Karnataka High Court
Sri Tukaram S/O. Balesh Majjagi vs Miss. Sindhu Venkatesh Belur on 1 October, 2024
Author: B.M.Shyam Prasad
Bench: B.M.Shyam Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14743-DB
CRL.CCC No. 100002 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.100002 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI. TUKARAM
S/O. BALESH MAJJAGI,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: PENSIONER,
R/O. CTS NO.4867/10,
1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS, SAMPAGI ROAD,
SADASHIV NAGAR, BELAGAVI,
TQ. DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
...COMPLAINANT
Digitally signed (BY SRI. V.M.SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE)
by VINAYAKA B V
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
AND:
DHARWAD
Date: 2024.10.01
16:02:08 +0530
MISS. SINDHU VENKATESH BELUR
AGE: 36 YEARS,
OCC: ASSISTANT ENGINEER (CESC),
R/CORPORATE OFFICE,
CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRIC SUPPLY,
MYSURU-570001.
...ACCUSED
(BY SRI. PRAMOD KATHAVI SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14743-DB
CRL.CCC No. 100002 of 2023
THIS CRL.CCC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND U/SEC. 15(2) OF CONTEMPT OF
COURTS ACT SEEKING TO TAKE SUO-MOTO COGNIZANCE OF
CONTEMPT, SECURE THE PRESENCE OF THE ACCUSED/
RESPONDENT AND PUNISH HER FOR HAVING COMMITTED
CRIMINAL CONTEMPT BY FILING PCR NO. 70/2022, 69/2022,
68/2022 AND 77/2022 ON THE FILE OF II JMFC BELAGAVI TO
REOPEN THE CASE WHEREIN THE B SUMMARY WAS
ACCEPTED BY THE COURT IN MMPS CRIME NO. 286/2014,
19/2015 AND 26/2015, AND FILING OF CRL.REV.PETITIONS
NO. 195/2022 AND 196/2022 BEFORE XI DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI TO REOPEN CRIMINAL REVISION
PETITIONS 54/2016, 55/2016 AND ALSO FILING OF SUIT O.S.
NO. 01/2023 BEFORE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM BELAGAVI
SEEKING COMPENSATION AND DECLARATION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14743-DB
CRL.CCC No. 100002 of 2023
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) The complainant and the respondent have been colleagues while working in Belagavi with M/s HESCOM. The complainant has retired from service, and the respondent has been served with the order for her dismissal from service during the pendency of these proceedings. The complainant has filed this petition invoking this Court's jurisdiction under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and section 15 (2) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 [for short referred to as, 'the Contempt of Courts Act'].
2. The complainant is premised in the allegation that the respondent has deliberately initiated certain proceedings with the intent of obstructing administration of justice, and therefore, this Court must take suo moto cognizance for criminal contempt against her and impose appropriate punishment. This Court must at the first instance refer to the different proceedings between the complainant and the respondent. The details of these -4- NC: 2024:KHC-D:14743-DB CRL.CCC No. 100002 of 2023 proceedings which are commenced from the year 2014 are as follows.
The first set of proceedings:
3. The respondent has filed information with the jurisdictional police in Crime No. 286/2014 against the complainant and others for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 341, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. The respondent has also followed this complaint by the next information in Crime No.19/2015 against the complainant for the offences punishable under Sections 506 and 504 IPC. The respondent has also filed information with the jurisdictional police resulting in registering FIR in Crime No.26/2015 against the complainant for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 511 and 109 IPC. The complainant has filed information against the respondent [resulting in FIR with the jurisdictional police in Crime No.25/2015] alleging that respondent is committing threatening to commit suicide. The police have filed 'B' report in all these proceedings.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14743-DB CRL.CCC No. 100002 of 2023 3.1 The respondent has not challenged the 'B' Reports in Crime Nos.25 and 26 of 2015 but has challenged the acceptance of the 'B' Report in Crime Nos.19/2015 and 286/2014 [which are essentially for the offences such as outraging the modesty of a woman, insulting with the intention to provoke to breach peace and criminal intimidation] in Criminal Revision Petition Nos.54/2016 and 55/2016. However, the respondent, in these Criminal Revision Petitions, has filed an affidavit stating that she has filed false complaint against the complainant because she was under duress from certain contractors. The Criminal Revision Petition Nos.54/2016 and 55/2016 are disposed of on 11.05.2016 because of this affidavit. The second set of proceedings:
4. The complainant, after a lapse of some period, has filed information which is registered in Crime Nos.44/2017, 45/2017 and 46/2017 against the respondent and others for initiation of false complaint in Crime Nos. 286/2014, 19/2015 and 26/2015. The concerned learned Magistrate has committed the respondent and others for -6- NC: 2024:KHC-D:14743-DB CRL.CCC No. 100002 of 2023 trial to the Sessions Court after unsuccessful challenge by some others. The trial is concluded in S.C. No. 262/2019 and the respondent and others are convicted.
