Uttarakhand High Court
Colonel Suman Negi Retd And Another ... vs Akram Ali on 2 March, 2020
Author: Sharad Kumar Sharma
Bench: Sharad Kumar Sharma
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Contempt Petition (CLCON No. 124 of 2016)
Colonel Suman Negi Retd and Another ...Petitioners
Vs.
Akram Ali ...Respondent
Present: Colonel Suman Negi in person
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
A Criminal Miscellaneous case being Miscellaneous Case Number 706 of 2015, Col. (Retd.) Suman Negi & another Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others was initiated by the petitioner herein, whereby the challenge was given to the summoning order, whereby he was summoned in the proceedings to face the trial as registered before the Court below by way of Criminal Case Number 1238 of 2013. State Vs. Suman Negi. The coordinate Bench of this Court, on 20.07.2015, while considering the C482 application, filed by the applicant, had passed the following directions:-
"7. Consequently though no relief as is being sought can be given to the applicant, however, it is made clear that dismissal of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., will not prejudice the right of the present applicant to bring these facts, (of alleged forgery and fabrication) before the court below. If this is done, the court below shall take into consideration this aspect and pass speaking order therein. This opportunity to the present applicant will be given at an appropriate stage and in accordance with procedure laid down under Code of Criminal procedure."
2. In fact, if the direction issued by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 20.07.2015 is taken into consideration, while declining the interference in C482 application, the Court has reserved the right of the petitioner herein that he may bring the facts of forgery and fabrication alleged by him against respondent before the court below, who is ceased with the trial of the case. As far as this aspect is concerned, it is not in dispute that he has already raised the plea of forgery and fabrication against the respondent before the court below. The subsequent direction is complained to be flouted by the court below who is ceased with the trial. It is to the effect that if the petitioner places the aspects of forgery and fabrication before the 2 Court below, it was directed that the court, ceased with the trial, will consider these aspects, and pass a speaking order therein. This opportunity of the present contempt petitioner given therein by the order dated 20th July 2017 was limited to be provided to him at an appropriate stage of the proceedings in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure. That stage of considering the plea of forgery and fabrication as already has been raised by the petitioner, is yet to be arrived at when the Court has passed an order dated 7th April 2016 in Criminal Case Number 1238 of 2013, State Vs. Suman Negi, whereby the Court has passed the following directions:-
**7- bl izdj.k esa mHk; i{k dh vksj ls izLrqr rdksZa dk vUos'k.k vfHk;kstu }kjk izLrqr dh x;h lkexzh rd gh lhfer j[kuk gksrk gSA ,sls esa vfHk;kstu dh vksj ls is"k fd, x, vkjksi i= lh0Mh0 o vU; izi=ksa ds voyksdu ,oa mijksDr U;k; fu.kZ; ds izdk"k esa vfHk;qDrx.k ij /kkjk &498,]323]325]452]504]506 Hkk0na0la0 vkSj 3@4 ngst izfr'ks/k vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr vkjksi fojfpr fd, tkus dk vk/kkj izFke n`'V;k iz;kZIr gSA vfHk;qDrx.k okLrs vkjksi fojpu mifLFkr jgsA rnkuqlkj i=koyh fnukad 12-04-2018 dks okLrs vkjksi fojpu is"k gksA**
3. The direction given therein in the order dated 7th April 2016 was only that the present petitioner was directed to appear before the court below for the purposes of framing of a charge on 12th April 2016 in relation to the offences as mentioned therein. This order dated 7th April 2016, of Court below which is alleged to be a contempt to an earlier order dated 20th July 2015 as passed by this Court is absolutely an untenable proposition which cannot be accepted by this Court for the reason being that the stage at which the plea of forgery and fabrication was put to be considered it was still left open for the Court to consider it at an appropriate stage in accordance with the procedure provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the said purpose, the commencement of trial was a necessary and pre-ingredient to consider the plea for which the court of Judicial Magistrate has passed an order dated 7th April 2016 for framing of a charge. Framing of a charge would in fact be the initiation of the trial itself where the set of allegation of forgery and 3 fabrication which has been left open to be pleaded by the petitioner herein it was to be scrutinized by the Judicial Magistrate only when the trial proceeds on its merits. This direction issued on 7th April 2016 by the Judicial Magistrate calling upon the petitioner to appear in person before the Court for the purposes of framing of a charge against him, will not amount to be in violations of the order dated 20th July 2015, because the said order of this Court had never intended to contemplate an adjudication on the issue of forgery and fabrication even before the framing of a charge. Framing of a charge is one of the steps contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure for conducting a trial. Consequently, I am of the view that no contempt as such against the Judicial Officer for directing the petitioner to appear before him for framing of a charge is said to have been committed by passing the order dated 7th April 2016, in violation of the order passed by this Court on 20th July 2015,
4. Thus the contempt petition lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 02.03.2020 Mahinder/