Quashed

Kamal Narain Das v. State of Bihar

Patna HC5 Nov 2014CR. MISC./6453/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court disposed of an old criminal miscellaneous petition challenging an order for self-appearance. The court found no purpose in continuing proceedings alleging contempt based on a disrespectful statement in a transfer petition, noting the petitioner’s religious background and lack of intent to disturb proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Records of the miscellaneous case were consigned and the application was allowed.

Kamal Narain Das Vs State of Bihar — Contempt of Court | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Criminal Miscellaneous No.6453 of 2001

¶3

=================== Kamal Narain Das, Chela Distt.- Saran.	================================= of Mahanth Baliram Das, Parsa Garh Math, .... .... Versus	======= P.S.-Ekma, Petitioner
The State of Bihar =================== Appearance :	.... .... Opp =================================	osite Party =======
For the Petitioner :	Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Senior Advocate Mr. Binod Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party : ===================	Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, APP =================================	=======
CORAM: HONOURABLE ORAL JUDGMENT	MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
Date: 05-11-2014

¶4

Heard Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, learned senior counsel

¶5

for the petitioner and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶6

During the prosecution of a criminal case, the petitioner, in a representative capacity of being a Chela of his Guru (informant), filed an application before the Court concerned for transferring the same to another Court. What peeved the Presiding Officer was the statement in the petition that since irrelevant questions are being put by the Court, therefore, the petitioner did not have the confidence that the matter would be decided judiciously.

¶7

Finding such statement in the transfer petition to be disrespectful to the Court and that also without any basis, such an application for transfer was rejected. However, the petitioner was

¶8

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6453 of 2001 dt.05-11-2014

¶9

2/4

¶10

directed to present himself personally by order dated 07.09.2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Saran. The aforesaid order is under challenge in the present application.

¶11

On perusal of the records of this case, it further appears that the Court below, vide order dated 07.11.2000, held that such statements (irrelevant questions being put by the Court) had the potency of disturbing the proceedings of the Court and was also defamatory. It was, therefore, further held by the Court that the petitioner made himself liable for being prosecuted under Sections 228 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. A show cause notice was also issued to the petitioner. However, the records do not disclose that whether any show cause notice was issued or any reply was filed by the petitioner.

¶12

The records are completely silent about the result of such miscellaneous case having been initiated at the instance of the Court. The records of the present petition reveal that the order by which non-bailable warrants of arrest was issued against the petitioner was stayed. The present application was admitted for hearing.

¶13

After a lapse of about 13 years, the matter has come-up for final consideration. Since no cognizance appears to have been taken under any one of the sections much less Sections 228 and 500

¶14

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6453 of 2001 dt.05-11-2014

¶15

3/4

¶16

of the Indian Penal Code, no order need to be passed with respect to such an observation of the Court that the petitioner has made himself accountable for being prosecuted for the offence under Sections 228 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

However, considering the fact that the petitioner, though learned in religious scriptures, was unaware of the decorum of the Court, made such a statement in the transfer petition. This Court has not been informed as to the result of the criminal case lodged by the Guru of the petitioner, during the prosecution of which such an unsavoury situation occurred. Assuming that a miscellaneous case was brought into existence, the same was uncalled for. Since the non-bailable warrant of arrest was stayed way back in the year 2001, there is no reason why any order be passed in derogation of such stay order.

¶18

Considering the fact that the case is an old one and that it arose as an offshoot of a criminal case having been filed by the Guru of the petitioner as also the fact that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to either disturb the proceeding of the Court or to defame the Court or to lessen the prestige and majesty of the Court, no useful purpose would be served in allowing such miscellaneous case to be continued. The records of such miscellaneous case is hereby consigned.

¶19

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6453 of 2001 dt.05-11-2014

¶20

4/4

¶21

Pawan/-
U T

¶22

The application stands allowed.

¶23

(Ashutosh Kumar, J)

Kamal Narain Das v. State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Narain Das v. State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sona Lal Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Geeta Devi Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Shankar Sao Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Uma Shankar Bhagat and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Prakash Kumar Roy @ Prakash Kumar Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Satrudhan Singh and Anr. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.