4.1 The respondent has filed appeal in Criminal Appeal No.100355/2024 before this Court, and the sentence is suspended. The petitioner, consequent to this conviction, is dismissed from service on 17.07.2024; and this Court is informed that the respondent proposes to challenge this order. The complainant has also filed appeal for enhancement of sentence in Criminal Appeal No.100397/2024, and with this appeal being dismissed on the ground of maintainability, the complainant has filed revision petition in Criminal Revision Petition No.100305/2024 which is pending consideration. The third set of proceedings:
5. The respondent, with the commencement of trial in S.C. No.262/2019, has filed PCR Nos.68, 69 and 70 of 2022 for reopening of the corresponding proceedings in -7- NC: 2024:KHC-D:14743-DB CRL.CCC No. 100002 of 2023 Crime Nos. 286/2014, 19/2015 and 26/20151. The respondent has also filed separate private complaint in PCR No. 77/2022 against the complainant alleging that a fraud is played on her by the complainant in securing the affidavit that is filed in Criminal Revision Petition Nos.54/2016 and 55/2016. This private complaint is pending enquiry, but the other private complaints in PCR Nos.68-70/2022 are dismissed on 17.02.2024. The respondent has filed Criminal Revision Petition in Criminal Revision Petition Nos.78-80 of 2024 calling in question the dismissal of the PCR Nos.68-70/2022, and these revision petitions are pending 5.1 The respondent has also simultaneously filed Criminal Revision Petition in Criminal Revision Petition Nos.195/2022 and 196/2022 for reopening of the Criminal Revision Petition in Criminal Revision Petition Nos.54- 55/2016 which is as against acceptance of the 'B' Report in 1 These proceedings, as mentioned supra, stand disposed finally with the disposal of the petitions in Criminal Revision Petition Nos.54/2016 and 55/2016 because of the affidavits filed by her. -8-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14743-DB CRL.CCC No. 100002 of 2023 Crime Nos.19/2015 and 286/2014. The respondent has filed a memo for dismissal of these revision petitions, and the Sessions Court by its separate order dated 22.12.2023 has dismissed these petitions as not maintainable on cost of Rs.500/-.
The fourth set of proceedings:
6. The respondent has filed suit in O.S. No.1/2023 for damages and compensation for malicious prosecution, and the respondent has also sought for injunction against the complainant using affidavits filed in the Criminal Revision Petition Nos.54-55/2016. This suit is pending consideration. Apart from these proceedings, there are other two proceedings inter se the complainant and respondent.
[a] The respondent has filed a complaint against the complainant and two others with Women Grievance Redressal Committee of HESCOM; this Committee has filed a report stating that the complaint is not true.
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14743-DB CRL.CCC No. 100002 of 2023 [b] The disciplinary proceedings are initiated against the respondent in KPTCL / 54 / 4730 / 2014-15 and in her examination in the enquiry, the respondent has stated that certain Union Leaders were not happy with the complainant's attitude and these leaders, taking advantage of the fact that the respondent was under duress for personal issues, have prevailed upon her to file a complaint alleging that the complainant was sexually harassing her. The complainant asserts, based on such categorical statement, the disciplinary proceedings have concluded with the respondent being imposed with the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect.
7. Sri V. M. Sheelvant, the learned counsel for the complainant, is categorical that [a] though the complaint refers to initiation of suo-moto proceedings, the complaint is
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14743-DB CRL.CCC No. 100002 of 2023 under Section 15(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act and [b] the complainant's specific case is that the respondent is guilty of criminal contempt as is contemplated under Section 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act because she has deliberately filed private complaints in PCR in No.68- 70/2024 and the criminal revision petitions in Criminal Revision Petition Nos.195/2022 and 196/2022 with the intention of obstructing the proceedings in S.C. No.262/2019.
