IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CONTEMPT PETITION (MAIN) NO. 39 OF 2011 MR. SUDIP TAMANKAR AND 3 ORS., ... Petitioners Versus SHRI FRANCIS CORTE, THE POLICE INSPECTOR, OLD GOA POLICE STATION, OLD GOA ... Respondent The petitioner nos. 2 and 3 in person. Shri C. A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for the respondent. Coram:- F. M. REIS, J. Date:- 8th December, 2011 P.C. Heard the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 in person and Shri C. A. Ferreira, learned Pubic Prosecutor for the respondent. 2. The above petition has been filed by the petitioners to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondent as according to them the guidelines framed by the Full Bench of this Court by the judgment dated 8.10.2008 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 271 of 2007 in Writ Petition No. 982 of 2007 along with Criminal Application No. 219 of 2007 in Writ Petition Nos. 982 of 2007 and 2031 of 2007 have not been followed by the respondent. 3. I have heard the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 in person. It is sought to be contended by the petitioners that despite of the said guidelines, the respondent has not registered a FIR within 48 hours as contemplated in the said judgment. It is further pointed out that despite of the directions in the Full Bench judgment, the FIR has not been registered by the respondent. They have further pointed out that this act on the part of the respondent is malafide and in contempt of the directions of this Court. 4. On the other hand, Shri C. A. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor has pointed out that the respondent has filed his reply and in the affidavit at para 7 therein, the respondent has stated that by his communication dated 25.10.2011, within 48 hours from the time of the receipt of the complaint and after conducting the preliminary inquiry, the respondent has informed the petitioners that no cognizable offence has been made out. The learned Public Prosecutor has further pointed out that mere non compliance of the precedent of this Court does not by itself amounts to contempt. 5. Having considered the contentions of both the parties and on perusal of the affidavit filed by the respondent, I find that no case is made out for initiating any contempt proceedings against the respondent under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The remedy, if any, available to the petitioners to challenge the act of the respondent for refusing to register the FIR is always open to the petitioners in accordance with law. It is well settled that the contempt jurisdiction is discretionary. The allegations of the petitioners do not warrant that any contempt of Court proceedings be initiated against the respondent. 6. In view of the above, I find no merit in the above petition which stands dismissed. F. M. REIS, J. at*