Dismissed

Raj Narayan Sahu @ Raju v. Deepak Kumar Jha

Chhattisgarh HC20 Nov 2024MA/41/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed an appeal under Section 19(1)(a) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, holding that no such appeal is maintainable when the lower court did not pass any punishment order in the contempt proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The appellate petition was dismissed on the ground that it was not maintainable in the absence of a punishment order in the lower court.

Raj Narayan Sahu @ Raju Vs Deepak Kumar Jha — Contempt of Court | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 8

MA No.41 of 2024

2024:CGHC:45437-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

Judgment reserved on 18-11-2024

¶7

Judgment delivered on 21-11-2024

¶8

MA No. 41 of 2024

¶9

Raj Narayan Sahu @ Raju S/o Late Shri Sunderlal Sahu, Aged About 56 Years R/o Nehru Chowk, P.S. City Kotwali, Baloda- Bazar District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara ( C.G.).

¶10

... Appellant

¶11

versus

¶12

Deepak Kumar Jha The Superintendent Of Police Baloda Bazar, DistrictBaloda Bazar-Bhatapara ( C.G.).

¶13

Presently Posted As Inspector General Of Police (Rajnandgaon Range), District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

... Respondent

¶15

For Appellant : Shri Palash Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent : Shri Gagan Tiwari, Advocate

¶16

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru

¶17

CAV Judgment

¶18

Per Bibhu Datta Guru, J.

¶19

The appellant has preferred the instant appeal under Section 19(1)(a) of

¶20

K GOWRI SANKARA the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act, 1971’) against the RAO order dated 07/03/2024 passed by the learned Single Judge (Contempt

¶21

Digitally signed by K GOWRI SANKARA RAO Date: Court) in Cont No.768/2023 ( Raj Narayan Sahu @ Raju v Deepak 2024.11.21 14:26:16 +0530 Kumar Jha ).

¶22

Digitally signed by K GOWRI SANKARA RAO Date: 2024.11.21 14:26:16 +0530

¶23

2 / 8

¶24

MA No.41 of 2024

¶25

(i) The facts of the case, in short, are that the appellant herein had filed the contempt petition bearing Cont No. 768/2023 for noncompliance of the order dated 04/02/2019 passed by the learned writ Court in WP No. 3300/2003 ( Raj Narayan Sahu v The State of Chhattisgarh & Others ). In the said writ petition, there was a direction of the writ Court that the respondent authority to remove the name of the appellant from the surveillance register, but even after the specific direction of the writ Court the respondent failed to comply with the said order in its true perspective. Therefore, the appellant preferred contempt petition bearing Cont No. 807/2019 ( Raj Narayan Sahu v Nitu Kamal & Another ) wherein the then Superintendent of Police, Balodabazar was asked to appear before the Court and in the said proceeding the said Superintendent of Police submitted a letter and intimated the appellant in writing that his name has now been removed from the surveillance register on 15/10/2019, consequently, the contempt proceedings drawn against the concerned officer in Cont No.8078/2019 were dropped by the Court vide order dated 5/12/2019.

¶26

(ii) After disposal of the Cont No.807/2019, the Superintendent of Police initiated two different externment proceedings against the appellant, but subsequently the said proceedings were dropped by the Collector. Aggrieved by such behaviour and the act of the police towards the appellant, he sent a legal notice through his counsel to the respondent on 30/05/2023. The said legal notice was replied by the respondent wherein it has been stated that the name of the appellant is

¶27

3 / 8

¶28

MA No.41 of 2024

¶29

still in the register of surveillance since 2003. On the basis of said reply to the legal notice, the appellant filed another contempt petition bearing Cont No.768/2023 alleging non-compliance of the order dated 04/02/2019 passed in WP No.3300/2003.

¶30

(iii) According to the appellant, after issuance of notice of contempt petition, the respondent sent two police personnel to his house on 19/10/2023 and they brought the appellant to the police station where he was illegally detained from 4:00 pm to 7:00 pm and during that period the police personnel compelled him to withdraw the contempt petition.

¶31

In the contempt proceedings, the affidavit of the contemnor was also directed to be filed and after hearing the parties; perusal of the affidavit; and the pleadings, the contempt petition was dismissed by order dated 7/3/2024 observing thus at paras 5 to 8 :

¶32

1. Having considered the submissions put-forth and having perused the document Annexure C3 dated 15.10.2019, it is established that the name of the Petitioner has already been removed from the surveillance register on 15.10.2019 and thereafter his name has never been placed again in the said register and in the reply of the legal notice it was inadvertently mentioned that the name of the Petitioner is still registered in the surveillance register and for this mistake the Respondent/Contemnor has already tendered an unconditional apology. Therefore, it would be unnecessary to proceed further in the matter.

¶33

Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner further submits that after issuance of notice of the instant contempt petition on 19.10.2023 the Respondent/Contemnor sent two police personnel to the house of the Petitioner and they

¶34

4 / 8

¶35

MA No.41 of 2024

¶36

brought the Petitioner to police station where he was illegally detained from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. and during that period police personnel compelled him to withdraw the instant contempt petition. This also shows arbitrariness on the part of the Respondent/Contemnor.

