Gujarat High Court
Taraji Kalaji Patel & vs Tejendra Ratilal Gadhvi P.S.I & 2 on 27 November, 2014
Bench: M.R. Shah, R.D.Kothari
R/CR.MA/11433/2014 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT) NO. 11433 of 2014
In
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 9599 of 2014
=========================================
TARAJI KALAJI PATEL & 1....Applicant(s)
Versus
TEJENDRA RATILAL GADHVI P.S.I & 2....Respondent(s)
=============================================
Appearance:
MR.KIRIT R CHAUDHARI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 2
MR KB PUJARA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS. NISHA THAKORE ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No.
3
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.D.KOTHARI
Date : 27/11/2014
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1.0. Present application has been preferred by the applicants herein - original petitioner of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.9599 of 2014 alleging inter alia that respondent no.1 has deliberately arrested the petitioner in connection with FIR being CRI No.77 of 2014 registered with Deodar Police Station on 20.06.201, though the said FIR came to be quashed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 01.07.2014 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.9599 of 2014 and therefore, respondent no.1 has rendered himself liable for suitable punishment under the provision of Contempt of Courts Act.
2.0. Having heard Shri Chaudhary, learned advocate for the applicants and Shri K.B. Pujara, learned advocate for the respondent no.1 and Ms. Nisha Thakore, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2 and considering the material on record, more particularly, affidavit in reply filed by the respondent Page 1 of 3 R/CR.MA/11433/2014 ORDER no.1 and considering the admitted facts, it appears that order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 01.07.2014 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.9599 of 2014 quashing and setting aside the aforesaid was served upon the respondent no.1 on 10.07.2014 at about 2.30 p.m i.e. after the arrest of the petitioner and immediately on receipt of the writ of the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 01.07.2014 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.9599 of 2014 at about 2.30 p.m., the applicant was released. Necessary entries were also made in the police station diary, Shri Chaudhary, learned advocate for the applicants has fairly conceded that till 10.07.2014 at about 2.30 p.m the writ of the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 01.07.2014 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.9599 of 2014 was not served upon respondent no.1. However, he has stated that respondent no.1 was orally informed.
3.0. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance when immediately on receipt of the writ of the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 01.07.2014 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.9599 of 2014 on 10.07.2014 at 2.30 p.m having come to know that FIR for which the petitioner was arrested has been quashed and set aside by this Court, the petitioner was released, it cannot be said that there is any deliberate and / or willful disobedience of the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 01.07.2014 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.9599 of 2014. At this stage, it is also required to be noted that the facts which can be gathered from the proceedings of the Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.9599 of 2014 that as such the said Criminal Miscellaneous Application was disposed of on the very day i.e. on 01.07.2014 without even any notice to the respondent no.1 herein (for the reasons stated in the order dated Page 2 of 3 R/CR.MA/11433/2014 ORDER 01.07.2014). Under the circumstances, it appears that as such respondent no.1, was not aware about the filing and / or pendency of the aforesaid Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.9599 of 2014. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance, it cannot be said that respondent no.1 has deliberately arrested the petitioner in clear disobedience of the order passed by this Court dated 01.07.2014 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.9599 of 2014, for which, he is required to be punished under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. The explanation submitted by the respondent no.1 so stated in the affidavit in reply is hereby accepted.
4.0. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present applications fails and same deserve to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Notice discharged.
sd/ (M.R.SHAH, J.) sd/ (R.D.KOTHARI, J.) Kaushik Page 3 of 3