JUDGMENT : A.S. SUPEHIA, J. 1. By an order dated 27.01.2022, the Coordinate Bench had placed the matter on 01.02.2022 for framing of charge. Thereafter, since the contentions were raised on behalf of the respondent no. 4 with regard to the non-maintainability of the contempt petition, by a comprehensive order dated 09.02.2022, the Coordinate Bench of this Court, after referring to the submissions advanced by the learned Senior Advocates appearing for the respective parties and taking the note of the facts and law enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of Aarnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 and D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416 had opined in Paragraph No. 5 as under: “Aforesaid facts would leave no manner of doubt that prima facie, there being violation of the directions issued by Apex Court in D.K. Basu’s case and also Arnesh Kumar’s case referred to supra, reiterating our order dated 27.01.2022, we direct the Registry to list this matter for framing the charge/s as against the accused on 23.2.2022.........” However, the matter was adjourned in view of the request made by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent to settle the dispute with the complainant i.e. present applicant. 2. The aforesaid order was assailed by the respondents by filing Special Leave Petition (C) No. 3885 of 2022 before the Apex Court. By the order dated 22.04.2022 the Apex Court has dismissed the SLP by following order: “We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications stand disposed of.” Thus, the matter was kept for framing of charges on 23.02.2022 however, it appears that thereafter the matter has been adjourned on number of occasions. It is pertinent to note that the respondent had raised an objection with regard to the non-maintainability of the contempt application in view of Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution of India. When the matter was notified before this Court, the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties were again heard at length. A request was made by the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Jal Unwala appearing for the respondent nos. 4 and 5 that in fact the present application filed for initiation of the contempt proceedings is not maintainable under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short “the Act”). A request was made by the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Jal Unwala appearing for the respondent nos. 4 and 5 that in fact the present application filed for initiation of the contempt proceedings is not maintainable under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short “the Act”). Though, in our considered opinion, an opportunity to make such submissions is not available in view of the order dated 09.02.2022 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court as well as dismissal of the SLP, in the interest of justice the submissions with regard to the maintainability of the present application are allowed to be advanced. 3. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Unwala, while referring to the provisions of Section 10 of the Act has submitted that this Court cannot take cognizance of contempt alleged to have been committed where the contempt is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). In juxtaposition to the provision of Section 10 of the Act, he has referred to the provisions of Section 166 of the IPC. 3.1 It is submitted that the aforesaid provisions in unequivocal terms state that that a public servant if disobeys any direction of law and he conducts himself in such a manner, if such disobedience causes injury to any person shall be punishable for simple imprisonment which may extend to one year or fine or both. It is thus submitted that since there is a specific provision made in the statute, this Court under the provisions of Section 10 of the Act is not competent to try the contempt proceedings. 3.2 He has further submitted that since the petitioner has not invoked the provisions of Article 215 of the Constitution of India, this Court, in absence of such provision, cannot exercise its inherent power of punishing the respondents for the contempt of Court. He has submitted that the petitioner has filed the present application under Section 12 of the Act, instead under Article 215 of the Constitution. 3.3 In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of R.L. Kapur vs. State of Madras, (1972) 1 SCC 651 . 3.4 Learned Senior Advocate Mr. 3.3 In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of R.L. Kapur vs. State of Madras, (1972) 1 SCC 651 . 3.4 Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Unwala has further contended while referring to the observations made in the case of D.K. Basu, more particularly paragraph No. 36 thereof, that the guidelines issued thereunder, more particularly 11 in numbers have now being incorporated in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Cr.P.C.” for short), the petitioner has a legal remedy available to file appropriate proceedings. 