (present petitioner), Kailash Chand, Babulal, Mahendra Singh and Brijnandan for the offence under Secs. Civil Judge (J.D.) and Judl. Magistrate, Ist Class No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 5.9.94. It is further averred in the reply that the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Jaipur has taken cognizance against Prabhu Dayal, Chunni Lal (present petitioner), Kailash Chand, Babulal, Mahendra Singh and Brijnandan for the offence under Secs. 419, 420, 465, 468, 201 and 120-B IPC. Against the said cognizance, the petitioner has filed a revision petition before the District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur city, Jaipur from where the case was transferred to the court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge No. 8, Jaipur city, Jaipur being case no. 10/1997. The learned Addl. Distt. Judge No. 8, Jaipur after confirming the order dated 5.9.94 passed by Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Jaipur city, Jaipur dismissed the said revision petition which was filed against taking the cognizance. 5. In the meantime, the petitioner has also filed a writ petition. being SBCWP No. 5275/92 before this court for quashing the FIR No. 30/92 lodged against him under Secs. 419 and 420 IPC. The said writ petition was dismissed by Hon'ble the then Chief Justice Mr. K.C. Agrawal on 12.10.1993. Thereafter the petitioner moved a bail application under Section 439 Cr.PC. and later on he was released on bail. 6. A perusal of Annex. R/1 dated 27.1.2007, letter of S.P, Jaipur city (south), Jaipur shows that the petitioner and other co-accused persons inspite of summoning by the Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur are absconding. 7. This case was listed before this court on 25.1.2008. On that date, this court put a query to the counsel for the petitioner whether criminal case is pending against the petitioner or not? The counsel specifically denied for the same. To resolve the said controversy, this court directed the Deputy Registrar (Judi.) to send a special messenger for obtaining the record from the concerned lower court by the next date. Again on 28.1.2008, matter was listed. The record was available in the court which clearly shows that criminal case was pending against him. Mr. Virendra Lodha, the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner upon knowing this fact has requested to the court that in these circumstances, he does not want to plead the case of the petitioner and, therefore, he wants to withdraw his power on behalf of petitioner. He was permitted to do so. Mr. Virendra Lodha, the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner upon knowing this fact has requested to the court that in these circumstances, he does not want to plead the case of the petitioner and, therefore, he wants to withdraw his power on behalf of petitioner. He was permitted to do so. The petitioner has filed an affidavit on stating that the ACJM No. 7, Jaipur city, Jaipur vide order dated 30.8.95 had discharged (Rukhsat) him in the above matter and since then he has not yet received any notice from the court below in FIR No. 30/1992. On the contrary, the respondents have submitted a copy of a letter dated 27.1.2007 of Superintendent of Police, showing the conduct of the petitioner. A relevant part of the said letter is reproduced as under : dk;kZy; iqfyl v/kh{kd 'kgj nf{k.k t;iqj dzekad fnukad 27-1-07 Jheku fo'ks"kkf/kdkjh dkfeZd d4 vuqHkkx 2 foHkkx jktLFkku ljdkj t;iqjA fo"k; % vfHk;kx la[;k 30@92 Fkkuk v'kksduxj t;iqj 'kgj ljdkj cuke pqUuhyky vkxjh o vU; ds lEcU/k esaA izlax vkidk i= dzekad 4 15 dkfeZd@d4@291 fnukad 24-1-07 ds dze esaA egksn;] mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr ,d izlaxh; i= ds dze esa fuosnu gS fd mDr lEcU/k esa Fkkukf/kdkjh Fkkuk v'kksduxj t;iqj 'kgj nf{k.k ls fjiksVZ izkIr dh xbZ ftUgksaus viuh fjiksVZ ls voxr djk;k gS fd vfHk;ksx la[;k 30@92 /kkjk 419] 420] 465] 468] 201] 120ch Fkkuk v'kksduxj t;iqj 'kgj nf{k.k esa vfHk;qDrx.k pqUuhyky vkxjh] ujsUnz dqekj] tks;e vyh] esgjktqn~nhu] ft;kmn~nhu vkfcn gqlSu] euh'oj jk; pkS/kjh] cyohj flag pkSgku] v'kksd dqekj] iznhi dqekj xxZ] ubZeqnhu o dSyk'kpUn dks fxjQ~rkj dj pkyku U;k;kYk; esa is'k fd;k x;kA rFkk izdj.k dk vuqla/kku /kkjk 173 ( 8 ) tk0QkS0 ds vUrxZr isafMx j[kk x;k FkkA mDr izdj.k orZeku esa U;k;ky; ,lhts tsMh ts,e ua0 7 esa rlch esa py jgk gS rFkk lHkh vfHk;qDrx.k rkjh[k is'kh ls vuqifLFkr py jgs gSaA izdj.k esa vkxkeh rkjh[k is'kh 13-2-07 fu;r gSA fjiksVZ voyksdukFkZ lsok esa is'k gSA Hkonh; g0 iqfyl v/kh{kd t;iqj 'kgj nf{k.k t;iqj 8. The contents of the letter perspicuously show that the petitioner is deliberately avoiding service of the notice/summons issued by the Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Jaipur city, Jaipur. 