JUDGMENT Surya Kant, C.J. - These contempt proceedings have been initiated alleging, inter alia, willful, intentional and deliberate breach/disobedience of orders dated 9th April, 2018, 16th July, 2018, 28th August, 2018 and 5th September, 2018, passed in Miscellaneous Application moved by the petitioner in CWP No. 747 of 2018, titled as Dharam Pal Singh vs State of H.P. & others. 2. During the course of hearing and on our asking as to which interim/interlocutory order has been expressly violated by the respondents, who are Vice Chancellor, Registrar and Chairman of the Department of Computer Science, the petitioner refers to order dated 5th September, 2018 (C-9) passed in CMP No. 8412 of 2018, which reads as follows: "CMP No. 8412 of 2018 In view of the assurance meted out by Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent-University, applicant/petitioner does not press the application at this stage. Application stands disposed of, as not pressed." 3. On a further query by the Court as to what was the assurance given by learned counsel for the University before this Court on 5th September, 2018, the petitioner, who appears in person, states that the assurance pertains to withdrawal of FIR No. 240 of 2018 dated 29th August, 2018, under Sections 424 and 426IPC read with Section 5 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act registered against the petitioner at Police Station West. The above stated FIR has been registered on the compliant made by one Govind Ram, who is serving in the University as a Clerk in the Department of Computer Science and who has alleged in his compliant, inter alia, that the petitioner had torn off some pages of the Attendance Register of Ph.D Scholars being maintained in the aforesaid office. 4. The petitioner, with a view to substantiate his plea, referred to the averments made by Mehar Chand HC No. 83 in his affidavit dated 19th December, 2018, who is the Investigating Officer in the above stated FIR. 5. Having heard the petitioner in person as well as the learned counsel for the University, we are satisfied that no case to initiate contempt proceedings is made out against the respondents. The present contempt proceedings are an attempt to arm-twist the authority and to compel it to withdraw the complaint made against the petitioner, alleging his forcible entry in the office and damaging/torning the papers of Attendance Register. 6. The present contempt proceedings are an attempt to arm-twist the authority and to compel it to withdraw the complaint made against the petitioner, alleging his forcible entry in the office and damaging/torning the papers of Attendance Register. 6. The question as to whether the allegations made by Govind Ram complainant are true or false are firstly to be gone into by the Investigating Agency, which is obligated to submit a report under Section 173 Cr.PC. In the event of submission of the report, substantiating such charges re: commission of any offence by the petitioner, it would be the Judicial Magistrate who will apply his mind firstly at the stage of framing of charge and/or thereafter, if need be while deciding the trial, in accordance with law. The respondents against whom contempt proceedings are sought to be initiated have no concern whatsoever with the ongoing criminal investigation or the consequential action which may arise subsequently. 7. Accordingly, these contempt proceedings are totally frivolous and the same are dismissed. Rule discharged.