4. Learned advocates appearing on behalf of the rest of the respondents have adopted the submissions advanced by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Unwala. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor, while referring to the provisions of Chapter-V of the Cr.P.C. has contended that after the incorporation of such provision in the Cr.P.C. the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in the case of D.K. Basu have seized to be in operation, hence the present petition is not maintainable. It is submitted that at the most it can be said that the respondents No. 2 to 6 have violated such provisions, for which remedy is already available to the petitioner and hence, the present contempt proceedings should be closed. 6. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Sudhir Nanavati for respondent No. 2 has invited attention of this Court to the affidavit filed by respondent No. 2, wherein he has specifically stated that the present contempt proceedings may be dropped in view of the apology, which has been tendered in the first instance. However, he has not made any submission with regard to the non-maintainability of the present petition. 7. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Syed appearing for the petitioner has submitted that reliance placed by the respondents on the provisions of Section 10 of the Act is misconceived since the same would only apply and restrict to the contempt of subordinate courts, whereas in the present case, the petitioner is alleging flagrant violation of law enunciated by the Apex Court in the cases of D.K. Basu (supra) and Arnesh Kumar (supra). It is thus submitted that the provision of Section 10 of the Act is not applicable in the present case since there is no question of violation of any orders passed by the subordinate courts but noncompliance of the directions issued by the Apex Court in the aforementioned cases. He has further submitted that this Court can exercise the inherent powers under Article 215 of the Constitution to do complete justice and can invoke its power of Contempt of Court for violation of the order of the Apex Court. 7.1 He has further placed reliance on the Law Commission of India, One Hundred and Seventy Seventh Report, more particularly of Chapter- Eight, which refers to the decision of D.K. Basu (supra). He has submitted that the Law Commission of India has specifically observed and recorded that by incorporating the directions issued in the case of D.K. Basu in Chapter-V of the Cr.P.C. the initiation of the proceedings under the Act would not disappear. It is submitted that subsequently also the Apex Court has further issued the directions and have expanded the scope of decisions of D.K. Basu and Arnesh Kumar. Thus, it is submitted that merely because Section 41A and other provisions are introduced in Chapter-V of the Cr.P.C. in light of the decision of D.K. Basu, the same will not in any manner dilute the law declared by the Apex Court in the cases of D.K. Basu and Arnesh Kumar. Thus, it is urged that the present contempt proceedings are maintainable. 7.2 With regard to tendering unconditional apology, he has placed reliance in the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Suo Motu vs. Vijay Shah and Others, 2020 SCC Online (Guj.) 1274. By placing reliance on the aforesaid decision, it is stated that the act committed by the private respondents, which is so derogatory to the dignity of the Court and undermines the confidence of the people, hence the Court cannot chose to overlook such serious dimension and hence, the unconditional apology may not be accepted. 8. We have also permitted the learned advocate Mr. Anand Yagnik to put forward his submissions, as he requested to assist this Court on the issue. 8. We have also permitted the learned advocate Mr. Anand Yagnik to put forward his submissions, as he requested to assist this Court on the issue. While placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sahdeo @ Sahdeo Singh vs. State of U.P. 2010 (3) SCC 705 , he has submitted that the High Court has inherent power to initiate the contempt proceedings suo motu for ensuring compliance of the order passed by the Apex Court. It is submitted that the High Court has to follow the procedure envisaged in its rules for undertaking the proceedings under the Act and hence, appropriate charge is required to be framed so that the contemnors are given ample opportunity to meet with the same. It is submitted that by exercising inherent powers under Article 215 of the Constitution, this Court can examine whether there is any contempt committed by the opponents for violating the law enunciated by the Apex Court in the cases D.K. Basu and Arnesh Kumar. He has submitted that the entire judgment of D.K. Basu relates to the torture and beating of the accused while in police custody or he is illegally detained or is harassed. It is submitted that the police officers have to adhere to the guidelines, which are issued by the Apex Court in the cases of D.K. Basu and the law declared by the Apex Court is to be strictly followed by invoking doctrine of strict liability, and even if the opponents tender unconditional apology, the same cannot dilute the contempt committed by such