IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Contempt Petition No. 249 of 2006 Dinesh Chandra Bahuguna S/o late Narain Dutt Bahuguna R/o Village Bhandai, Patti chalansyun, Post Pokhari, Tehsil Srinagar, District Pauri Garhwal. …………. Petitioner Versus Mr. Darshan Lal Chitran Deputy Superintendent of Police Circle Pauri, District Pauri Garhwal. ……………. Respondent Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, Brief Holder for the State. Hon’ble P.C. Pant, J. Heard. 2) This contempt petition has been filed complaining disobedience of this Court’s order dated 2nd September, 2005, passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 555 of 2005 (under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.) staying the operation of the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal to investigate the crime. The order of which disobedience is complained, reads as under: “Heard learned counsel for the applicants. It has been contended that the F.I.R. has not been recorded so far in pursuance of the order of the lower court. In support of this contention the applicants have filed the supplementary affidavit today in this court. If the F.I.R. has not been recorded the order passed by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. can be challenged under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was contended that the direction has been issued to the patwari of another area to which the jurisdiction of the case does not relate. The report of the patwari dated 26.02.2005 annexure 2 to this petition clearly states that the area where the incident took place does not fall within the Revenue Police circle, it pertains to police station Srinagar. The Magistrate is empowered only to direct the Station Incharge of the Police Station / Patwari (In- charge of the Revenue Post) in whose area the commission of the offence has been committed. Admit. Learned A.G.A. has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent No. 1. Issue notice to the respondent No. 2, who shall file counter affidavit within a period of four weeks. List thereafter. Till the next date of listing, operation of the order dated 11.08.2005 passed by the Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal and order dated 28.02.2005 passed by the C.J.M. Pauri Garhwal in Criminal Case No. 8/2005, shall remain stayed.” The above order makes it clear that the court has stayed the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate directing the Patwari to investigate the crime. It nowhere bars regular police from investigating the crime. 3) In view of the above fact, this contempt petition is misconceived. The same is dismissed in limine. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.: 23rd August, 2006 H. Negi