Madras High Court
K.Alfred vs Ramesh Iyer on 29 January, 2020
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
CONTEMPT PETITION No.56092 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.01.2020
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
CONTEMPT PETITION.SR.No.56092 of 2018
K.Alfred ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Ramesh Iyer,
Managing Director,
M/s.Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.,
Tirupati House,
New No.13, Kanniah Street,
T.Nagar, Chenani - 600 017.
2.Srinivasa Rao
3.N.Sridaran
4.A.N.Neelakanda Pillai
5.R.Govindarajan,
9th Asst. Judge,
City Civil Court,
Madras High Court Compound,
Chennai - 600 104.
6.R.K.P.Tamilarasi
9th Asst. Judge,
City Civil Court,
Madras High Court Compound,
Chennai - 600 104.
7.Sreenivasan,
Inspector of Police,
R-7, K.K.Nagar Police Station,
Chennai - 600 078. ... Respondents
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/4
CONTEMPT PETITION No.56092 of 2018
PRAYER : Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971, praying to punish the respondents, under the Contempt of Court Act
1971, for disobeying the order of Interim Stay passed by the Madras High Court
in Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2014 on 24.09.2014 in Crl.O.P.No.26764 of 2014 against
C.C.No.255 of 2013 (on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
Court, Sriperumbudur) for the Crime No.330 of 2007.
For Petitioner : Mr.Alfred
Party-in-Person
*****
ORDER
This Contempt Petition has been filed to punish the respondents for disobeying the order of Interim Stay passed by this Court in Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2014 on 24.09.2014 in Crl.O.P.No.26764 of 2014 against C.C.No.255 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Sriperumbudur.
2.Heard the submissions made by the petitioner/Party-in-Person appeared before this Court.
3.It is seen that one Sivasankaran, who is the accused in C.C.No.255 of 2013 filed a Criminal Original Petition before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.26764 of 2014 against C.C.No.255 of 2013, which is pending on the file of the District Munsif http://www.judis.nic.in Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Sriperumbudur and got an interim stay 2/4 CONTEMPT PETITION No.56092 of 2018 on 24.09.2014. The defacto complainant/2nd respondent in C.C.No.255 of 2013 filed this present Contempt Petition as if the respondent/contemnor violated the interim order of this Court dated 24.09.2014.
4.On perusal of the entire records, it reveals that none of the respondents contemnors in the present contempt petition are party to the above said criminal proceedings. It is a settled law that the petitioner against whom the allegations are made, they must be a party in the proceedings. Therefore, in the absence of the respondents as a party, no contempt of Court can be entertained against them. Hence, this Court felt that the respondents must be made as party respondents in the above proceedings, in order to find out the actual state of affairs.
5.Accordingly, this Contempt Petition is dismissed in SR stage itself. If the petitioner still has any grievance, it is open to him to challenge the same before the appropriate forum in the manner known to law.
29.01.2020 vv2 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/no http://www.judis.nic.in 3/4 CONTEMPT PETITION No.56092 of 2018 M.DHANDAPANI,J.
vv2 CONTEMPT PETITION.SR.No.56092 of 2018 29.01.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in 4/4