Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1338 (ALL)

Shabina v. Shogun Gautam, S. P. Rampur

2020-11-18

VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA

body2020
JUDGMENT : VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri. P.K. Giri, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite party. 2. The present contempt application has been filed for punishing the Opposite Party for willful disobedience of the judgment and order passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1 and by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Rina Kumari vs. State of U.P. (2015) 90 ACRC 583. 3. It is not in dispute that no specific order in respect of present applicant has been passed in the above noted judgments. However, general directions have been issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumar (supra) as well as by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Rina Kumari (supra), deliberate and willful violation whereof is being claimed by the applicant by submitting that a first information report in a rape case is not being lodged by the opposite parties. 4. On 21.10.2020 following order was passed: “Present contempt application has been preferred against the wilful defiance of the direction issued by Hon'ble Apex Court in Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1 as well as judgment passed in Rina Kumari vs. State of U.P. (2015) 90 ACRC 583. It is submitted that once cognizance offence is made out, the SHO concerned should lodged FIR in the matter. Inspite of repeated requests, no indulgence has been made in the matter and the said action is in direct teeth of the mandate of the aforesaid judgments. Before proceeding further in the matter, let copy of the petition be given to Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Standing Counsel during the course of the day for enabling him to seek instructions in the matter. Put up this matter as fresh on 18.11.2020. It is made clear that the Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.” 5. Insofar as the willful disobedience of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari (supra) is concerned, I have considered the identical question in Anand Dwivedi vs. Sri. Put up this matter as fresh on 18.11.2020. It is made clear that the Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.” 5. Insofar as the willful disobedience of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari (supra) is concerned, I have considered the identical question in Anand Dwivedi vs. Sri. H.C. Awasthi, Director General of Police State of U.P. and Others passed in Contempt Application (Civil) No. 2632 of 2020 dated 31.8.2020 wherein placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vitusah Oberoi and Others vs. Court of its Own Motion, (2017) 2 SCC 314 (Paragraph 10) it has already been held that the contempt application filed under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for willful disobedience of the judgments or directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not maintainable before this Court. 6. In such view of the matter, for non-compliance of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari (supra), present contempt application is not maintainable. 7. Insofar as the willful disobedience of the judgment and order of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Rina Kumari (supra) is concerned, I proceed to consider the same on merits. 8. Today Sri. P.K. Giri, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has produced a copy of the instructions received by him, which clearly indicates that an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. has been filed in the competent court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Rampur. Replying the same, learned counsel for the applicant has admitted this fact and submits that the said application is pending. 9. It is, therefore, clear that the applicant has availed the statutory remedy available to him as per the Criminal Procedure Code. He however drew attention to paragraph 42 of the judgment of Hon'ble Division Bench in Rina Kumari (supra) and submits that in case a first information report is not registered, separate proceedings of contempt can be drawn against the opposite party. 10. I have perused the paragraph 42 of the aforesaid judgment of Rina Kumari (supra). The same is quoted as under:- “42. 10. I have perused the paragraph 42 of the aforesaid judgment of Rina Kumari (supra). The same is quoted as under:- “42. We direct Chief Secretary, U.P. Government; Principal Secretary (Home), U.P. Government and, Secretary (Appointment), U.P. Government to immediately look into the matter, take appropriate steps and finalize schemes so as to make U.P. Police Force, a real law and order enforcing machinery which should appear to be working and bring confidence of people, back. It should also reflect upon the steps taken by aforesaid officials in respect of matters of non-registration of reports by police officials whenever information of occurrence of a cognizable offence is conveyed. The steps taken shall also show, how aforesaid officials have ensured compliance of directions given by this Court as well as Apex Court in Roop Ram vs. State of U.P. (supra) and Lalita Kumari vs. Government of U.P. (supra). In case of lapses on the part of concerned police officials, how steps would be taken to punish the guilty officials should also be a part of the scheme. They shall also submit a progress report, on expiry of six months from the date of delivery of this judgment, showing steps taken by them in this regard and the consequences thereof. They shall make inquiry and inform the Court about the officers who have disobeyed Court's order regarding registration of first information report so that separate proceeding of contempt may be drawn against them.” (Emphasis supplied) 11. Perusal of the above quoted paragraph clearly indicates that the State Government has been directed to take appropriate steps and finalize the scheme so as to make UP Police Force, a real law and order enforcing machinery. Last three lines of the paragraph clearly indicates that the contempt proceedings can be drawn only when the officers who have disobeyed the court's order regarding registration of first information report. 12. Admittedly, there is no order existing in favour of the applicant regarding lodging the first information report. On the contrary, after filing present contempt application, applicant has availed statutory remedy under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Needless to say that the Code of Criminal Procedure is a complete code in itself. 13. In such view of the matter, no further orders are required to be passed. Notices, if any, issued to the opposite party stands discharged. 14. Present contempt application is misconceived and is consigned to record.