Allowed

Prosenjit Dutta v. the State of Mizoram and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC7 Jan 2022Cont.Cas(C)/3/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt petition alleging violation of Arnesh Kumar guidelines and seeking punishment/money compensation, the respondent AG raised jurisdictional objections. The Court held that the matter relates to Mizoram and allowed the petitioner to withdraw before the Guwahati Bench to file in the Aizawl Bench.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner is allowed to withdraw this contempt petition and to submit proper application before the Aizawl Bench of the High Court.

Prosenjit Dutta Vs the State of Mizoram and 5 Ors. — Contempt of Court | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010227512021

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/3/2022

¶5

PROSENJIT DUTTA

¶6

S/O. LT. S.R. DUTTA, VILL. AND P.O. DHOLAI BAZAR, SADAGRAM, P.S. DHOLAI, CACHAR DISTRICT, SILCHAR, ASSAM-788001.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF MIZORAM AND 5 ORS REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETEARY.

¶9

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM

¶10

REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY.

¶11

3:SH. LALBIAKTHANGA KHIANGTE (IPS) DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE MIZORAM.

¶12

4:SMT. NGURSANGZUALI SAILO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE CHAPHAI DISTRICT MIZORAM.

¶13

5:SH. LALENGZAMA THE OFFICER IN CHARGE CHAMPHAI POLICE STATION CHAMPHAI MIZORAM.

¶14

6:SH. LALCHAMLIANA HOME MINISTER MIZORAM MIZORAM

¶15

Page No.# 2/4

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR T SHARMA

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, MIZORAM

¶18

BEFORE

¶19

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK

¶20

07-01-2022

¶21

Heard Mr. T. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Das, learned Sr. Advocate and Advocate General, State of Mizoram assisted by Mr. K. Vasu for the respondent/contemnor Nos. 1, 3 to 6.

¶22

This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner on 23.12.2021 before the Principal Seat of the Gauhati High Court at Guwahati alleging that the respondents/contemnors herein have willfully violated the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar [reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273] stating that for the alleged offence of civil nature, the petitioner was arrested on 12.03.2019 by Mizoram Police and was released on bail by the Magistrate in Mizoram on 19.03.2019 and that the law regarding registration of FIR was not followed as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P. [reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1].

¶23

It is stated by the petitioner that a police case was registered against the petitioner and another being Champhai Police Station Case No. 09/2019 under Sections 420/506 IPC and before arresting him, the concerned police personnel of Champhai Police Station did not issue notice under Section 41 (A) CrPC to him as required, but arrested him from Silchar, Assam.

¶24

Petitioner stated that since the law has not been followed by the respondents, the petitioner has preferred this contempt petition praying amongst others to grant all the respondents adequate punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 or to detain them in civil prison considering the flagrancy and willful disobedience of law duly promulgated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and to compensate him by paying Rs. 15,00,000/- for causing physical and mental harassment, for tarnishing his reputation and image in

¶25

Page No.# 3/4

¶26

the society and for curtailment of inherent freedom and basic fundamental right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶27

Mr. Das, learned Advocate General, Mizoram placed before the Court that said Champhai P.S. Case No. 09/2019 was registered on 06.02.2019 on the basis of the FIR lodged by the informant of the case and that after obtaining the order from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Champhai district, Champhai on 06.03.2019 regarding warrant of arrest of the accused persons of the case, including the petitioner, he was arrested on 12.03.2019 and after his arrest at Silchar, Assam he was produced before the Court of the learned District Magistrate, Silchar, Cachar, Assam, whereby the said Court granted Transit Remand Permission to the petitioner for a period of 48 hours and accordingly, the petitioner was brought to Champhai, Mizoram and was produced before the Champhai Police Station on 14.03.2019 at 12:30 in said Champhai P.S. Case No. 09/2019.

