Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3292 (MAD)

S. Baluchamy v. Manikandan

2015-10-08

R.MALA

body2015
ORDER : The petitioner has come forward with this contempt petition stating that he obtained an order dated 26.06.2015, wherein a direction was issued to the contemnor to complete the enquiry and register the case if any cognizable offence is made out within a period of four weeks. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order has been passed on 26.06.2015 and the petitioner sent a contempt notice on 19.07.2015, since he has not complied with the order. Hence, the petitioner has filed this petition stating that the respondent committed the disobedience of the order. 3. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submits that after due enquiry the complaint has been closed on 05.10.2015 and the contemnor also tendered unconditional apology. He further submits that for obtaining documents from the civil Court, there was a delay. 4. Considering the rival submissions and also taking into account the order passed on 26.06.2015, it is appropriate to incorporate the paragraph 3' of the order as follows: "3. In view of the same, in all these matters, the concerned respondent/competent authority is directed to complete the enquiry within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and also directed to register the F.I.R if cognizable offence is made out, in pursuant to the enquiry conducted." 5. The order has been made ready on 13.07.2015, but the contempt notice was issued on 19.07.2015 within six days which shows malafide intention of the petitioner in filing this petition. Moreover, the delay has also been properly explained. 6. Hence, I do not find any elements of contempt. Accordingly, this contempt petition is closed.