Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1626 (JHR)

Prakash Singh @ Shree Babu v. State of Jharkhand

2012-11-08

D.N.UPADHYAY

body2012
Judgment I.A. No. 1653 of 2012 This Interlocutory Application has been filed by the opposite party no. 2 praying therein that since the petitioner is intentionally disobeying the order of this Court passed on 31.10.2012 and has illegally and wrongfully confined the three children namely Rishabh Singh (son), Tanya and Mahi (both daughters) in their custody and, therefore, warrant of arrest may be issued for compliance of the order dated 31.10.2012 passed by this Court in this Writ Petition. 2. In reply to said I.A., the petitioner has also filed rejoinder stating therein that due to non availability of reservation tickets, he could not be able to produce the two children before this Court whereas girl Tanya is lying ill. It is relevant to mention here that on earlier occasion, the petitioner had shown Air Tickets as to how the children are being taken care of and what sorts of communication and facilities is being given to them but at present they are taking plea that they did not get reservation ticket. 3. I have gone through the operative part of the order dated 31.10.2012 passed in this Writ Petition whereby the petitioner Prakash Singh @ Shree Babu and Shekhar Singh, who are grand father and father respectively of the three children, were directed to produce Rishabh Singh (son), Tanya and Mahi (both daughters) before this Court, positively on 7th November, 2012 so that children may be handed over to the mother and liberty was also granted to the grand father and father of the children to visit the place of stay of the children in the interval of two months, preferably on the weekend. 4. It is needless to say that the order dated 01.08.2011, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in Misc. Case No. 07/2011 was under challenge, which indicates that the matter is lingering for more than one year for custody of the children and the unfortunate mother is running from post to pillar for seeking justice but the petitioner and his family members, who think that they are proud of money, means and muscle, and they can handle the things according to their own way keeping the rule of law aside. I had experienced, while hearing aforesaid application, the attitude and tendency of the petitioner and his family members who were always appearing to the Court either in person or through the lawyer with an intention to flouting the Court's order by one way or the other, by one means or the other and to some extent till the date they have succeeded in their mission. 5. The order dated 31.10.2012, passed in this writ petition, was announced in the open Court on the date of order itself in presence of counsel appearing for both sides and it was made clear that on 7th November, 2012, the children shall be produced before this Court for compliance of the order. 6. It is another unfortunate incident which occurred yesterday when the conducting counsel did not appear rather, another counsel from Patna namely Shri Bhshnu Shankar Prasad came and submitted that the petitioner wants to prefer Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court for which time may be allowed. Again in the open Court it was directed to comply order dated 31.10.2012 and the learned counsel who was present yesterday assured the Court that the three children will be produced by today and on his prayer, this case was fixed under the heading for 'Orders' and put at 3:00 p.m.. Learned counsel appearing from Patna is present today but he has no explanation as to why the Order dated 31.10.2012 has not been complied with or as to what happened to the assurances given by him yesterday. 7. It is a fit case in which suo motu contempt proceeding should be initiated against the petitioner who has knowing fully well and intentionally avoided to comply the order and as a result, Contempt Notices be issued as per Rule 397 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001. 8. In this view of the matter, let notices be issued to the petitioner Prakash Singh @ Shree Babu and Shekhar Singh (husband of the o.p. no.2), to show cause as to why proceedings for contempt be not initiated against them under the provisions of Rule 397 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001. 9. I.A. No. 1653 of 2012 stands disposed of. 10. It is evident that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro vide order dated 01.08.2011, passed in Misc. 9. I.A. No. 1653 of 2012 stands disposed of. 10. It is evident that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro vide order dated 01.08.2011, passed in Misc. Case No. 07/2011, has directed to issue search warrant immediately and that order has been upheld by this Court in this writ petition except the concluding part and, therefore, search warrant is directed to be issued for production of the aforesaid three children namely Rishabh Singh (son), Tanya and Mahi (both daughters) on the following expected addresses produced by counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 and the search warrant shall be complied with by the Superintendent of Police of those Districts immediately and any person who will obstruct the execution of search warrant, shall be taken into custody and appropriate action shall be taken against him/her immediately in accordance with law. The addresses provided by the counsel for the opposite party no. 2 may be kept on record. S. Name Relationship Tentative Address No. with Complainant/ O.P. No. 2 1. Shree Prakash Singh @ Shree Babu, son of Late Rameshwar Singh Father in law Rekha House, New Dak Bunglow Road, Near Utsav Hotel, P.S. Gandhi Maidan, Town and District -Patna, Bihar. 2 Sri Shekhar Singh, Husband son of Shree Prakash Singh @ Shree Babu 3 Smt. Rekha Singh, wife of Shree Prakash Singh @ Shree Babu 4 Reshma Singh, D/o. Sister-in-law Flat No. 1703 -1704, Shree Prakash Singh Tower No.1, Rushtam @ Shree Babu. Jee Ozone, West Mumbai, P.S. -Gore Gaon, Maharashtra. 5 Ram Balak Singh, Cousin brother-in-law Ashok Rajpath, P.O. son of Late G.B. Singh and P.S. -Pirbihor, District -Patna, Bihar. 11. The search warrant may be communicated to D.G.P., State of Jharkhand to communicate to the S.P. concerned by tomorrow itself. 12. The compliance of search warrant must be communicated to this Court even during vacation at the place of stay of the undersigned. 13. Let a copy of this order be handed over to counsel appearing for the parties.