Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2017 DIGILAW 602 (SC)

Harita Sunil Parab v. R. D. Upadhay

2017-04-06

PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

body2017
ORDER Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. - Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 176 OF 2016: We have heard Ms. Harita Sunil Parab, the petitioner appearing in-person and Mr. Amarendra Sharan, learned senior counsel appearing for Respondent No.1. 2. During the course of hearing, learned senior counsel handed over a copy of the order passed by the Asstt. Commissioner of Police which reads as under: "The investigation of case FIR No. 351/16 dated 23.10.2016 u/s 354/354A/323/506/509/376 IPC, PS Tilak Marg is hereby transferred from New Delhi Distt., New Delhi to Crime Branch, Delhi. This has the approval of Commissioner of Police, Delhi." 3. Having regard to the facts of the case and keeping in view the alleged allegations made by the petitioner against Respondent No.1, we deem it appropriate that the investigation of the case be thoroughly examined by the Crime Branch, Delhi. We also direct that the Crime Branch Delhi, would submit a report before the appropriate Court which shall deal with the same in accordance with law. 4. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion relating to the factual aspects of the case. 5. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. SLP (Crl) Nos. 10099-10103/2016: 6. We have perused the office report dated 23.03.2017. The said office report indicates that show cause notice could not be issued to the sole respondent as petitioner in-person has not filed spare copy of the Special Leave Petition. It is further pointed out in the office report that a letter dated 20.02.2017 requesting the petitioner in-person to file spare copy for issuance of show cause notice was received back with postal remarks "unclaimed, returned to sender". Hence, service of show cause notice is incomplete. 7. Though service is incomplete, since these Special Leave Petitions have been tagged with the above Writ Petition, we have heard the petitioner appearing in-person. 8. Aggrieved by an interim order dated 25.08.2016 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Writ Petitions being Nos. 2740, 2573, 3185, 3186 and 3187 of 2015 whereby the High Court issued bailable warrants, Harita Sunil Parab - the petitioner-herein, preferred these Special Leave Petitions. 9. It appears that the petitioner has preferred five Criminal Writ Petitions being Nos. 2740, 2573, 3185, 3186 and 3187 of 2015 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. 10. 2740, 2573, 3185, 3186 and 3187 of 2015 whereby the High Court issued bailable warrants, Harita Sunil Parab - the petitioner-herein, preferred these Special Leave Petitions. 9. It appears that the petitioner has preferred five Criminal Writ Petitions being Nos. 2740, 2573, 3185, 3186 and 3187 of 2015 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. 10. On 07.09.2015, the High Court passed the following order: "Not on Board. Mentioned. Issue contempt notice against Ms. Harita Sunil Parab, who has disrupted the Court. After a request was made by her to this Court for taking up her matters for hearing, we indicated that her matters will not be heard by this Court. Thereafter, again at 3 p.m. she has mentioned her matters, whereupon we informed her that her matters will not be heard by this Court. After the other matters were called out, she interrupted the court proceedings and refused to leave the Court. She kept on interrupting when the other matters were heard. We, therefore, asked the lady Police Constables to escort her out of the Court. While she was being taken out of the Court by the lady Police Constables, she has threatened this Court that she will make complaint to the Supreme Court and also inform media. In our view, this clearly amounts to disruption of court proceedings and, therefore, we direct the Registry to issue contempt notice to her stating that as to why action should not be taken against her under the provisions of Contempt of Court Act. Notice is made returnable after four weeks. Stand over to 5th October, 2015." 11. When the matters came up for hearing before the High Court on 25.08.2016, none appeared for the petitioner and the High Court observed as order: "Perused the order dated 07.09.2015. Notice of contempt was ordered to be issued to the petitioner under the said order. The office remarks show that the notice is returned unserved with the police report that the petitioner has refused to accept the notice after going through the same. It records that an oral intimation of the next date has been given to her. As the petitioner appearing in person has refused to accept the service of contempt notice, we direct that a bailable warrant in the sum of Rs. 5000/- be issued to the petitioner, returnable on 10th October 2016. It records that an oral intimation of the next date has been given to her. As the petitioner appearing in person has refused to accept the service of contempt notice, we direct that a bailable warrant in the sum of Rs. 5000/- be issued to the petitioner, returnable on 10th October 2016. On the returnable date, the petition shall be listed under the caption of "Direction." 12. We have carefully gone through the material available on record, the grounds stated in these Special Leave Petitions and the orders passed by the High Court. 13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the averments made in the Special Leave Petitions, we do not intend to interfere with the order passed by the High Court. 14. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petitions are dismissed. 15. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.