9. The last order-sheet of the court of Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Jaipur city, Jaipur indicates that the petitioner is wanted from the court. 10. The contents of the letter perspicuously show that the petitioner is deliberately avoiding service of the notice/summons issued by the Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Jaipur city, Jaipur. 9. The last order-sheet of the court of Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Jaipur city, Jaipur indicates that the petitioner is wanted from the court. 10. A perusal of the above mentioned order-sheet shows that the accused is wanted in the criminal case but he is not appearing before the court below. He is deliberately avoiding service only because of getting benefits of pension etc. 11. On the other hand, the petitioner has moved a contempt petition before this court for getting the pensionary benefits. The petitioner has also made the statement before the court that final report has been submitted by the police in the criminal matter and now no criminal case or disciplinary proceeding is pending against him. On the contrary, the respondents have submitted enough material to show that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner. It shows that the petitioner is deceiving and misleading this court by saying that no criminal case is pending. Had he placed correct and complete facts before the court, his writ petition would have been dismissed. But he deliberately suppressed the material facts and has obtained the order from this court. 12. So far as civil contempt which has been filed by the petitioner is concerned, the court directed that if no equity (sic. enquiry) or criminal case is pending, after verification, then the respondents shall release the retiral benefits. Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1996 states about withholding or withdrawing the pension. As per the said rule, pension can be withheld if judicial proceeding is pending against the employee. Sub-rule 6-B of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1996 says that the judicial proceeding shall be deemed to be instituted in the case of criminal proceedings on the date of which the complaint or report of a police officer of which the Magistrate takes cognizance is made. If this rule is applied in the present case particularly keeping in view the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case that it become clear that criminal case is pending against the petitioner. 13. The word `criminal case' has to be construed in the given context. Thus the action of the respondents in not releasing the retiral benefits cannot. If this rule is applied in the present case particularly keeping in view the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case that it become clear that criminal case is pending against the petitioner. 13. The word `criminal case' has to be construed in the given context. Thus the action of the respondents in not releasing the retiral benefits cannot. be faulted and, therefore, it cannot be held that there is wilful disobedience on the part of the respondents. Since the criminal case is pending against the petitioner, the respondents have rightly withheld the retiral benefits. 14. The contempt petition is a double edged weapon. It can be.used for bilateral purpose. Generally the purpose of filing the contempt petition is for, obeying the orders/direction of this court. But in this case the circumstances are completely reverse. The petitioner has filed this contempt petition to mislead the court just to get the pensionary benefits by saying that no criminal case is pending against him. 15. In view of above submissions advanced by both the parties, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has tried to mislead this court by filing this contempt petition, therefore, I dismiss the contempt petition with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- (rupees five thousand only). The cost shall be deposited by the petitioner with the Employees Welfare Fund. The notices issued to the respondents are discharged and contempt proceedings are dropped.Contempt Petition Dismissed. *******