1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Revision Application No. 254 of 2009 . Daisy Damania .. Applicant/ Petitioner v/s. PSI B.S.Mahadik & Others ..Respondents Applicant in person. Mr.R.B.Paranjpe i/b.J.D.Khairnar for the respondent nos.1 and 1(a) Mrs.V.R.Bhosale for the State CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATED : 13th November, 2009 P.C. : 1. A Criminal complaint being C.C.No.37/Misc/2004 was instituted by the petitioner in the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai against two persons by name Ashwin Mehta and Govind Gupta. In the said complaint the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had passed an order on 7.7.2005 granting permission to 2 prosecute the present petitioner. The petitioner filed Criminal Revision Application No.986 of 2005 in the Sessions Court at Bombay. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, on 22.11.2006 passed an interim order staying the order dated 7.7.2005 “to the extent premission granted to prosecute the complainant.” Despite this order the respondent nos.1 and 1(a) herein are alleged to have proceeded to carry out investigation and filed chargehseet in the court of learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. It led to the arrest of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the police officers committed criminal contempt and therefore she filed Misc. Application No. 1152 of 2007 in the disposed of Revision Application No.986 of 2005 in the Sessions Court at Bombay and prayed for initiating action against the two officers under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereafter referred to as “the said Act”), so as to make a reference to this Court for initiating proceedings for criminal contempt. 2. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, by his order dated 4.4.2009 accepted the contention of the petitioner that the police officer by name Mr.Mahadik i.e. the respondent no.1 herein acted in brech of the stay order and has committed civil contempt as per Section 2(b) of the said Act. He ordered that reference be made to the High Court against the Police 3 Inspector Mr.B.S.Mahadik for appropriate action. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by this order dated 4.4.2009 to the extent that the reference has been made for Civil Contempt and not for Criminal Contempt. We have extensively heard the petitioner as well as the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondents, at the stage of admission of this Criminal Revision Application. The petitioner in person, had relied upon the following two judgments (i) Ratan Chandra Sharma v. Sheetal Sharma reported in 2003 Cri.L.J.746 and (ii) Kapol Co-op. Bank Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra 2005(1) Mh.LJ 257, which shall be referred to while dealing with the arguments. 4. It was sought to be argued before this Court that the Police Officers filed chargesheet violating order dated 22.11.2006 and that caused prejudice to the petitioner and that is how the contempt is committed. 5. The definition of civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Act relates to cases where there is wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of the Court. The said definition does not distinguish between the acts alleged in Civil Case or Criminal Case. In 4 the present case it is the stand of the petitioner that the officers violated the orders passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, in criminal proceedings and therefore, the reference ought to have been made for criminal contempt as defined under Section 2(c) of the Act. 6. Having gone through the impugned order we hold that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that the acts alleged against the police officer Mr. Mahadik amounted to Civil Contempt. The police officer is alleged to have acted in contravention of the order dated 22.11.2006 hence it would be a case of Civil Contempt. 7. The stand of the petitioner that the police officers committed Criminal Contempt cannot be accepted. The facts alleged in the present case do not fall within the definition Criminal Contempt defined in Section 2(c) of the said Act. The arguments that alleged acts caused prejudice to the petitioner cannot be accepted and as such no case for Criminal Contempt is made out. The two judgments referred to above would not be applicable to this case as we have held that no case for Criminal Contempt is made out. 8. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has delivered a proper judgment, 5 and we see no reason to interfere in the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The revision is accordingly dismissed. [R.Y.GANOO, J.] [B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.]