Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1103 (MP)

Anees Singh Tomar v. Pramod Verma

2014-09-03

S.K.GANGELE, S.K.PALO

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. Heard. 2. This Contempt Petition under Section 12 of the Court Act, 1971 read with Article 215 Constitution of India has been filed by the applicant praying for stern action against the non-applicants. 3. The applicant earlier filed a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to invoke the inherent powers of this Court for issuance of direction to the investigating agency under Lokayukt Organization and to register F.I.R. on the basis of the written application given by the applicant on 14.03.2014 alleging commission of cognizable offence. 4. This Court has disposed of the petition by the following observations:- However, to avoid delay and looking to the innocuous prayer made by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to dispose of this petition with liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh written complaint to the concerned police station u/s. 154(1) of Cr.P.C. within a period of 30 working days from today which if not given heed to, shall entitle the petitioner to approach the S.P. Of the District concerned u/s. 154(3) of Cr.P.C. The police authorities are expected to act with promptitude and in accordance with the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of U.P. And others reported in, 2013 (5) MPHT 336". 5. The applicant claimed that despite the above order, no action has been taken by the non-applicants. There has been cognizable offence, therefore, the F.I.R. ought to have lodged. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the direction given in case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of U.P. And others reported in 2013 (5) MPHT 336, has not been complied with as directed in the order dated 15.05.2014. 6. Per contra, the compliance report has been filed by non-applicants. Non-applicants praying that pursuant to the order dated 15.05.2014 on the complaint of Anees Singh (applicant) and following the guidelines given in the case of Lalita Kumari (supra), Sub Inspector, Shri S.S. Pandey conducted the enquiry and complete report has been submitted to the Town Inspector, Police Station, Gwalior. Copy of the same is Annexures C-2. It is submitted that, in the enquiry, no cognizable offence has been found to have committed. Therefore, the order passed by this Court is duly complied with. 7. Copy of the same is Annexures C-2. It is submitted that, in the enquiry, no cognizable offence has been found to have committed. Therefore, the order passed by this Court is duly complied with. 7. It has been further submitted that the respondents are law abiding persons, they cannot think of disobeying the orders of this Court. There was only observation of this Court which was not in terms of direction. In spite of this, proper action has been taken in the matter. The contempt petition initiated is, therefore, liable to be disposed. 8. On perusal of Annexure AC-2, it is observed that Shri S.S. Pandey, Sub Inspector, has submitted a detailed report to the Town Inspector, Police Station, Gwalior. 9. In the report it is mentioned that the applicant and his friend were found at Kila gate on 12.03.2014 in inebriated condition. They were fighting with the auto drivers near the stand. Therefore, action was taken under Section 151 of Cr.P.C. against them. Because of this, the applicant become annoyed and has come up with the application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., and the present petition. 10. We do not find prima facie material to proceed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971. With this observation, we disallow the present petition that the applicant is at liberty to proceed under the Cr.P.C. if he is not satisfied with the enquiry report submitted by Shri S.S. Pandey, Sub Inspector.