¶28

Mr. Das, learned Advocate General, Mizoram stated that after producing the petitioner before the Champhai Police Station, he was produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Champhai on 14.03.2019 in said Champhai P.S. Case No. 09/2019 and sought for his police remand for 48 hours for necessary investigation of the case and the learned Magistrate allowed police remand of the petitioner for 48 hours with the direction not to torture him mentally and physically and to have his medical examination after every 24 hours and fixed the matter on 16.03.2019. On 16.03.2019, the Investigating Officer of the case prayed for police remand of the petitioner for another 24 hours, which was allowed by the learned Magistrate and on 17.03.2019, on his production, the learned Magistrate passed an order for judicial custody of the petitioner, issuing custodial warrant and fixed the matter on 29.03.2019 for further report. On 19.03.2019 the learned Magistrate concerned considered the bail application of the petitioner seeing that in the meanwhile the complainant of said Champhai P.S. Case No. 09/2019 and the petitioner, accused person of the case decided to compromise the matter and as Section 420 IPC is compoundable in nature, the learned Magistrate, accordingly granted bail to the petitioner on 19.03.2019 on execution of bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- with reliable surety of the like amount and thereby the petitioner was released on bail in said Champhai P.S. Case No. 09/2019.

¶29

Mr. Das, learned Advocate General, Mizoram also placed before the Court that the petitioner preferred a Criminal Petition being Criminal Petition No. 4/2019 before the Aizawl Bench of this High Court at Aizawl, Mizoram praying for quashing the FIR dated 06.02.2019, the consequent Criminal Proceeding in Criminal Trial No. 74/2019 arising out of said Champhai Police Station Case No. 09/2019 registered under Sections 420/506 IPC and after hearing the parties, it was dismissed on 25.05.2021.

¶30

Page No.# 4/4

¶31

Placing the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (supra) that is relied by the petitioner in the present case, Mr. Das, learned Advocate General, Mizoram submits that at Sub-Para 7 of Para 13 of the said Judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down as follows:-

¶32

“Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of Court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction.”

¶33

Mr. Das, learned Advocate General, Mizoram as such submits that the case involved in the present petition relates to Champhai in the State of Mizoram and therefore, the territorial jurisdiction, in terms as specified at Para 13 (7) in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (supra) with regard to said Champhai Police Station Case No. 09/2019 shall be in the State of Mizoram and therefore, any such contempt petition is required to be filed by the petitioner before the appropriate Bench i.e., the Aizawl Bench at Mizoram of this High Court which has appropriate territorial jurisdiction as laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar, noted above.

¶34

It is seen that after the winter vacation, Aizawl Bench of this High Court is reopening on 12.01.2022 and following the provisions of the law laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (supra) and in violation of any provisions of law with regard to said Champhai Police Station Case No. 09/2019 that relates to the State of Mizoram, the petitioner is required to approach the appropriate Bench of this High Court at Aizawl, Mizoram.

¶35

The petitioner is accordingly allowed to withdraw this contempt petition and to submit proper application before the Aizawl Bench of this High Court in the State of Mizoram, if so advised.

¶36

With the above observation and direction, this contempt petition stands disposed of.

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

Comparing Assistant

Prosenjit Dutta v. the State of Mizoram and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prosenjit Dutta v. the State of Mizoram and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravindra Goala Vs Ajay Kumar Bhalla and Anr.

Jiten Gogoi Vs Sanjay Kumar Krishna and 2 Ors.

Hiramani Talukdar Vs Tej Prasad Bhusal

Duyu Tacho Vs Tania Raji

Navajyoti Devi Vs Preetam Saikia and 6 Ors.

Smt. Lalnunhlimi and 67 Ors. Vs Dr. Renu Sharma and 10 Ors.

Tlangngaihzuali and Anr. Vs J. Lhungdim

L.H. Lalzarzoliana Vs Lalnunmawia Chuango Chief Secretary to the Gom and 6 Ors.

Salim Uddin Laskar and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Kusum Singha Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Rehana Begum Laskar Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Sri Prasanta Kumar Borthakur Vs Idbi Bank Ltd.

Babrubahan Basumatary Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.