Dismissed

High Court of Karnataka v. Smt Mary Cyriac

Karnataka HC10 Nov 2023CRL.CCC/11/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an order in a criminal contempt petition initiated suo motu against two respondents. The High Court accepted the accused's unconditional apology and bonafide explanation regarding a delayed review petition matter. The court disposed of the complaint by discharging the notice against the respondents.

What did the court decide?

Notice against the accused respondents was discharged and the contempt complaint was disposed of.

High Court of Karnataka Vs Smt Mary Cyriac — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:40294-DB CRL.CCC No. 11 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶9

CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 11 OF 2023

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶12

…COMPLAINANT

¶13

(BY SRI. ANOOP KUMAR., HCGP)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

SMT. MARY CYRIAC, W/O K K CHACHO, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT NO.87/1, BANDAPPA LAYOUT, MES ROAD, GOKUL, BENGALURU-560 054.

¶17

SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADVOCATE, ENROLLMENT NO.KAR 302/1991, K.G. NAGAR MAIN ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU-560 019.

¶18

…ACCUSED

¶19

(BY SRI. SANDESH T B.,ADVOCATE FOR A1; SRI.JAYAKUMAR S PATIL., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR A2)

¶20

THIS CRL.CCC FILED UNDER SECTION 15 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA BY THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶21

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:40294-DB CRL.CCC No. 11 of 2023

¶22

PRAYING TO INITIATE (SUO-MOTU) CRIMINAL CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST (1) SMT. MARY CYRIAC, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, W/O K.K. CHACHO, R/AT NO.87/1, BANDAPPA LAYOUT, MES ROAD, GOKUL, BENGALURU-560054 AND (2) SRI. SHRIPAD V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE, K.G. NAGAR MAIN ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BENGLAURU-560 019, UNDER THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 AND TO PUNISH THEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶23

THIS CRL.CCC COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Learned counsel appearing for the accused-

¶26

respondents invited our attention to the statement of facts filed in this court on 9.11.2023. Learned Sr. Counsel submits that at the outset itself, accused-respondents tendered their unconditional apology and submit that a bonafide mistake occurred at their hands. Learned counsel further submits that the accused persons also have showed their bonafide by straight way agreeing for the allowing of Review Petition which was filed at a very belated stage i.e., with a long delay of twelve years and that the Review Petition was allowed. The counsel then

¶27

submits that the matter can be looked with some humanitarian angle for the reason that the claimants who

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:40294-DB CRL.CCC No. 11 of 2023

¶29

were in their advanced age had lost their son in a

¶30

vehicular accident. Our scriptures say “ putra shokam nirantaram” literally meaning that bereaved parents suffer eternally.

¶31

Considering all these facts, we are of the considered opinion that the apology tendered by these two accused persons is a bonafide and the same needs to be accepted with a warning that the accused-respondents shall not give scope for the incidents of the kind or for their recurrence, in future.

¶32

With these observations, this complaint of contempt is disposed off. Notice is discharged.

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1

¶37

cbc

High Court of Karnataka v. Smt Mary Cyriac

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

High Court of Karnataka v. Smt Mary Cyriac

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

Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited Vs Sri P Narayanappa

Mr.S. Akram Vs Mrs Bhagyalakshmi

State of Karnataka Vs Dr. Varsha. D

Sri. Diwakar J Vs Sri. Anand v Gangur

Rangaswamy. B. T. Vs Union of India

The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Vs Sri. H. v. Tejas