persons, who blatantly violate the law enunciated by the Apex Court. It is submitted that the High Court is not supposed to invoke its power under Article 215 of the Constitution as they are inherent, and such power can be exercised even if Article 215 of the Constitution of India is not mentioned in the application. He has further submitted that by issuing directions in the case of D.K. Basu, more particularly paragraph No. 37 thereof, which empowers the High Court to initiate the proceedings for contempt in case the guidelines are violated, the Apex Court has in fact transposed its jurisdiction of Article 129 to Article 215 of the Constitution of India. He has further submitted that by issuing directions in the case of D.K. Basu, more particularly paragraph No. 37 thereof, which empowers the High Court to initiate the proceedings for contempt in case the guidelines are violated, the Apex Court has in fact transposed its jurisdiction of Article 129 to Article 215 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that even if there is provision in the statute akin to Section 166 of the IPC, the powers of Court cannot be curtailed for initiating the proceedings under the Act and also under Article 215 of the Constitution. 9. We have heard the learned Senior Advocates/Advocates for the respective parties with regard to maintainability of the present proceedings. 10. The first and foremost contention raised by the respondents is that the proceedings in the present incarnation is not maintainable neither under Section 12 of the Act or under Article 215 of the Constitution. The shelter is being sought under section 10 of the Act, which reads as under: “SECTION 10: Power of High Court to punish contempts of subordinate courts - Every High Court shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction, powers and authority, in accordance with the same procedure and practice, in respect of contempts of courts subordinate to it as it has and exercises in respect of contempts of itself: Provided that no High Court shall take cognizance of a contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a court subordinate to it where such contempt is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860).” A plain and simple reading of the aforesaid provision would reveal that the same pertains to the power of High Court to punish the contempt of subordinate courts. The respondents have emphasized on the Proviso to Section 10 of the Act, which also refers that “No High Court shall take cognizance of a contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a subordinate Court where such contempt is an offence punishable under the IPC.” Thus, the Proviso itself mandates of taking cognizance of a contempt committed in respect to Court subordinate to it. An attempt is made by the respondents to take benefit of Proviso of Section 10 of the Act, however, in the present case provision of Section 10 of the Act would not remotely apply and hence, contention in this regard is rejected. An attempt is made by the respondents to take benefit of Proviso of Section 10 of the Act, however, in the present case provision of Section 10 of the Act would not remotely apply and hence, contention in this regard is rejected. In case of R.L. Kapur (supra), the Apex Court, while dealing with section 3 of Contempt of Court Act, 1952 (now section 10) has also held that section 3 of the Act provides that every High Court shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction, powers and authority in accordance with the same procedure and practice in respect of contempt of courts subordinate to it as it exercises in respect of contempt of itself. In context of section 10 of the Act, reliance is also placed on section 166 of the IPC, the same reads under: “166. Public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person - Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will, by such disobedience, cause injury to any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.” 11. Similarly, it is contended that in view of the insertion of provisions in Chapter-V of the Cr.P.C. in view of the decision in the case of D.K. Basu, the guidelines will loose its efficacy or in the alternate the petitioner has a legal remedy in case the guidelines are violated. We are not inclined to accept such submissions. The Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) has reiterated the law enunciated by the Apex Court while referring to the provision of section 41A of the Cr.P.C. which has been inserted after the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of D.K. Basu. Thus, merely on the introduction of the provisions under Chapter-V of the Cr.P.C. and section 166 of the IPC, as referred hereinabove will not water down the directions issued by the Apex Court in the aforementioned decisions. Thus, merely on the introduction of the provisions under Chapter-V of the Cr.P.C. and section 166 of the IPC, as referred hereinabove will not water down the directions issued by the Apex Court in the aforementioned decisions. The directions issued by the Apex Court till today remain in its true and pristine form, hence any deviation or violation of such directions or guidelines would definitely trigger the observations made in paragraph No. 37 in the case of D.K. Basu. In the case of Ahmed Noormohmed Bhatti vs. State of Gujarat and Others, (2005) 3 SCC 647 , after referring to the 11 guidelines as declared in the D.K. Basu case, the Supreme Court has observed that these guidelines/requirements are in addition to the constitutional and statutory safeguards and do not trim down the various directions given by the Courts from time to time in connection with the safeguarding of the rights and dignity of the arrestee. 