Dismissed

Nishant Mathur S/O Shri B.N. Mathur, v. Shri Likhma Ram S/O Not Known to Petitioner

Rajasthan HC2 Sept 2024CCP/583/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a contempt petition alleging that State officers violated an order staying coercive steps against petitioners by filing a charge-sheet and issuing bailable warrants. The Court held that filing a charge-sheet was not a coercive step and warrants issued in ignorance of the stay were not contempt.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition dismissed; no coercive measure found in charging sheet or issuance of warrants.

Nishant Mathur S/O Shri B.N. Mathur, Vs Shri… — Municipal and Town Planning | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 583/2024

¶3

Nishant Mathur S/o Shri B.N. Mathur, Aged About 27 Years, R/o 25/64, Kaveri Path, Manasarovar, Jaipur Proprietor M/s Engineers India.(Mo.no. 9799910222).

¶4

Nitish Mathur S/o Shri B.n. Mathur, Aged About 26 Years, R/o 25/64, Kaveri Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur.

¶5

B.n. Mathur S/o Shri Lt. Shri D.n. Mathur, Aged About 60 Years, R/o 25/64, Kaveri Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Shri Likhma Ram S/o Not Known To Petitioner, Presently Station House Officer, Police Station, Galta Gate, Jaipur (North).

¶9

Arushi Goyal D/o Shri Sunil Kumar Goyal, Aged About 24 Years, Presently Posted At Metropolitan Magistrate No. 14, Jaipur Metropolitan-Ii, Jaipur.

¶10

Smt. Rashmi Gupta, Secretary To Government, Home Department Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶11

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary To Government, Home Department Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Kumar Jain For Respondent(s) :

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶15

Order

¶16

02/09/2024

¶17

Petitioners have preferred this contempt petition alleging contempt of order dated 01.06.2023.

¶18

It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that the learned Single Judge on 01.06.2023 while issuing notice directed

¶19

[CCP-583/2024]

¶20

(2 of 3)

¶21

that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners in connection with FIR No.171/2023 till further orders. It is also contended that petitioners shall fully cooperate with the investigation of the case. It is further contended that the contemnor No.1-SHO PS Galta Gate, Jaipur filed charge-sheet against the petitioners on 13.05.2024, ignoring the order dated 01.06.2023 passed by learned Single Judge. It is contended that Court took cognizance and has issued bailable warrants against the petitioners which also tantamount to taking coercive measures.

¶22

We have considered the contentions.

¶23

The order dated 01.06.2023 merely directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners in connection with FIR No.171/2023 till further orders, however, order was passed subject to condition that petitioners shall fully cooperate with the investigation of the case. Vide order dated 01.06.2023 there was no stay on the investigation of the case or on filing of the chargesheet. Filing of the charge-sheet cannot be considered to be a coercive step as there was no stay on the investigation of the case. Thus, contemnor No.1 has not committed any contempt of the order passed by learned Single Judge.

¶24

Similarly, contemnor No.2 was a judicial officer who took cognizance and has summoned the petitioners through bailable warrants. The said order also cannot be considered to be a coercive order more particularly, when the initial order was passed on 07.06.2024, it was not in notice of the presiding officer that any order has been passed by the High Court. Even while passing the order dated 10.06.2023, Officer has considered the order

¶25

[CCP-583/2024]

¶26

(3 of 3)

¶27

passed by the High Court and has rightly dealt with the matter, hence, we do not find it a case of contempt of Court.

¶28

Consequently, the contempt petition deserves to be and is accordingly, dismissed.

¶29

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶30

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶31

HEENA/09

Nishant Mathur S/O Shri B.N. Mathur, v. Shri Likhma Ram S/O Not Known to Petitioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nishant Mathur S/O Shri B.N. Mathur, v. Shri Likhma Ram S/O Not Known to Petitioner

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

Akhilesh Kumar Joshi S/O Shri Triloki Nath Joshi Vs the State of Rajasthan

State of Rajasthan Vs Kamal Gochar S/O Dinesh Chandra Gochar

Sunder Singh Son of Late Sh. Badam Singh Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Moti Lal Koolwal S/O Late Shri Ramlal Koolwal Vs Naresh Kumar Chiraniya S/O Shri Ramswaroop Ji Chiraniya

M/S S.R. Glass Industries, Vs Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd.

Govind Sharma S/O Late Shri Chhuttan Lal Sharma Vs Union of India