Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1737 (ALL)

Rajesh Kumar Pandey v. Indramani Shukla

2015-07-03

RAN VIJAI SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT Ran Vijai Singh, J. Heard Sri Chandra Jeet Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants. 2. This contempt application has been filed for punishing the opposite party for abusing the process of the Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that civil contempt has been defined under section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act and there, the Court can punish a person, who has abused the process of Court. 4. On being confronted as to how the process of the Court has been abused, learned counsel for the applicants invited the attention of this Court towards the order dated 1.4.2015 passed by this Court in Writ C No. 17183 of 2015 (C/M Madhav Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others), by which it has been directed that the election of the Committee of Management scheduled to be held on 5.4.2015 may be held, but the result there of shall not be declared. 5. In the submission of learned counsel for the applicants, the aforesaid order has been obtained by playing fraud and concealing the material facts before this Court, which will amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 6. The question would be, as to when the order has been obtained by playing fraud or concealing the material fact, a separate proceeding under the Contempt of Court can be initiated? It is not in dispute that Writ C No. 17183 of 2015 (C/M Madhav Intermediate College and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others) is still pending before this Court. The respondents (applicants herein) have also filed counter affidavit in the aforesaid writ petition. The question as to whether any fraud has been played or any concealment has been made or there is any abuse of the process of the Court is yet to be examined by the Court where the matter is pending.? In case, after examining the matter in detail, the Court finds that really the order has been obtained by playing fraud or concealing the material facts, the Court dealing with the matter is not powerless. The Court can pass an order for lodging a criminal prosecution or for initiating a contempt proceeding against the petitioner itself, as it is settled that filing of a false affidavit amounts to contempt of Court, but that is in the sole domain of the court dealing with the writ petition. The Court can pass an order for lodging a criminal prosecution or for initiating a contempt proceeding against the petitioner itself, as it is settled that filing of a false affidavit amounts to contempt of Court, but that is in the sole domain of the court dealing with the writ petition. That Court may or may not initiate such proceeding depending upon the decision of that Court. 7. In view of the above, I am of the view that unless the real abuse of the process of the Court is determined by the Court concerned where the matter is pending, no separate proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act can be initiated. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants are misconceived. The contempt application is dismissed as not maintainable. However, the dismissal of the contempt application will not preclude the applicants from availing such other remedies as available to them under law.