1 cp no. 172 of 2009 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 172 OF 2009 K. Sundar Shetty ... Petitioner Versus Shri. Prakash Jadhav and Ors. .. Respondents Mr. M.A. Choudhary i/by Mr. Ram Laxmipalli, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. S.V. Sonawane, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J. DATED : OCTOBER 25, 2010 P.C. 1. This petition is filed alleging non-compliance with the order dated 12.6.2008 passed by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 567 of 2008 by the respondents who are senior Inspector of Police, attached to Bhandup Police station and the Investigating Officer in C.R. No. 63 of 2008 dated 17.2.2008 registered with Bhandup Police Station at the instance of the petitioner. The complaint filed by the Petitioner alleges forgery at the hands of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in respect of the documents pertaining to the Karnataka Yuvaka Mitra 2 cp no. 172 of 2009 Mandali, a trust registered under the Societies Act and also under the Bombay Public Trust Act. 2. The Petitioner had filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 567 of 2008 alleging that the complaint filed by him on 17.2.2008 was not being investigated properly by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. He also wanted the additional charges of forgery to be added to the investigation. The Criminal Writ Petition was disposed off by order dated 12.6.2008 with the observation that having noted that FIR has been registered and the investigation is in progress, there was no reason to doubt that the investigation would not be taken to its logical conclusions. The Division Bench also noted the undertaking of the learned A.P.P. that the investigation will be completed and that the report will be submitted to the competent Court as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a month. 3. On 24.3.2009 the Petitioner filed the present petition alleging that despite order dated 12.6.2008 directing respondent nos. 1 and 2 to file their report within a period of one month from the date of the order, they 3 cp no. 172 of 2009 had not yet submitted any report to the competent Court. In the reply to the petition, respondent nos. 1 and 2 states that the chargesheet has already been filed in the court on 6.10.2008. The respondents have admitted in the reply that there was delay in filing the chargesheet in the Court by almost three months. However, the delay has been explained in Para 7 of the affidavit stating that since the allegations in the complaint were of forgery, respondent no. 2 had sent specimen signatures of the complaint, accused and other two persons along with the disputed documents for the opinion of the handwriting expert. As the report from hand writing expert was not received in time, filing of the chargesheet got delayed. This would show that there is no willful disobedience of the orders of this Court by respondent nos. 1 and 2. In that circumstances, it cannot be said that these respondents have committed contempt of Court. In any case, the allegations in the contempt petition are not about delayed action at the hands of respondent nos. 1 and 2 but of total inaction. This allegation is not correct. The learned counsel for the Petitioner relying upon the communication received from the Information Officer from the office of the Additional Police Commissioner submits that the allegations in the petition that no report has been filed is based on communication 4 cp no. 172 of 2009 dated 27.10.2008 from the Information officer of the office of Additional Police Commissioner. The copy of the letter is at Page 117 which states that the report is being submitted to the Court. The letter, however, states that the investigation into the complaint is complete. In any case, since the delay in filing of the chargesheet is not willful, it cannot be said that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 are guilty of contempt of court. Hence, contempt petition is dismissed. (SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J.)