1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 160/2009 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2786/2008 Sandeep Suresh Aloni ..versus.. Shri Murlidhar N. Gedam and another =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-== Shri A.A.Naik, Counsel for Petitioner. Shri A.D.Sonak, AGP, for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 C ORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 7th JUNE, 2010. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGP for the alleged contemnor. In Criminal Application No. 2786/2008, by an order dated 4th February, 2009, the Police Station Officer, Wani, Distt. Yavatmal, was directed not to file the chargesheet without leave of the Court. The position was clarified by the subsequent order dated 7.7.2009, authorizing the Investigating Officer to take necessary steps to complete the investigation within the parameters imposed by the order dated 4.2.2009 and to appraise the Court within six weeks. 2 It is a matter of record, the Investigating Officer was prevented from filing the charge sheet without leave of the Court. However, in spite of such orders in prevalence, a notice dated 23rd August, 2009, was served upon the petitioner and it also demonstrate that the chargesheet was filed against the petitioner before the competent Court. The above fact illustrate the high handed action of the Investigating Officer. The position is sought to be clarified in the affidavit in reply by him, stating that he was ill informed by the learned AGP about filing or non- filing of the chargesheet. Fortunately, he did not name the learned AGP who advised him on the wrong track, in spite of there being order dated 4th February, 2009, not to do so. From the tenor of entire affidavit/reply, the situation that emerge is, there is no deliberate attempt to flout the direction of the Court on the part of the Investigating Officer. The fact remains, for no reasons there was a mental stress to the petitioner as he was equipped with the order dated 4th February, 2009, directing the Police Station Officer not to file the chargesheet, still faced the brunt of the chargesheet and the consequential application before the learned Judge. 3 Taking stock of all the facts, the conduct of the Police Officer needs to be condemned. He clearly appears to be in contempt. However, the approach being not willful and deliberate, warrants for leniency. In the result, with reprimand to the contemnor, the contempt petition is disposed of. (K.U.Chandiwal) JUDGE. Rvjalit