Dismissed

Gangavishan Singh v. Ram Singh and Ors.

Rajasthan HC5 Mar 2024CCP/28/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur disposed of a contempt petition filed by Gangavishan Singh for non-compliance with an order in a criminal miscellaneous petition. The court found that the petitioner received a notice before arrest and his representation was investigated, thus dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition dismissed; Rule stands discharged pending applications disposed off.

Gangavishan Singh Vs Ram Singh and Ors. — Contempt of Court | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:10989]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civ. Contempt Pet. No. 28/2018

¶4

Gangavishan Singh S/o Late Laxminarayan Singh, By Caste Rajpoot, R/o Rawato Ka Mohalla, Nagar Nigam, Bikaner.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Ram Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector Investigation Officer, Police Station Sadar, Bikaner.

¶8

Laxman Singh, Circle Inspector, Police Station Sadar, Bikaner.

¶9

Rajendra Singh, Circle Officer, Police Station Sadar, Bikaner.

¶10

Sawai Singh Godara, Superintendent Of Police, Bikaner. 5. State Of Raj. Through Home Department Secretary, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s)	: Nonepresent
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. S.R. Paliwal for
	Mr. B.L. Bhati,AAG

¶13

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Order

¶14

05/03/2024

¶15

None appeared for the petitioner yesterday when the matter was listed. Hence, the matter was directed to be listed today. Today also, none has appeared for the petitioner.

¶16

The present contempt petition has been preferred qua noncompliance of the order dated 05.10.2017 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1940/2016. Vide order dated 05.10.2017 while disposing the criminal misc. petition, the Court directed as under:

¶17

“6. In light of the aforesaid assurance given by learned Public Prosecutor, the present misc. petition is disposed of

(2 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JD:10989]

[CCP-28/2018]

with a direction to the concerned investigating authority that in case the petitioners submit a representation along with all the necessary documents before it within a period of ten days from today, then the same shall be considered and decided before completing the investigation, strictly in accordance with law and as per the assurance given by the learned Public Prosecutor. However, if during the investigation, the concerned investigating authority needs to arrest the petitioners, then the petitioners shall be given15 days notice before making such arrest. The petitioners shall beat liberty to approach this Court again, in case need arises.”

¶22

It has been submitted in the petition that despite specific orders of the Court, the representation as submitted by the petitioner was not considered by the respondent Authorities and further, no 15 days’ notice before arresting him, was given.

¶23

A reply to the contempt petition has been preferred on behalf of the respondents wherein it has specifically been submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 12.12.2017 and prior to that the notice dated 16.10.2017, in compliance of the orders of this Court, was served on the petitioner. Hence, it cannot be said that any order of this Court was flouted.

¶24

It has further been submitted that even a specific investigation was conducted on the representation as submitted by the petitioner and after investigation, it was concluded that the offences as alleged were found to be proved against the petitioner and hence a charge sheet was filed against him.

¶25

The factual report with the said averments has been placed on record by learned counsel appearing for the respondent State. 6. In view of the fact that a thorough investigation on the representation of the petitioner was conducted by the respondent Authorities and further, a notice was served on him before his arrest, this Court is of the opinion that no case for contempt is

[2024:RJ-JD:10989]

[CCP-28/2018]

(3 of 3)

made out and the present contempt petition is hence, dismissed

¶30

Rule stands discharged.

¶31

All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of .

¶32

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶33

646-KashishS/-

Gangavishan Singh v. Ram Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gangavishan Singh v. Ram Singh and Ors.

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

Onkar Lal Kumawat Vs the Co- Operative Department

Indriyas Kharadi Vs Bhagwati Prasad Kalal and Ors.

Abdul Ajij Ansari Vs the Co-Operative Department

Balwant Singh Vs Lrs of Bhanwar Singh

Jaiprakash Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Fariyaj Ali Vs the State of Rajasthan