Karnataka High Court
Smt Chandana Mary @ Sandana Mary vs Sri Ajay Hilori on 20 August, 2018
Bench: Raghvendra S.Chauhan, H T Narendra Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
C.C.C. NO.1475 OF 2018 (CIVIL)
BETWEEN:
SMT. CHANDANA MARY @ SANDANA MARY
W/O. THOMAS,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
RESIDING AT PROPERTY NO.47,
HOUSE LIST NO.301,
NOW NEW NO.33, CHURCH ROAD,
KAMMANAHALLI,
BENGALURU-560 084.
...COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI MOHAMMED MUJASSIM, ADV.)
AND:
1. SRI AJAY HILORI
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
BENGALURU EAST DIVISION,
ABOVE ULSOOR POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU-560 008.
2. SRI D. MUNIKRISHNA
THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
BANASAWADI POLICE STATION,
HRBR LAYOUT 2ND BLOCK,
2
KALYAN NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 043.
3. SRI SHARATH KUMAR D. P.
THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
BANASAWADI POLICE STATION,
HRBR LAYOUT 2ND BLOCK,
KALYAN NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 043.
... ACCUSED
(BY SRI SRIDHAR N. HEGDE, HCGP FOR A-1;
V/O DATED 12.06.2018 A-2 & A-3 ARE DELETED)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO INITIATE
CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR
HAVING DELIBERATELY DISOBEYED THE ORDER OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT PASSED IN W.P.NO.16390/2018 DATED
27.04.2018 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-A; AND ETC.
THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The complainant, Smt. Chandana Mary @ Sandana Mary, has filed the present contempt petition ostensibly on the ground that by order dated 27.04.2018, a learned Single Judge had directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police, the respondent No.3, the accused before this Court, to personally investigate FIR No.0070/2018 registered with the Banaswadi Police 3 Station, and either to arrest the accused, or to ensure that they maintain peace and tranquility. This Court had also directed the accused to submit the investigation report before this Court. According to the complainant, the said direction issued by the learned Single Judge had not been complied with by the accused. Hence the present contempt petition before this Court.
2. Mr. Mohammed Mujassim, the learned counsel for the complainant, submits that on 30.04.2018, the complainant had brought the order dated 27.04.2018, to the notice of the accused. However, despite bringing the said order to the notice of the accused, the accused did not investigate the case properly. Therefore, contempt continues to be committed by the accused.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Sridhar N. Hegde, the learned counsel for the accused, submits that the Deputy Commissioner of Police had not only 4 investigated the case, but had also the accused persons arrested on 21.02.2018. However, as the offences alleged were all bailable, they were released on bail. Subsequently, after completing the investigation, a charge-sheet has been submitted on 06.06.2018, for offences under Sections 504, 506 r/w Section 34 IPC, before the XI Addl. CMM Court. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the order dated 27.04.2018, has been duly complied with by the accused.
4. In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the complainant submits that despite the allegations that the accused persons had committed theft, the charge- sheet has not been submitted for the offence under Section 379 IPC. Thus, the police continues to protect the three named accused persons. Hence the contempt is still being committed by the accused. 5
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the affidavit, and the counter-affidavit filed by the accused.
6. As mentioned above, by order dated 27.04.2018, this Court had directed the accused to undertake the investigation at his own level, and to arrest the three accused persons, namely Pramila (Accused No.1), Reethamma (Accused No.2) and Mahesh (Accused No.3). According to the accused herein, the three persons were arrested on 21.02.2018, i.e. even prior to the passing of the order dated 27.04.2018. Since the offences were bailable in nature, they were let out on bail.
7. After a thorough investigation, admittedly, the police have filed a charge-sheet on 19.06.2018. Thus, the accused herein has duly complied with the order passed by this Court.
6
8. However, in case the complainant has any grievance against the contents of the charge-sheet, the complainant shall be free to take recourse to any legal remedy available to her in accordance with law. But, as far as the present contempt petition is concerned, no contempt is made out. Therefore, the contempt proceedings are, hereby, dropped.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE RD