Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Rahul Khatik vs Shri Rudolf Alvares on 26 August, 2019

Author: Sheel Nagu

Bench: Sheel Nagu

                                              1

        THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

                       Conc. No.1994/2019
       (Rahul Khatik and another VS. Rudolf Alvares and another)

Gwalior, dated: 26.08.2019

      Shri Rajiv Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners.

      Present petition alleges non-compliance of the final order

dated 06.12.2018 passed in W.P. No.26903/2018 where this Court

had passed following directions:-

               "An admission has been made by the petitioner
       that he had suggested his daughter to leave Dabra but
       it is his contention that, that suggestion was not in the
       form of threat. Under Section 506 (Part-II) of IPC
       extending a threat to life is also an offence but without
       entering into this controversy that whether an offence
       has been committed by the petitioner or not, it is
       directed that in case, if any hurdle or nuisance is
       created by the petitioner in the life of his daughter and
       if any application is made by the corpus or her
       husband to the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior
       complaining about the threat or action of the
       petitioner, then Superintendent of Police, Gwalior
       shall immediately take serious action in the matter and
       he is expected that he would not deal with the matter
       in a casual manner.
               With aforesaid observation, the petition is finally
       disposed of."

      From the above, it is clear that aforesaid direction was to

S.P. Gwalior whereas petitioner's grievance is that in respect of

FIR lodged by father of petitioner No.2 at Datia, police is trying to

adopt coercive steps against petitioners who have entered into

wedlock with their own volition.

      In the contempt petition, the Court has to see that it's
                                                        2

    direction has been complied with or not and if not, then what

    coercive steps can be taken under the contempt jurisdiction.

                   In the present case it is alleged that S.P. Gwalior has

    violated the direction passed by this Court on 06.12.2018. Order

    dated 06.12.2018 does not contain any direction to S.P. Bhind but

    only to S.P. Gwalior, therefore, no case arises to initiate contempt

    proceedings against S.P. Bhind.

                   Consequently, present petition stands dismissed with liberty

    to petitioner to approach appropriate forum.



                                                           (Sheel Nagu)
                                                              Judge
   SS
SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
2019.08.28

10:50:34 -07'00'