( 1 ) MISHRI Lal has filed present contempt application, requesting therein that respondent Nos. 2 to 7 be summoned, prosecuted and punished for non compliance of the directives issued by Honble Apex Court in the case of Shri D. K. Basu v. State West Bengal, J. T. 1997 (1) S. C. 1, by contending that at the time of effecting arrest he was beaten badly and maltreatment was extended to him. ( 2 ) BRIEF background of the case is that the applicant had filed Criminal Misc. Writ petition No. 11992 of 2006, requesting therein that the police of police station Manjhanpur, Chauki Incharge be restrained from making domiciliary visit in the day and night hours of his house and bringing the applicant, his family members and the ladies of his house in police station. On presentation of the aforementioned writ petition, this Court passed following order: "heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A. G. A. for the State and perused the record. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Chandra Pal Singh was posted as S. I. at Samsabad outpost within the limit of P. S. District Kaushambi. The case as case crime No. 64/06 under Section 7/13 (1) (D) 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against him at P. S. Manjhanpur, wherein the petitioner happens to be a witness. It is contended that the above mentioned S. I. was released on bail and has been posted at the said police station a d is adopting every coercive measures to harass the petitioner and domiciliary visit is always made at his house in the day and night. The act of police coerces the petitioner and his family members to live peacefully at their residence and his act violates the liberty of the petitioner and his family members as guaranteed under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, issued notice to respondent No. 5 to file counter affidavit within ten days. List on 30. 10. 2006 as unlisted. The S. O. concerned shall ensure that no such visit shall be made or any harassment be extended to the petitioner and his family members. Let a copy of this order be furnished to the learned A. G. A. free of cost by tomorrow for intimating the authority concerned. List on 30. 10. 2006 as unlisted. The S. O. concerned shall ensure that no such visit shall be made or any harassment be extended to the petitioner and his family members. Let a copy of this order be furnished to the learned A. G. A. free of cost by tomorrow for intimating the authority concerned. " ( 3 ) THEREAFTER, said writ petition was finally decided in following terms: "heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned A. G. A. In this case a counter affidavit was was filed by the Sate as far back as 2. 11. 2006, which states that Station Officer against whom allegations were made has even been transferred outside the outpost, hence now the petitioner can have no apprehension, as alleged in the writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition has become infructuous. Furthermore, the petitioner has already filed a writ petition in which an order has been passed for checking domiciliary visits by the police. If there is any violation of the said order, it may be open for him to file a contempt petition. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. " ( 4 ) THEREAFTER, complaint has been made that on 15. 09. 2006, respondent Nos. 2 to 7 came at the house of applicant, arrested him, his wife and son, brought them at the police station and beat petitioner and his son badly; and subsequently wife and son were released. However, petitioner was not released, and proceedings under Section 151 read with Section 107/116 Cr. P. C. had been drawn. The petitioner-applicant has given details of his medical examination, and in this background complains that directives issued by Honble Apex Court in the case of Shri D. K. Basu v. State West Bengal, J. T. 1997 (1) S. C. 1, has been flouted. Counter affidavit has been filed, and therein it has been contended that subsequent to the alleged incident dated 15. 09. 2006, petitioner-applicant had filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 11992 of 2006 in which an interim order was passed on 12. 10. 2006, and thereafter, the same was finally disposed of on 19. 03. 2007 as having been rendered infructuous, and these facts were placed before the said Bench. It has also been contended that theory of arrest is totally incorrect and false, inasmuch as on 15. 09. 10. 2006, and thereafter, the same was finally disposed of on 19. 03. 2007 as having been rendered infructuous, and these facts were placed before the said Bench. It has also been contended that theory of arrest is totally incorrect and false, inasmuch as on 15. 09. 2006, the Station House Officer, Manjhanpur was required in an evidence in Session Trial Nos. 33, 34 and 35 of 2005 Under Sections 8/18/20 of NDPS Act at Unnao. Entry to this effect has been made in G. D. No. 5 dated 15. 09. 2006. It has also been categorically and clearly stated that the said statement of fact was recorded and cross examination was also done, and thereafter the said Station House Officer returned to the police station Manjhanpur on 16. 09. 2006 at about 10. 30 A. M. , as per entry made in G. D. No. 24 dated 16. 09. 2006. Details have been given that on 16. 09. 2006 petitioner along with his son and one Ram Milan Pathak and Deodatt Pandey was present in premises of police station in respect of dispute regarding land and trees. Said dispute was regarding area of Rajendra Prasad, Sub Inspector, and while talks were going on both the parties stated marpit, in this background proceedings under Section 151/107/116 Cr. P. C. were drawn qua both the parties, petitioner form one side and Deo Datta and Ram Milan Pathak from the other side, and all three were produced before S. D. M. on 17. 09. 2006. Said statement of fact has been specifically mentioned in paragraphs 10, 12, 13, 14 and 16 of the affidavit. To these statement of facts there is no specific reply submitted in the rejoinder affidavit, as is apparent from the averments made in paragraphs 18, 19, 20 of the affidavit and as far as averments made in paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit, are concerned same have not at all been disputed. Thus, prima facie, on the basis of affidavit, it is writ apparent that totally incorrect theory has been set up by the applicant, and the most surprising feature is that in the rejoinder affidavit which has been filed, even Senior Superintendent of Police, Kaushambi has been dragged, whose name was not mentioned at the first occasion. ( 5 ) CONSEQUENTLY, as per the facts of the case, no contempt is made out. ( 5 ) CONSEQUENTLY, as per the facts of the case, no contempt is made out. The Contempt application is dismissed. .