Read Time: 06 minutes
The Bench noted that, 'the Court is not expected to conduct a roving inquiry and the said principle would apply with same vigor when disputed questions of fact are involved and as such, when two views are possible, such disputed version would be normally outside the realm of contempt jurisdiction'.
A Bench of Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh J. Shastri, of the Gujarat High Court, dismissed an applicant's plea under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. While dismissing it, the Court clarified that it, "may not deter the applicant to initiate appropriate proceedings permissible under the law and the observations contained herein-above are strictly in the context of the present contempt proceedings only".
In the pertinent matter the applicant alleged that the respondent took advantage of her on repeated occasions, and the subsequent chain of events further had a role of Police Officers. It was contended that there was an consistent resistance from the Police to register her complaint, even on persistent request being made. The counsel for the applicant by drawing attention to some of the directions issued by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. Sate of UP (2012) 4 SCC 1, contended that the registration of an FIR is mandatory, if the information discloses commission of cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
However, the respondents contended that it was a false and a fabricated story. And that it was a honey trap , in which, the officers are tried to be pressurised by the applicant.
The Court pointed out several facts which prima facie raised doubts on the factual matrix of the applicant. There Court highlighted the loopholes which made the story so narrated, dubious. The Bench took note of the fact that the jurisdiction under the Contempt proceedings does not pertain to enquiry in to the matter, where disputed matters are concerned, since that would be outside the realm. Further the Court was of the opinion that the applicant had other remedies as well. Where the applicant could either file a criminal prosecution or take any other appropriate measure as per law. The Court, however, noted that the applicant has already set in motion a measure available, where complaints were filed against the accused persons.
The Court thus held that, "Insofar as the grievance with regard to non compliance of the directions issued by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari (supra), no doubt the authority appears to have delayed, but upon due preliminary process, when it has appeared that substantive complaint deserves to be filed against the erring officials for the alleged incident said to have taken place on 27.04.2022 steps have been already initiated and as such, when the said complaint now which is registered already, the grievance is taken care of and it has been assured that further process will be taken in accordance with law".
CASE TITLE: Anjaliben Prakashbhai Trivedi vs. Jaydeepsinh K Rathod
Please Login or Register