12. In the present case, as noticed hereinabove, the complainant-petitioner is seeking initiation of the contempt proceedings with regard to violation of law enunciated by the Apex Court in the cases of D.K. Basu and Arnesh Kumar. At this stage, we may refer to Article 215 of the Constitution, which reads as under: “Article 215 confers on the High Court the power to punish for contempt of itself. In other words, the High Court derives its jurisdiction to punish for contempt from Article 215 of the Constitution.” 13. It is alleged by the complainant that the respondents no. 3, 4 and 6 have brutally assaulted/beaten him with sticks on 21.06.2016 after 21:25 hours in the Bhaktinagar Police Station, Rajkot and was thereafter paraded and beaten in full public view and also forced to do sit-ups. It is also alleged that the respondent no. 3, over and above what is stated above, forced the petitioner to consume liquor in order to justify illegal detention and falsely registered an F.I.R. under the Gujarat Prohibition Act being F.I.R. No. 81 of 2016 dated 21.06.2016 at 23:55 hours and thereafter, at 17:30 hours on 22.06.2016, he was mercilessly beaten after he was released on bail for the offence of prohibition at 17:30 hours by respondent nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6. He was paraded in public and was taken to Trishul Chowk and was beaten again by sticks and the respondent no. 2, 4, 5 and 6. He was paraded in public and was taken to Trishul Chowk and was beaten again by sticks and the respondent no. 5 and other police officials caught hold of the complainant, and he was beaten in full public view. It is also alleged that he was illegally detained for more than 24 hours by arresting him again at 20:00 hours though he was in the custody. 14. The matter was argued at length and various documents annexed to the petition and the affidavits-in-reply filed by the respondents are also perused by us. As noticed hereinabove, by an order dated 27.01.2022, the Coordinate Bench had placed the matter on 01.02.2022 for framing of charge. Thereafter, the respondent no. 4 raised an objections with regard to the non-maintainability of the contempt petition on three grounds: (a) in view of Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution of India; (b) the contempt proceedings should be initiated before the Apex Court only and (c) no directions in the cases of D.K. Basu or Arnesh Kuamr have been violated. All the contentions were rejected by a comprehensive order dated 09.02.2022. The respondents assailed the said order in SLP, which was also dismissed. As per Article 215 of the Constitution of India, the High Court is Court of record and powers of the Court include power to punish for contempt and jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 215 of the Constitution is inherent to enable it to uphold the majesty of the Institution as well as for preventing interference in the administration of justice. The Apex Court in case of Sahadeo @ Sahdeo singh (supra), while examining the contempt proceedings emanating from the violation of guidelines of D.K. Basu case, has held that the High Court has the power to initiate the contempt proceedings suo motu ensuring the compliance with the orders passed by the Court, however it is clarified that such powers can be invoked as vested in the High Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. The Apex Court in the case of Priya Gupta vs. Additional Secy. Ministry of Health And Family Welfare, 2013 (11) SCC 404 has held that “The orders passed by this Court are the law of the land in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court in the case of Priya Gupta vs. Additional Secy. Ministry of Health And Family Welfare, 2013 (11) SCC 404 has held that “The orders passed by this Court are the law of the land in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. No Court or Tribunal and for that matter any other authority can ignore the law stated by this Court. Such obedience would also be conducive to their smooth working, otherwise there would be confusion in the administration of law and the respect for law would irretrievably suffer. There can be no hesitation in holding that the law declared by the higher court in the State is binding on authorities and tribunals under its superintendence and they cannot ignore it.” 15. In fact mandatory direction has been issued in the case of D.K. Basu that failure to comply with the requirement hereinabove mentioned i.e. 11 in numbers apart from rendering the concerned official liable for departmental action, will also render him liable to be punished for Contempt of Court and the proceedings for Contempt of Court may be instituted in any High Court of the country having territorial jurisdiction over the matter. In paragraph No. 38 it is clarified that the requirements as mentioned earlier flow from Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution and need to be strictly followed. Paragraph No. 39 clarifies that this requirements are in addition to the constitutional and statutory safeguards and do not detract from various other directions given by the Courts from time to time in connection with the safeguarding of the rights and dignity of the arrestee. 