The High Court disposed of a criminal contempt petition where the petitioner alleged the first respondent interfered in her legal proceedings. Finding no case of criminal contempt made out as the manner of interference was not established, the court kept all legal remedies open for the petitioner.
The Contempt Petition is disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
crconp1-12
1
rpa
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURSIDICTION
CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 1 OF 2012
Mrs. Krishna S. Singh .. Petitioner V/s. Satish Singh & Anr. .. Respondents
Smt. Krishna Satish Singh, Petitioner appearing in person. Mrs. U. V. Kejriwal , APP for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : A.S.OKA & A. V. POTDAR JJ.
DATE : JANUARY 30, 2012.
P.C.:
Heard the Petitioner appearing in person. The prayer in the Petition is for initiating suo motu action for commission of criminal contempt against the first Respondent (alleged Contemnor).
“2. On perusal of this Petition it appears that the Petitioner has filed M.J. Petition No.A/1593/09 in the Family Court at Bandra in which Shri Satish Singh is
crconp1-12
2
the respondent and, therefore, he is entitled to appear in the said case and contest it. Mrs. Singh thereafter submitted that respondent No.1 is causing interference in the case she has filed before the Labour Court as well as Industrial Court at Mumbai. If Shri Satish Singh is not a party in these proceedings before the Labour/Industrial Courts he obviously has no locus and if he is doing anything which amounts to interference in the due process of law, Mrs. Singh has to bring it to the notice of the Labour/Industrial Courts to take cognizance so as to make a reference to this Court. ”
3. The Petitioner appearing in person relies upon a complaint
filed by her in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai to which the first Respondent is not the party. In the complaint a prayer was made for passing an order under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The grievance of the Petitioner is that though the Respondent No.1 is not a party to various proceedings filed by her, he is interfering in the proceedings. The allegation is that the conduct of the Respondent No.1 amounts to interference in the process of law. However, she has not set out the manner in which he is allegedly causing interference.
crconp1-12
3
disposed of.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the allegations of interference in pending proceedings constitute criminal contempt.
Whether the manner of alleged interference is sufficiently made out to initiate suo motu action.
Krishna S. Singh
Satish Singh
A.S. Oka
A.V. Potdar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court