Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3618 (MAD)

E. Pushpa v. S. Ramesh Babu

2014-09-24

T.MATHIVANAN

body2014
Judgment : 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the respondents 1 and 2 for their willful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 1.3.2012 and made in Crl.O.P.No.3555 of 2012. 2. In the abovesaid order, this Court has specifically directed the respondents to register a case based on the complaint of the petitioner dated 14.1.2011, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order, provided any cognizable offence is made out. In fact, they were not able to comply with the directions of this Court as aforestated and therefore, the petitioner, being the complainant, is constrained to file this contempt petition, invoking the provisions of Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act. 3. During the course of pendency of this petition, a Report was filed along with a Memorandum by the learned Government Advocate saying that an enquiry was conducted in respect of the complaint dated 14.1.2011 and after the enquiry, that complaint was closed as no grounds are available to proceed against the respondent, who has been indicted in that complaint. But this Court is not satisfied with the answer given by the respondents in the Memorandum as well as in their counter affidavits. However, Dr. G. Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has suggested that instead of punishing the respondents, let them be directed to register a case based on the original complaint dated 14.1.2011. The respondents have also agreed to register a case and accordingly, they were directed to file an affidavit of undertaking before this Court. 4. Now, the learned Government Advocate has submitted that the respondents have registered the case based on the complaint of the petitioner dated 14.1.2011 and in support of her submission, she has also produced the certified copy of the printed First Information Report along with the Memorandum and the respondents have also filed their respective counter affidavits, expressing their unconditional apology. The apology tendered by the respondents is accepted by this Court and since a case has been registered in Crime No.767 of 2014 on 17.9.2014, based on the complaint of the petitioner dated 14.1.2011, this Court finds that this petition may be closed. 5. Accordingly, the counter affidavits filed by the respondents are recorded and this petition is closed as the purpose is fully served.