7.1 Sri V. M. Sheelvant, as regards the maintainability, submits that the proceedings can only be under Section 15(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act and not a request for initiation of suo-moto proceedings because the complainant has approached the learned Advocate General for consent as is contemplated under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act and the learned Advocate General has refused consent by the order dated 24.07.2023 which is not justiciable.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14743-DB CRL.CCC No. 100002 of 2023 7.2 Sri V. M. Sheelvant, as regards the alleged obstruction of due judicial proceedings, canvasses that the Apex Court in Advocate General, State of Bihar vs. M/s. Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries and another2 has declared that every abuse of process of courts need not necessarily amount to contempt of courts, but the abuse of the process of courts which is calculated to hamper the due course of the judicial proceedings or the orderly administration of justice will be contempt of Court. The complainant's specific case is that the respondent has initiated simultaneous proceedings in PCR Nos.68-70/2022 and criminal revision petitions in Criminal Revision Petition Nos.195-196/2022 only because trial is commenced in S.C. No.262/20193. The learned counsel submits that this single factor is prima facie indicative of the respondent's intention to hamper the course of judicial proceedings in SC No. 262/2019.
2 (1980) 3 SCC 311 3 After the closure of proceedings before the Apex Court at the instance of certain others who are named by the complainant
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14743-DB CRL.CCC No. 100002 of 2023
8. Sri Pramod Kathavi, the learned senior counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that this Court must not only discharge the respondent from all accusations of criminal contempt but also dismiss the petition as not maintainable. In fact, the learned Senior Counsel wanted to elaborate on the difference between initiation of suo-moto contempt proceedings, but with Sri V. M. Sheelvant being categorical that the present complaint is under Section 15[1] of the Contempt Courts Act, canvasses the following as regards the maintainability of the complaint.
• The present complaint is not by the learned Advocate General or with the consent of the learned Advocate General, and unless a complaint is as aforesaid, it will not be maintainable.
• The complainant, with the learned Advocate General refusing consent, should have either called in question the learned Advocate General's order or file information with this Court for suo-moto initiation of proceedings as this Court's power under Article 215 of the Constitution of India is not eclipsed only
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14743-DB CRL.CCC No. 100002 of 2023 because the learned Advocate General has refused consent.
8.1 Sri Pramod Kathavi relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in P. N. Duda vs. P. Shiv Shanker and others4, State of Kerala vs. M.S. Mani and others5 and Bal Thackrey vs. Harish Pimpalkhute and others6 to canvass that the following proposition emerge on a juxtaposed reading of the decisions in the aforesaid cases.
[i] The requirement of obtaining consent of the Advocate General for making a motion under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act is mandatory.
[ii] An inquiry into the exercise of discretion by the learned Advocate General is possible, and the observation in this regard is per Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji when a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in N. 4 (1988) 3 SCC 167 5 (2001) 8 SCC 82 6 (2005) 1 SCC 254
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14743-DB CRL.CCC No. 100002 of 2023 Venkataramanappa vs. D. K. Naikar and another7 opining that the learned Advocate General is not justiciable it is brought to the Apex Court's notice, and per Justice S. Ranganathan, a petition for writ of certiorari would lie because the refusal to give consent would be in realm of civil rights of the concerned. [iii] The complainant, if aggrieved by the learned Advocate General's order dated 24.07.2023, should have necessarily availed appropriate remedy as is exposited in P. N. Duda vs. P. Shiv Shanker and others [supra] instead of invoking this Court's jurisdiction under Section 15(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act.
8.2 The respondent has filed the PCRs. in Nos.68-70/2022 and 77/2022 only because of the circumstances that are specifically identified by the respondent viz., that she was not aware that she was falsely induced to file an affidavit for closure of the proceedings in 7 1977 SCC Online Kar 213
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14743-DB CRL.CCC No. 100002 of 2023 Criminal Revision Petition Nos.54-55/2016 which is brought about a quietus to her grievance against the complainant for harassment until when the complainant violently behaved with the respondent informing her that he had managed to get the affidavit from her with the assistance of the others to commence the proceedings which has resulted in her conviction now. The respondent, in fact, has, while furnishing the revelations made by the complainant in the Court premises for the first time, detailed that the complainant has slapped her injuring and insulting her in public in the presence of her relatives.