¶37

Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent/ Contemnor submits that on 11.10.2023 when the matter was listed this Court directed for issuance of notice to the Respondent/Contemnor. On 16.10.2023, process fee was paid and on 31.10.2023 notice was served upon the Respondent/Contemnor. Therefore, it does not seem to be correct that on 19.10.2023 police personnel would have compelled the Petitioner to withdraw the contempt petition. He further submits that one Mahesh Rajak was arrested on 19.10.2023 for the offences punishable under Section 6 of the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022 and First Information Report, being Crime No.834/2023, was registered against him. After registration of the FIR, he was interrogated by police then he disclosed the fact that the present Petitioner was also involved in the same crime. Therefore, the police officials on 19.10.2023 had called the Petitioner for interrogation. The keypad mobile handset of the Petitioner was also technically examined. When no incriminating evidence was found against the Petitioner for his involvement in the crime he was released.

¶38

On examination of the facts and documents available, it clearly reveals that till 31.10.2023 the Respondent/ Contemnor was not served with the notice of the present contempt petition. The First Information Report (Annexure R2) registered against Mahesh Rajak, the relevant Rojnamcha Sanha of 19.10.2023 and the Supurdnama (Annexure R3) also show that on 19.10.2023 Mahesh Rajak was arrested relating

¶39

5 / 8

¶40

MA No.41 of 2024

¶41

to the crime under Section 6 of the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022 and on the basis of information received from him the Petitioner was also called for interrogation and after the interrogation he was released and his mobile phone was also returned to him on supurdnama. Thus, the contention of Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that on 19.10.2023 the Petitioner was taken to the police station illegally and he was pressurised there to withdraw the contempt petition is not acceptable.

¶42

(A) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that in reply to the legal notice the respondent has accepted the fact that the appellant still in surveillance register which itself goes to show that there is a clear cut contempt of the order of the writ Court when the writ Court has directed that there may not be requirement of continued surveillance of the appellant and, as such, the act of the respondent amounts to violation of the order of the writ Court.

¶43

(B) Learned counsel would further submit that during pendency of the contempt proceedings and after issuance of notice the appellant has been subjected to police atrocity by sending two personnel to his house and brought him to the police station where he was illegally detained from 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM and they are trying to compel the appellant to withdraw the contempt petition would also amount to contempt of the order of the Court.

¶44

(a) Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, ex adverso , would submit that the contempt Court has considered the pleadings and documents placed by the parties and observed in a very categorical

¶45

6 / 8

¶46

MA No.41 of 2024

¶47

manner that the name of the petitioner has already been removed from the surveillance register on 15/10/2019 and thereafter his name has never been placed again in the said register. He accepted the fact that in reply to the legal notice due to inadvertence it has been mentioned that the name of the appellant is still in the surveillance register and for the said mistake the respondent has already tendered unconditional apology before the contempt Court.

¶48

(b) As far as the alleged police atrocity is concerned, learned counsel would submit that the learned contempt Court has also examined the pleadings and documents and observed that till 31/10/2023 the respondent contemnor was not served with the notice of the contempt petition and hence the contention of the appellant that on 19/10/2023 he was taken to police station is not acceptable.

¶49

(c) Learned counsel would refer to the provisions of Section 19 of the Act, 1971 and also relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. and Others v Chunilal Nanda and Others¹ and Ajay Kumar Bhalla & Ors. v Prakash Kumar Dixit² and would submit that as no punishment order has been passed in the contempt proceeding, the filing of appeal under Section 19(1)(a) of the Act, 1971 itself is not maintainable, therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶50

We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents.

¶51

1 (2006) 5 SCC 399

¶52

2 Civil Appeal Nos.8129-8130 of 2024 (decided on 29-7-2024)

¶53

7 / 8

¶54

MA No.41 of 2024

¶55

From perusal of the pleadings and documents as also the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the learned contempt Court has considered the plea of the appellant about continuation of his name in the surveillance register and observed that the name of the appellant has already been removed from the said register on 15/10/2019 (which is reflected from Annexure C/3 to Cont No.768/2023) and thereafter his name has never been placed again in said register.

¶56

As far as the reply to the legal notice is concerned, the respondent has already tendered unconditional apology with the submission that in the said reply it was inadvertently mentioned that the name of the appellant is still in the surveillance register and hence the learned contempt Court has rightly dropped the contempt proceedings against the respondents.

¶57

With regard to the plea of the appellant about the threatening and police atrocities during pendency of the contempt petition is concerned, the learned contempt court observed that the alleged act of two police personnel, as alleged by the appellant is concerned, at that time the respondent was not served with the notice of contempt petition and, as such, the allegation about police atrocities because of contempt proceeding is not sustainable.

¶58

For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, it is quite vivid that there is no illegality or infirmity in dismissing the contempt petition.

¶59

It is also noteworthy to mention here that since there is no punishment order in the contempt proceeding, the instant appeal under Section 19(1)

¶60

8 / 8

¶61

MA No.41 of 2024

¶62

(a) of the Act, 1971 is not maintainable in view of the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. (supra) & Ajay Kumar Bhalla (supra).

¶63

Ex-consequenti , the present appeal, sans substratum , is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶64

However, it is made clear that if the appellant is aggrieved by the alleged police atrocities, he is at liberty to avail the appropriate remedy as may be available to him under the provisions of law for redressal of his

¶65

grievances, if so advised.

¶66

Sd/Sd/(Rajani Dubey) (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Judge

¶67

Gowri

Raj Narayan Sahu @ Raju v. Deepak Kumar Jha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Narayan Sahu @ Raju v. Deepak Kumar Jha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalyan Das Manikpuri Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Laxmi Vaishnav Vs Smt. Amrika Bai Ajagalay

Ghanshyam Verma @ Raja Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Ramindar Kaur Dutta Vs Ashish Bhutada

M/S A.K.S. Infratech Vs Shri Shashikant Singh Bhuwal

Chhotu Kaser Vs State of Chhattisgarh