Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
ii) On 4.8.2022, the petitioner had sought for some information by issuing notice to the respondent through RTI, among which, one is whether the respondent had issued notice to the accused under Section 41A Cr.P.C. and received a negative reply on 20.8.2022.
iii) Upon receipt of such a reply, the petitioner has come up before this court by way of present Contempt Petition seeking to punish the respondent Police alleging that he had committed contempt of court by not complying with the provisions of Section 41A Cr.P.C. as contemplated by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, it is submitted by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent that this Contempt Petition is not at all maintainable.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that by not issuing notice to the accused under Section 41A Cr.P.C. within two weeks from the date of receipt of the complaint given by the petitioner, the respondent has committed contempt of court as directed in the decision in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273.
5. It is true that Section 41A Cr.P.C. insists for issuance of notice to the accused by the Police in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required. But, the scope of such provision is only to avoid unnecessary and mechanical arrest or threat of arrest and the consequent humiliation and scar being caused to the person accused of. In the case of Arnesh Kumar cited supra, the Apex Court has also dealt with Section 41A Cr.P.C. in that perspective alone and made it clear that failure to comply with the directions would attract not only departmental action against the police officer, but, also contempt proceedings. A careful reading of the decision would affirm the same. The relevant portion of the decision clarifying the legal provision is extracted hereunder for ready reference:-
6. The observation of the Apex Court in the above decision with regard to initiation of contempt proceedings apart from departmental action, in case of failure on the part of the Police Officer to comply with the provision under Section 41A Cr.P.C., is only to prevent unnecessary harassment by way of arrest or threat to arrest being caused to the person accused. In the case on hand, the petitioner, by misconstruing the scope of the legal provision as well as the observation of the Apex Court, has filed the Contempt Petition, which is not maintainable. Accordingly, it is dismissed.