8.3 Sri Pramod Kathavi, on prima facie case against the respondent, submits that the respondent has availed recourse available to her in law and on the advice that she had in the matter by her counsels. These overwhelming circumstances which demonstrates the respondent's right earnest to secure redressal of her grievances and this earnestness cannot be termed as deliberate initiation of proceedings calculated to hamper the due course of judicial proceedings [in SC No. 262/2019]. The
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14743-DB CRL.CCC No. 100002 of 2023 respondent has been embroiled in litigation over ten years and she has suffered dismissal from service because of her conviction, and is therefore, keen to either close all the proceedings amicably or contest the proceedings in accordance with law.
8.4 Sri Pramod Kathavi argues that this Court may not opine that the respondent is deliberate and intends to hamper the due course of judicial proceedings as is opined by the Apex Court in Advocate General, State of Bihar vs. M/s. Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries and another [supra] inasmuch as in such case, in the peculiarities, the Apex Court has opined the concerned intend to obstruct the due course of proceedings after a detailed reference to the proceedings initiated. This Court may also consider that bona fide initiation of proceedings will not be construed as contempt of Court especially when the complaining party has an adequate alternative remedy.
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14743-DB CRL.CCC No. 100002 of 2023
9. In the circumstances of the case and the rival submissions, the following questions are framed for consideration.
[a] Whether this Court must dismiss the complaint as not maintainable because the complainant has presented this petition notwithstanding the learned Advocate General's order dated 24.07.2023.
[b] Whether this Court can opine that the complainant has established prima facie case to demonstrate that the respondent has deliberately initiated simulated proceedings in PCR No.68-70/2022 and 77/2022 and the Criminal Revision Petition Nos.195 and 196/2022.
10. This Court must, to answer the first question, refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Bal Thackrey vs. Harish Pimpalkhute and others [supra]. The Apex Court has emphasized that action for contempt is divisible into two categories namely that initiated suo moto by the Court and that initiated otherwise than Court's own motion and that the mode of initiation in these two
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14743-DB CRL.CCC No. 100002 of 2023 categories would be different. The Apex Court has further emphasized that "the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 215 of the Constitution is also governed by laws and rules subject to the limitation that if such laws / rules stultify or abrogate the constitutional power then such laws / rules would not be valid". However, the Apex Court has also clarified that the direction issued and the procedure laid down in P. N. Duda vs. P. Shiv Shanker and others [supra] are applicable only to the cases that are initiated suo moto by the High Court when some information is placed in that regard.
10.1 The Apex Court, in Bal Thackrey vs. Harish Pimpalkhute and others [supra], has indeed referred to the decision in State of Kerala vs. M.S. Mani and others in reiterating that obtaining the consent of the learned Advocate General in writing for making a motion under Section 15(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act is mandatory, but the Apex Court has also referred to its
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14743-DB CRL.CCC No. 100002 of 2023 following enunciation in S. K. Sarkar, Member, Board of Revenue, U. P. vs. Vinay Chandra Misra8.
"Section 15 does not specify the basis or the source of information on which the High Court can act on its own motion. If the High Court acts on information derived from its own sources, such as from a perusal of the records of a subordinate court or on reading a report in a newspaper or hearing a public speech, without there being any reference from the subordinate court or the Advocate-General, it can be said to have taken cognizance on its own motion. But if the High Court is directly moved by a petition by a private person feeling aggrieved, not being the Advocate-General, can the High Court refuse to entertain the same on the ground that it has been made without the consent in writing of the Advocate- General? It appears to us that the High Court, has, in such a situation, a discretion to refuse to entertain the petition, or to take cognizance on its own motion on the basis of the information supplied to it in that petition".
The first enunciation is that the directions issued and the procedure laid down in P. N. Duda vs. P. Shiv Shanker and others [supra] are applicable to suo moto proceedings. The second enunciation for a greater circumspection, should 8 (1981) 1 SCC 436
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14743-DB CRL.CCC No. 100002 of 2023 be when the concerned learned Advocate General has refused consent in writing unlike in P. N. Duda's case where no orders were issued either giving consent or refusing.
