Allowed

High Court on Its Own Motion v. Pratima Durgesh Mishra

Bombay HC5 Sept 2013SMCP/7/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court closed criminal contempt proceedings against the petitioner, accepting apologies for strong language attributed to legal advice. The Court directed the investigation officer to record further statements of the petitioner to resolve discrepancies between her complaint and the FIR. The main petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceedings closed; undertaking to delete bracketed portion accepted; investigation officer directed to record further statements of the petitioner.

High Court on Its Own Motion Vs Pratima Durgesh Mishra — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

smcp7-wp1355.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

SUO MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION NO.7 OF 2013

¶5

WITH

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.1355 OF 2013

¶7

Pratima Durgesh Mishra .. Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents

¶8

None for the petitioner Mr.Ghanashyam Upadhyay for respondent Mrs.M.H.Mhatre, APP for State.

¶9

CORAM : S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & G.S. PATEL, JJ Date : 5^th September 2013.

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

1] When this criminal contempt petition was placed before a

¶12

Division Bench of this Court, the attention of the petitioner was invited to the pleadings in this petition and particularly in para 4.

¶13

2 smcp7-wp1355.doc

¶14

2] Upon perusal of that paragraph, the Division Bench found

¶15

that the reference to the proceedings before the Magistrate and particularly the conduct of the Magistrate during the same are prima facie indicative of a criminal contempt. Therefore, notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 should not be taken against her.

¶16

2] Mr.Ghanashyam Upadhyay appearing for the petitioner

¶17

submits that the petitioner was disturbed and agitated by the fact that she had brought to the notice of the learned Magistrate

¶18

the contents of her complaint projecting her grievance that she was treated with extreme cruelty and harassment and, therefore, an offence under section 498A and 384 of Indian Penal Code is made out. During the course thereof and to bring home the point the learned Advocate for the petitioner was little emphatic and that is how when a Hon'ble Supreme

¶19

¶20

smcp7-wp1355.doc

¶21

Court judgement was cited but was not noted and taken into consideration allegedly by the Magistrate, the petitioner to ventilate her grievance before a higher court has made a reference to the proceedings and conduct of the Magistrate during the course thereof.

¶22

3] Mr.Upadhyay states that the petitioner has incorporated

¶23

these pleas purely on legal advice and being a lady she was not aware of the consequences thereof. Therefore, for no fault of her and because of the Advocate incorporating all such pleas, she should not be proceeded against in contempt and a lenient view should be taken. It is stated before us that the

¶24

petition was drafted by Mr.Upadhyay and it is entirely his mistake. When he incorporated these pleas and, now, he being genuinely and sincerely apologetic for this act, this court should not take any objection to the same particularly because he also assures that hereafter the pleadings in such matters would be drafted with a sense of responsibility, reflecting sobriety and

¶25

¶26

smcp7-wp1355.doc

¶27

restraint on his part. He would also never overstep the limits in

¶28

any manner.

¶29

4] After perusing the subject para 4 what we find is that the

¶30

contents of the same would have to be read in their entirety and if so read, the grievance that is projected by the petitioner

¶31

is with regard to the refusal of the Magistrate to pass requisite orders and in accordance with law. Therefore, she was critical

¶32

of the manner in which the proceedings were conducted but she could have avoided using such strong language. Apart therefrom it is on the legal advice that the same has been used and even the learned Advocate apologises for his mistake and

¶33

we find that the apology is bonafide. Since a young professional in his enthusiasm has committed this mistake but is apologetic and on account of his sincerety and genuineness, we do not pursue the proceedings any further and by accepting the apology of the petitioner and equally that of Mr.Upadhyay. These contempt proceedings are closed. Mr.Upadhyay

¶34

¶35

smcp7-wp1355.doc

¶36

undertakes to delete the bracketed portion of para 4 on page 6 from the petition. Undertaking accepted and the portion bracketed by us be treated as deleted.

¶37

5] We have taken up the main matter with the consent of the Advocates. In all fairness, Mr.Upadhyay on instructions states that the concerned police station has now registered an F.I.R. However, his grievance is that a complaint in writing was made

¶38

by the petitioner who is a lady. The contents of the F.I.R. are in complete diversion with the complaint made in writing and the contents thereof and, therefore, there will be a possibility of the petitioner not getting justice.

¶39

6] The position in law is so well settled that we need not

¶40

reiterate it again and again. The F.I.R. is not an encyclopedia. That apart, with a view to put an end to all apprehensions of the petitioner, let the investigation officer attached to Navghar Police Station, Bhayander East record further statements of

¶41

¶42

smcp7-wp1355.doc

¶43

the petitioner on 7^th September 2013. We have no doubt in our

¶44

mind that uninfluenced by all this, the competent court will decide the matter in accordance with law. All contentions of all

¶45

parties on merits are kept open. Petition disposed of.

¶46

(S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J)

¶47

(G.S. PATEL, J)

High Court on Its Own Motion v. Pratima Durgesh Mishra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

High Court on Its Own Motion v. Pratima Durgesh Mishra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manish Madhukar Shinde and Ors. Vs the Police Commissioner

Rajwardhan Babaso Patil Vs Vijaysinha Jadhav

Rajvardhan Babaso Patil and Ors. Vs Sub Divisional Police Officer and Ors.

Javed Mobin Khan and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mahesh Vithal Patil Vs Purushottam Karad and Anr.

Sandip Ananda Mahalungkar Vs the State of Maharashtra