IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30.07.2008 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR Contempt Petition No.694 of 2008 M.Kalpana ... Petitioner Vs. Vetri Vendhan, Inspector of Police Karimangalam Police Station Dharmapuri District ... Respondent Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondent for willfully disobeying the order of this Hon'ble court dated 21.02.2008 made in Crl.O.P.No.3844 of 2008. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Arvind O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.
2. Based on the complaint of the petitioner herein and pursuant to a direction issued by this court by its order dated 18.07.2007 made in Crl.O.P.No.24731/2007, a case was registered on the file of Karimangalam Police Station (Dharmapuri District) in Crime No.660/2007 for alleged offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(vii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Subsequently, the petitioner herein seems to have approached this court by way a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for a direction to the Inspector of Police, Karimangalam Police Station to complete the investigation and submit a final report within a time to be fixed by the court. The said petition was taken on file as Crl.O.P.No.3844/2008 and was disposed of by an order dated 21.02.2008. In the said order, this court directed the Inspector of Police, Karimangalam Police Station to complete the investigation and file the final report within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Complaining that the said order has not been complied with, the petitioner has come forward with the present contempt petition.
3. A perusal of the order of this court dated 21.02.2008 made in Crl.O.P.No.3844/2008 shows that, without disclosing the fact that the case was for offences punishable under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, a direction was obtained as if the investigation was to be made regarding IPC offences and not the offences under the above said special act. As per Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, any offence punishable under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 shall be investigated by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police appointed by the State Government / Director General of Police / Superintendent of Police. Such appointments are to be made after taking into account the past experience of the officer concerned and his sense of ability and justice to perceive the implications of the case and investigate it along with right lines within the shortest possible of time. If at all the fact that the case registered was for offences punishable under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 had been brought to its notice, this court would not have chosen to issue a direction to the Inspector of Police, who is incompetent to investigate the said offences.
4. While making the above said observations, this court is fully aware of the position that the court dealing with the contempt petition cannot go into the correctness or otherwise of the order, which is alleged to have been violated. On the other hand, what this court wants to emphasize is that such an order would not have been passed, had the petitioner informed the court of the nature of offences which were to be investigated. The fact that the petitioner has not only obtained such an order without disclosing the relevant facts but also come forward with the present petition for contempt knowing
P.R.SHIVAKUMAR, J.
asr/
fully well that the respondent (Inspector of police) does not have the power to investigate the offence, will show that the petitioner has abused the process of court. Mere non-compliance with the order will not amount to a punishable act of contempt of court. Willful disobedience alone will be a punishable act of contempt of court. In this case, as pointed out supra, the Act itself prescribes the authority who can investigate the offences under the Act. Inspector of police has no power to investigate the same. Therefore, the failure on the part of the Inspector of police (respondent herein) to investigate the offences will not amount to willful disobedience of the order of this court.
5. Under such circumstances, this court is of the view that the contempt petition does not even merit admission and the same deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed.
30.07.2008
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
asr
Cont. Petn. No.694 of 2008