10.2 This Court on considering these enunciations is of the considered view that that if the learned Advocate General has refused consent, the High Courts have discretion to refuse a complaint under Section 15(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act and it cannot be opined that the complaint is not maintainable. This Court must refer to the unassailable proposition that the procedure contemplated under Section 15[1] of the contempt Courts Act acts as filter to ensure that the High Courts are not burdened by frivolous complaints. In the present case, the learned Advocate General by order dated 24.07.2023 has refused consent in writing. This Court must examine the circumstances with greater circumspection, but cannot opine that the complaint is not maintainable only because of the refusal to give consent. The first question for
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14743-DB CRL.CCC No. 100002 of 2023 consideration is answered in the negative holding that the petition is maintainable.
11. The respondent's next PCR in No.77/2022 is pending. The respondent has alleged, amongst others, that the complainant assaulted her revealing, for the first time, that she was manipulated to file an affidavit that has resulted in the closure of her grievance with the 'B' Report in Crime Nos.286/2014, 19/2015 and 26/2015. The merits of these allegations will come up for consideration in all this matter. The respondent has suffered conviction in S.C. No.262/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 195, 211, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 149 of IPC. The respondent's appeal as against this conviction is pending consideration. The complainant's corresponding appeal for enhancement in the sentence is also pending. The respondent's allegations could also be considered in these appeals.
11.1 This Court must examine these proceedings only to ascertain whether even prima facie it could be opined
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14743-DB CRL.CCC No. 100002 of 2023 that the respondent intended to hamper the due judicial proceedings [in SC No. 262/2019], and unless it is shown that the respondent in initiation of the simultaneous proceedings [the proceedings in PCR 68 -70/2022 and the proceedings in Crim. Rev. Petitions in 195-196/2022] are intended only to obstruct the administration of justice, no charges can be framed against the respondent for criminal contempt9.
11.2 It is not disputed that when proceedings are wanting in bona fides or vexatious or frivolous, the Courts have extensive alternative powers to prevent the same, including the power to stay proceedings, and when this alternative remedy is available, the Courts will not punish for contempt. It is only when it is demonstrated that the initiation of the proceedings affect the parties beyond the proceedings, action is taken. This proposition is underscored by the Apex Court in Advocate General, State of Bihar vs. 9 Section 2[c][iii] "interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner."
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14743-DB CRL.CCC No. 100002 of 2023 M/s. Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries and another [supra] with reference to the proposition in Halsbury's Laws of England in the following terms:
"Abuse of process is general.--The court has power to punish as contempt any misuse of the court's process. Thus the forging or altering of court documents and other deceits of like kind are punishable as serious contempts. Similarly, deceiving the court or the court's officers by deliberately suppressing a fact, or giving false facts, may be a punishable contempt.
Certain acts of a lesser nature may also constitute an abuse of process as, for instance, initiating or carrying on proceedings which are wanting in bona fides or which are frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. In such cases the court has extensive alternative powers to prevent an abuse of its process by striking out or staying proceedings or by prohibiting the taking of further proceedings without leave. Where the court, by exercising its statutory powers, its powers under rules of court, or its inherent jurisdiction, can give an adequate remedy, it will not in general punish the abuse as a contempt of court. On the other hand, where an irregularity or misuse of process amounts to an offence against justice,
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14743-DB CRL.CCC No. 100002 of 2023 extending its influence beyond the parties to the action, it may be punished as a contempt."
11.3 The complainant has his recourses against initiation of simultaneous proceedings. The respondent, notwithstanding the initiation of the simultaneous proceedings, has suffered conviction and she has also consequentially been removed from service. Further, the petition has filed a memo for withdrawal of the criminal revision petitions in Nos.195 and 196 of 2022 essentially contending that she would like to prosecute the PCR in Nos.68-70/2022 and PCR No.77/2022. The concerned Sessions Court has rejected the Criminal Revision Petition Nos.195 and 196 of 2022 essentially on the ground that after the closure of the proceedings, it has no jurisdiction.
12. This Court in the circumstances, especially with the inquiry pending on the respondent's allegations and reasons for filing the aforesaid PCRs., cannot opine that the complainant has made out a prima facie case to opine that the respondent has initiated simultaneous proceedings as
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14743-DB CRL.CCC No. 100002 of 2023 referred to above only to obstruct the due judicial proceedings in SC 262/2019. In the light of the above, the second question is answered in favour of the respondent.
For the reasons aforesaid, proceedings for initiation of criminal contempt against the respondent are dropped.
Sd/-
(B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/-
(C.M.JOSHI) JUDGE Rsh / Ct: VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3