Dismissed

Thomas George v. Vinod Kumar,Deputy Superintendent of Pol

Kerala HC19 Oct 2010Con.Case(C)/1274/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This contempt petition challenged an interim order on the ground that the respondent police officer harassed the petitioner by feeding information to a newspaper. The Court held that feeding information does not constitute a contumacious act and dismissed the petition at the admission stage as an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition dismissed at the admission stage.

Thomas George Vs Vinod Kumar,Deputy Superintendent of Pol — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2010 / 27TH ASWINA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 1274 of 2010(S) ------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.21350/2010 Dated 02/08/2010 ....................

¶4

PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶5

¶6

THOMAS GEORGE, S/O.K.GEORGE, AGED 44 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, MODI HOMES, NO.1/426A, NELLAD, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.LIJU.V.STEPHEN SRI.EBY AUGUSTINE SMT.INDU SUSAN JACOB

¶8

RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT:

¶9

¶10

VINOD KUMAR, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THIRUVALLA.

¶11

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT. K.MEERA

¶12

THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.

¶14

¶15

Contempt Case (Civil) No. 1274 of 2010

¶16

- - - - Dated this the 19^th day of October, 2010

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

J.Chelameswar, C.J.

¶19

The Contempt Case is filed complaining that the interim order dated 12.07.2010 is deliberately violated by the respondent herein.

¶20

The facts of the case are as follows:

¶21

The petitioner herein entered into an agreement with somebody, who is not a party to the instant proceedings, undertaking to construct a residential building for the third party. It appears that the said contract ended in a dispute between the parties to the contract and the abovementioned third party sought intervention of the local police in the matter on the ground that the writ petitioner defrauded the said third party. Thereupon, the respondent who is the police officer(the sole respondent herein) is alleged to have “harassed” the petitioner. Complaining of such harassing by the sole respondent herein, he approached this Court by way of W.P.(C) No.21350 of 2010. While admitting the writ petition, a Division

¶22

COC No. 1274 of 2010

¶23

-:2:-

¶24

Bench of this Court passed an interim order on 12.07.2010, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:

¶25

“We record the submission of Government Pleader that the petitioner will not be harassed by police authorities, a crime has been registered and that lawful investigation will be done by the authorities. We record the said submissions.”

¶26

It appears that subsequent to the said order, a news item appeared in a prominent local daily newspaper, 'Malayala Manorama', briefly narrating the abovementioned episode which according to the petitioner, is likely to give an impression that the petitioner is guilty of the offence of fraud not only in the case of abovementioned contract but in many other instances.

¶27

The petitioner claimed that on an enquiry from the office of the abovementioned newspaper he came to know that such an information was given by the sole respondent herein and hence the present Contempt Case, complaining that the feeding of the abovementioned information amounts to “harassment” and therefore violative of the interim order mentioned above.

¶28

The interim order, in our opinion, which directed the respondents, including the respondent herein, not to “harass”

¶29

COC No. 1274 of 2010

¶30

-:3:-

¶31

the petitioner must be understood in the context of the allegations made in the writ petition. Feeding of the information, such as the one with which we are concerned in the present Contempt Case, to a newspaper may give rise to a cause of action and render the respondent liable, perhaps some civil or criminal action, but in our opinion, the feeding of such information (we are not deciding the fact that the feeding of the information is actually done by the respondent but we presume for the purpose of the present order) does not in any way constitute a contumacious act. The act of feeding of information, if at all, is not in discharge of the functions of the respondent in his official capacity. We are of the opinion that the petition is sheer abuse of the process of this Court. The Contempt Petition is therefore dismissed at the admission stage.

¶32

J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice.

¶33

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Judge.

¶34

ttb

¶35

COC No. 1274 of 2010

¶36

-:4:-

Thomas George v. Vinod Kumar,Deputy Superintendent of Pol

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thomas George v. Vinod Kumar,Deputy Superintendent of Pol

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

State of Kerala & Another Vs the Kalpetta Estate Ltd.

Abdul K.Najeeb Vs State of Kerala

U.v.Thomas Vs P.P.Augusty

R.D.O, Alappuzha Vs Bibu Babu Punooran

M/S.Sivasakthi Engineering & Fabricators Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board & Ors.

P.Venugopal Vs Dr.Raju Narayana Swamy I.A.S.