16. An argument has also been advanced that since the present application is not filed under Article 215 of the Constitution, the Court cannot exercise its inherent power of contempt. Surprisingly, no such contention was raised before the earlier Bench when the order dated 09.02.2022 was passed. The said submission does not merit acceptance since, the exercise of inherent powers of the High Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India for punishing for contempt cannot depend on a mere mentioning of the provision. It is not that the High Court can only exercise its power under Article 215 when the proceedings mention the Article. The said submission does not merit acceptance since, the exercise of inherent powers of the High Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India for punishing for contempt cannot depend on a mere mentioning of the provision. It is not that the High Court can only exercise its power under Article 215 when the proceedings mention the Article. If the High Court finds that there is a contempt committed, being a Court of record the High Court can exercise its inherent powers to punish a person who has committed the contempt of Court and the High Court cannot remain a mute spectator to a contemptuous act, and refuse to take action only for non-mentioning of Article 215 of the Constitution of India. The High Court does not have to wait for incorporation of provision of Article 215 of the Constitution in the proceedings. As and when it is noticed that any contempt is committed, the Court can exercise its inherent powers conferred under Article 215 of the Constitution to punish the contemnor. 17. Finally, as noted hereinabove, the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 09.02.2022 having become final as the SLP is dismissed by the Apex Court, we cannot reject the present application as not maintainable, however, we have again given an opportunity to the learned advocates to present their case with regard to maintainability. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the order dated 27.01.2022 and the order dated 09.02.2022 had kept the matter on 23.02.2022 for framing of charges against the accused however, the matter was thereafter has been adjourned for considerable occasions. 18. We did not expect that the State will also oppose the present proceedings by contending that the same are not maintainable. The State appears to have chosen to be oblivious to the law declared by the highest court of land. The State can chose to do so, but we cannot. We may remind the State of the concern expressed by the Apex Court in the case of D.K. Basu. It is expressed “If the functionaries of the Government become law breakers, it is bound to breed contempt for law and would encourage lawlessness and every man would have the tendency to become law unto himself thereby leading to an anarchism. We may remind the State of the concern expressed by the Apex Court in the case of D.K. Basu. It is expressed “If the functionaries of the Government become law breakers, it is bound to breed contempt for law and would encourage lawlessness and every man would have the tendency to become law unto himself thereby leading to an anarchism. No civilized nation can permit that to happen.” 18.1 Thus, the contentions raised by the private respondents, including the State with regard to the non-maintainability of the present contempt application are rejected. 19. Today, learned advocates appearing for the respondent Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 have further tendered unconditional apology on affidavit, a copy of which is given to learned advocate Mr. Umot. 20. It is further clarified that this Court has not yet expressed anything with regard to the unconditional apologies tendered by the respective respondents. The same shall be considered at the relevant stage subject to the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. 21. At this stage, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Unwala requests for staying of the present order however, the request is denied since vide orders dated 27.01.2022 and 09.02.2022 passed by the Coordinate Bench, the charge was required to be framed against the respondent nos. 2 to 6, however the matter got protracted. The SLP filed against the order dated 09.02.2022 is also dismissed on 22.04.2022. 22. The matter is kept for further hearing on 05.07.2023 at 2:30 p.m. 23. Registry shall place a copy of this order in each of the connected matters.