Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.5912 of 2011 ====================================================== Shashi Shankar S/O Late Baleshwar Poddar, Proprietor Of S.F. Point At Azad Chowk Town Munger P.O. Munger, P.S. Kotwali, District - Munger .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Mr. P.Kannan S/O Not Known, The Superintendent Of Police, Munger District - Munger .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== For the Petitioner : Mr. Vivekanand Vivek, Advocate. For the opposite parties : Mr. Utsav Kumar, A. C. to S.C. 10 ====================================================== PRESENT: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. HUSSAIN ORDER 13 17-10-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for initiating a proceeding of contempt against the opposite parties for their alleged willful disobedience of order of this Court dated 22.07.2011 by which CWJC No.10040 of 2011 was disposed of with a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Munger (respondent no.5) to consider the application of the petitioner and to decide it by a speaking order within two months thereafter and all the amounts and interest found admitted and payable should be paid to the petitioner immediately thereafter. 3. It transpires that in compliance of the said order, Patna High Court MJC No.5912 of 2011 (13) dt.17-10-2012 - 2 - the petitioner filed his application before the said authority on 05.08.2011, whereafter on 30.08.2011 an F.I.R. bearing Munger sadar Kotwali P.S. Case No.314 of 2011 was instituted against the petitioner for offences punishable under [STATUTE] . 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authorities in stead of deciding the application of the petitioner as per direction of this Court took retaliatory measures by filing criminal case against the petitioner. 5. From the records of the case it transpires that two show causes have been filed by the opposite parties on 11.04.2012 and 04.07.2012 and in the first one order dated 01.04.2012 has been annexed as Annexure-E which is the order of the Superintendent of Police considering the application of the petitioner in the light of the order of this Court. Thereafter also the said matter was considered on 24.06.2012 by the said authority which passed its order which is Annexure-M to the subsequent show cause. 6. In the said circumstances by passing the said order, the said authority has complied the order of this Court although a bit belatedly, but for the delay caused, the authority concerned had tendered its unqualified and unconditional Patna High Court MJC No.5912 of 2011 (13) dt.17-10-2012 - 3 - apology. Hence, the said order of this Court has been complied and there is no contempt of the said order. 7. However, the petitioner has challenged the orders of the authorities stating that they were illegal and against the records of the case merely due to retaliation. The said order may be good, bad or indifferent, but this Court cannot consider the illegality or otherwise of the said order which is beyond its contempt jurisdiction. However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the said order before an appropriate forum and liberty for the same has already been provided in order dated 22.07.2011 passed in CWJC No.10040 of 2011. 8. So far lodging of FIR is concerned, that is a separate matter and if such FIR is absolutely frivolous and misconceived, the petitioner will be at liberty to take steps as provided in law for challenging the FIRs in criminal proceedings. They cannot be considered in this M.J.C. 9. Accordingly, the MJC petition stands disposed of. Sunil/- (S.N. Hussain, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 468

Statute Text:
Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code. Forgery for the purpose of cheating. Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.