Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1008 (HP)

Arjanbir Singh Likhari v. D. W. Negi

2015-08-04

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. By the medium of this Contempt Petition, the petitioner has sought drawing of the contempt proceedings against the respondents, who are police officers, on the grounds taken in the memo of the petition. 2. It appears that FIR No. 88 of 2014 was lodged by Ms. Simrat Singh against Arjanbir Singh Likhari, petitioner herein who is husband of complainant Ms. Simrat Singh, J.S. Likhari father-in-law of the complainant and mother-in-law, under Section 498-A, 406 of the Indian Penal Code, in Police Station Chhota Shimla. The alleged accused moved application for the grant of anticipatory bail before the Sessions Judge, Shimla and interim relief was granted to the accused vide order dated 18.7.2014. 3. After hearing the parties, prosecution and also the perusal of the police report, the bail application was dismissed vide order dated 11.9.2014. It is apt to reproduce para 15 of the order herein: “15.In the case in hand, the applicants have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. It is well settled position of law that powers conferred under this Section is of extra ordinary character and is not to be resorted as a matter of course. The power has to be exercised in grave and exceptional cases since it is power of extra ordinary character. Nonetheless discretion under this Section has to be exercised where the facts and circumstances of the case so warrant. Before exercising the powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Court must be satisfied that the applicant invoking the provision has reasons to believe that he is likely to be arrested for non-bailable offence and his belief must be based upon reasonable ground. The Court has also to keep in mind the gravity of the allegations leveled in the F.I.R. Since the case in hand, it is clear from the perusal of the FIR that grave and serious allegations have been leveled against the applicants No. 1 and 3 and conduct the applicant No. 1 during the course of hearing before this Court also not up-to the mark, in as much as, the applicant No. 1 was playing hide and seek with the Court even to make the payment of Rs.8,00.000/- (Eight lacs) which the applicants have earlier agreed to pay so as to put to quietus to all kind of litigations between the parties. It is a matter of common knowledge that at the time of marriage, gifts, traditional dowry items are given by the family of the bride to that of the groom as per their social status. It was not denied even by the learned counsel for the applicants that dowry/traditional items were given at the time of marriage of the applicant No. 1 with the complainant. There is no specific evidence on record to suggest that complainant has taken back jewellery and other items with her to Shimla. Simply because, it is mentioned in the order dated 22.1.2014 by Ld. A.D.J. that all disputes have been settled by way of compromise, that would not mean that complainant has taken every thing with her. There is no reason or justification as to why the complainant should level so serious allegations without any rhyme or reason. The court was also apprised that during the course of interrogation, the applicant No. 1 agreed to return the clothes and certain other items belonging to the complainant, but the clothes and other items which were brought by the applicant No. 1 were not in fact belonging to the complainant and no valuable items were brought in the briefcase by the applicants to be handed over to the complainant. In such circumstances, the court is of the view that the applicants are not entitled to the discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail at this stage. Accordingly, the order 18.7.2014 is vacated the application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.” 4. After noticing the dismissal order of the bail application, made by the learned Sessions Judge, referred to supra, the accused were taken to police station and were not taken into custody on 11.9.2014 but on the next day, i.e. on 12.9.2014, they were arrested in the said FIR, constraining them to file application for the grant of bail which was granted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Shimla on 15.9.2014. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of the said order herein: “Resultantly, the application for the police remand of the accused filed by the prosecution is disallowed, whereas the application for bail moved by the accused is allowed subject to his furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one surety in the like amount. Release of the accused however, shall be subject to following conditions” 1. Release of the accused however, shall be subject to following conditions” 1. that he shall not influence the prosecution witnesses in any manner whatsoever nor shall tamper with the prosecution evidence, 2. that he shall join the investigation as and when so required, 3. that he shall not commit the similar offence of which he is an accused and 4. that he shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court.” 5. One of the accused, namely, Simran Likhari approached this Court for the grant of pre-arrest bail which was granted by the learned Single Judge on 16.10.2014. It is apt to reproduce paras 9 and 10 of the said order herein: “9. Accordingly, this is a fit case where the discretion of grant of bail ought to be exercised and accordingly, the bail petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in FIR No. 88/14 dated 19.7.2014, registered at Police Station, East, Shimla, under Sections 498- A, and 406 of the Indian Penal Code on her furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, subject to the following conditions: (i) that the petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (ii) that the petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or threaten the witnesses; (iii) that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required. (iv) that the petitioners shall not misuse their liberty in any manner. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla is directed to comply with the directions issued by the High Court, vide communication No.HHC/ VIG./ Misc. Instructions/93-IV.7139, dated 18.03.2013. 10. It is made clear that in case the Investigating Agency wants to interrogate the petitioner, then written Hukamnama to this effect shall be issued to her. It is also made clear that during the investigation the petitioner cannot be unduly harassed. On the other hand, in case the petitioner violates any of the conditions, she will be liable for cancellation of the bail.” 6. It is also made clear that during the investigation the petitioner cannot be unduly harassed. On the other hand, in case the petitioner violates any of the conditions, she will be liable for cancellation of the bail.” 6. Precise case of the petitioner is that the FIR was not to be registered in terms of the mandate of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar versus State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 , because the parties were litigating before the Civil Court, in terms of the mandate of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Thus, the police has violated the directions contained in the apex Court judgment, referred to supra. 7. The moot question is whether the lodging of the FIR and thereafter arrest by the police, after dismissal of the bail application, can be said to be a breach of the Supreme Court judgment? The answer is in negative for the following reasons. 8. The police was set in motion on the allegations made by the complainant. Thus, it cannot be said that the police has violated the directions contained in the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court, supra. The police has not made any haste in making the arrest of the accused immediately and they moved application seeking anticipatory bail which was granted as discussed hereinabove and ultimately, the said bail application was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, after noticing and recording that no case for grant of anticipatory bail was made out. Thus, it cannot be said that the action of the police, after noticing the orders, in arresting the accused is in violation of the Supreme Court judgment and is contempt. 9. Having said so, no case for issuance of notice is made out. Hence the Contempt Petition is dismissed in limine, alongwith pending applications, if any.