Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 967 (HP)

Maman Chand Jain v. Jeet Singh

2019-07-16

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this contempt petition, the prayer of the petitioner is for proceeding against the respondents herein under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, on the ground that the said respondents/contemnors have willfully disobeyed the orders passed by this Court on 24.5.2017, in Cr.MMO No. 137 of 2017, titled as Maman Chand Jain Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others. 2. The case of the petitioner herein is that in Cr.MMO No. 137 of 2017 supra, on 24.5.2017, this Court while directing the learned Additional Advocate General to produce the record pertaining to the investigation being carried out in the First Information Report, subject matter of the abovementioned petition, had also directed that in the meanwhile, petitioner shall not be arrested. As per the petitioner despite this specific order being there, on 19.12.2017, the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur at Nahan, in case titled as State of Himachal Pradesh versus Maman Chand Jain, declared the petitioner herein to be a proclaimed offender. As per the petitioner, said order stood passed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur at Nahan on 19.12.2017, because the respondents/contemnors herein willfully concealed from the said Court, the factum of order dated 24.5.2017 having been passed by this Court in Cr.MMO No. 137 of 2017 (supra), which act of the respondents/contemnors, as per the petitioner, was willful disobedience of the Court order. It is in this background that the contempt petition has been filed. 3. Pursuant to issuance of the notice, reply to the contempt petition stands filed by the respondents, who have denied any willful disobedience of the Court order by them as alleged by the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and also gone through the record of the case. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has reiterated that the purported contempt committed by the respondents/contemnors is that despite there being an order passed by this Court on 24.05.2017 in Cr.MMO No. 137 of 2017 (supra), wherein the arrest of the petitioner was stayed by this Court. This fact was willfully concealed by the present respondents from the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur at Nahan, which led to the present petitioner being declared as proclaimed offender. 6. In my considered view, this contempt petition is misconceived. This fact was willfully concealed by the present respondents from the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur at Nahan, which led to the present petitioner being declared as proclaimed offender. 6. In my considered view, this contempt petition is misconceived. It is not the case of the petitioner that despite his arrest having been stayed by this Court vide order dated 24.5.2017, passed in Cr.MMO No. 137 of 2017, the respondents/ contemnors arrested him by overreaching the order passed by this Court. The contention of the petitioner that he was declared as proclaimed offender on account of the respondents concealing order dated 24.5.2017 having been passed by this Court from the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur at Nahan, is without any merit. But obvious, it appears that when despite service, petitioner herein, who was the accused before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur at Nahan, did not put in appearance before the said Court, it was in these circumstances, that he was ordered to be declared as a proclaimed offender. Passing of the said order by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur at Nahan, has got nothing to do with the order passed by this Court on 24.5.2017, contempt of which is alleged by the petitioner. The order so passed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur at Nahan, was an independent act of its in the facts of the proceedings pending before it. It is not even the case of the petitioner that proceedings pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur at Nahan, were stayed by this Court in the above mentioned Cr.M.M.O. No. 137 of 2017. That being so, as this Court does not finds any willful disobedience of order dated 24.5.2017 passed by this Court, this petition being mis-conceived is dismissed. Notice discharged. The contempt petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.