Cont. P. No. 1180/09
6/05/2010
Shri K. B. Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri A. K. Pathak, learned counsel for the non-
applicants.
Applicant has filed this application seeking initiation
of action for contempt on the ground that inspite of order
passed on 17/09/09 in M. Cr. C. No. 8952/09, non-
applicants have not released the vehicle to the petitioner.
An application was filed by the petitioner under
Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. Inter alia contending that a
Tata Sumo vehicle bearing no. M.P.04 B.A. - 0259 has
been seized by the police authorities on the ground that
234 bulk litres of illicit liquor was being transported in the
said vehicle. Contending that the application filed before
the Judicial Magistrate First Class to relase the vehicle on
'Supurdgi' has been rejected, the application was filed
seeking release of the vehicle.
Initially on 17/09/09, this Court directed for release
of the vehicle on 'Supurdgi' on applicant's furnishing a
bank guarantee of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Subsequently, on an
application filed by the applicant in M. Cr. C. No. 8952/09,
the order passed earlier was modified and instead of
furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. 2,00,000/- , petitioner
was granted liberty to submit a solvent surety of Rs.
2,00,000/- or pledge his immovable property before the
said Court.
Inter alia contending that inspite of compliance made,
the vehicle is not being released and the respondents are
not granting possession of the vehicle, this application for
contempt has been filed and one of the ground raised is
that the vehicle has been damaged, many parts are missing
and it is not in the same condition in which it was seized.
However, considering the fact that inspite of order passed
by this Court, non-applicants were not releasing the
vehicle, this Court issued notices to the non-applicants
who are Station House Officers of the concerned police
station and appear personally before this Court, they are
present today and from the reply filed by the respondents,
it is seen that on a certified copy of the order passed by
this Court being filed by the petitioner in the Court of
Judicial Magistrate First Class, the Judicial Magistrate
First Class vide Annexure R-4 dated 25/09/09 directed the
‘Nazir’ of Budhni to seize the vehicle and submit it in the
Court.
Records indicate that in pursuance to the
directions issued, non-applicants have produced the
vehicle in the Court and the vehicle is available in the
court premises since 28/09/09 as is evident from the
documents available on record. It is therefore clear
that in pursuance to the order passed by this Court,
both the non-applicants have produced the vehicle in
the Court on 28/09/09 and, thereafter, possession of
the vehicle is not taken by the petitioner mainly on
the ground that the vehicle is not in the same
condition in which it was seized and contending that
the vehicle will be taken away after proper mechanical
report is submitted, the vehicle still remains in the
Court premises. Order sheets Annexure C-3 indicate
that the Court having found the mechanical report
earlier submitted to be in order has rejected the
further prayer of the petitioner for getting further
mechanical report of the vehicle.
Be it as it may be, from the facts that have come
on record, it is clear that as far as non-applicants are
concerned, they have produced the vehicle in the
Court and the vehicle is lying in the Court premises
and on the ground that respondents have not
produced the vehicle in the same condition in which it
was seized, applicant has not taken possession of the
vehicle, that being so now no case is made out for
initiating action of contempt against the respondents.
The grievance of the applicant is that the vehicle is
not in the same condition in which it was seized and,
therefore, petitioner wants to get the vehicle in the
same condition in which it was seized, on the
aforesaid ground action for contempt cannot be
initiated against the respondents. In case, petitioner
has any grievance with regard to the vehicle not being
in the proper condition it is for the trial Court to take
any action. It gives a fresh cause to the petitioner to
initiate proper proceedings or to seek a direction from
the trial Court on the aforesaid ground. Action for
contempt cannot be taken against the respondents on
this ground. Petitioner by misrepresenting the facts
has induced this Court to issue notice and seek
personal appearance of the respondents. For this,
respondents are liable to be suitably compensated, in
view of the fact that they have produced the vehicle in
the Court and the same is lying in the Court premises,
even though petitioner by filing certain documents
vide Annexure C-3 has brought on record the
proceedings of the Court but the contention of the
petitioner and the prayer made is that respondents
no. 1 and 2 are not producing the vehicle and,
therefore, they be punished, this assertion is not
factually correct. As respondents contemnor nos. 1
and 2 in pursuance to the directions issued by this
Court on 25/09/09, much before filing of this
contempt application on 13/11/09 had produced the
vehicle on 28/09/09 and had given custody to the
trial Court, they are entitled to be compensated by
payment of cost for being unnecessarily dragged into
these proceedings and under the circumstances that
have come on record, this Court does not find any
ground to initiate any proceedings against the
respondents, instead respondents have to be paid
compensatory cost. Accordingly, discharging the
respondents and finding no case made out for
initiating action for contempt, petitioner is directed to
pay a cost of Rs. 2,500/- to each of the respondents
toward expenses incurred by them to defend
themselves.
Application stands dismissed with the aforesaid.
(Rajendra Menon)
Judge
Vy/