1 Or. Criminal MIS No.22 OF 1996 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Court Act. - - - - FAKHRUDDIN son of Wazir Mian, Village Nawada of Paraswani, P.S. Uchka Goan, District Gopalganj … … . … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Mr. Jai Narayan Sharma, C.J.M., Hajipur, Vaishali 3. Sri V.C.Verma, Superintendent of Police, Hajipur, Vaishali 4. Sri Ranjit Pd.Singh, Sub-divisional Police Officer, Hajipur,Vaishali 5. Sri Umesh Prasad Singh, Officer-In-charge, Police Station Hajipur Sadar 6. Informant Upendra Kumar Singh, son of Sukhdeo Nr. Singh, resident of Village Madhopur, Mahipura, P.S.Bedaha, District Vaishali 7. Sri Pravin Kumar Upadhya, son of Sri Deep Nr. Upadhya, resident of Mohalla Medni Mal, P.S. Hajipur, District Vaishali 8. A.S.I.Sri Niwas Yadav, Ganga Bridge Police Station, Hajipur 9. A.S.I. Sri Balmiki Singh, Ganga Bridge Police Station, Hajipur 10. Sri Prakash Singh, S.I. of Police, I/C, Ganga Bridge Police Station, Hajipur … … Contemnors. With CR. WJC No.767 of 1996 - - - - In the matter of an application Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - - - - PRAVIN KUMAR UPADHYA son of Sri Dip Narayan Upadhya, resident of Mohalla Madanimal P.S. Hajipur Town, District Vaishali … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Superintendent of Police, Vaishali 3. The Officer-in-charge, Ganga Bridge Police Station, Hajipur 4. Fakhruddin son of Wazir Mian, resident of village Nawada of Paraswani, P.S. Uchka Gaon, District Gopalganj 5. Md. Nabi son of Md. Israil, resident of village Manappura, District Siwan 2 6. Lal Babu son of Md. Mukhtar resident of Chhaju Mohalla P.S. Biharsharif, District Nalanda 7. Zakirul Haque, son of Md. Israil, resident of village Jalalpur, P.S. Mah, District Chapra 8. Abdul Haque son of Bakridi Mian, resident of Village Behra, P.S. Bikram, District East Champaran … … Resdpondents For the petitioners : Shri Aruni Singh, A.C. ( in both the cases) - - - - P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARNIDHAR JHA - - - - Dharnidhar Jha, J.- These two petitions were directed to be heard together on account of the cases being concerned with the orders of release passed either by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur or by this Court and which orders were confirmed by the Supreme Court in S.L.P.(Cri.) No.3281-3282 of 1996 by orders passed on 27.1.1997. 2. Brief facts of the case are that two loaded trucks, with oxen, were intercepted by one Upendra Kumar Singh and he handed over the trucks-load of cattle with a report to the Officer-in-charge of Ganga Bridge Police Station, Hajipur, namely, S.I. Umesh Prasad Singh who has been impleaded by his official designation as respondent no. 3 in the original writ petition. On that basis Hajipur Sadar P.S.Case No. 80 of 1996 was registered. There is no dispute in the fact that the claim in respect of the cattles was made by respondent no.4 3 Fakhruddin by filing a petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur for releasing the seized cattles in his favour. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaaishali at Hajipur initially rejected the prayer by order dated 15.4.1996 but, ultimately, the order directing release of the same to the petitioner by making payment of Rs. 10/- as cost of maintenance per cattle was passed on 31.5.1996. But, on account of a criminal revision petition being filed by said Upendra Kumar Singh, an order of stay was passed which, ultimately, caused filing of Cr. Misc. No. 8581 of 1996 by respondent Fakhruddin before this Court and this Court by order dated 4.6.1996 directed the cattles to be released on term as was directed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur by vacating the order of stay passed in Cr. revision petition. 3. A modification petition was filed by the present petitioner Pravin Kumar Upadhya, who had been allegedly handed over the custody of the cattles on Jimmanama in Cr. Misc. No. 8581 of 1996 stating that some interest of his was also involving as he was handed over the cattle on jimanama and he was required to get the maintenance at some higher rate. That modification 4 was disallowed by this court by order dated 31.7.1996 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 8581 of 1996 noting that the rejection of modification will not stand in the way of the person to whom the cattles were given in Jimanama to pursue the remedy in accordance with law. 4. It appears that other criminal petitions were also preferred which appear enlisted in order dated 31.3.1997 in Original Cr. Misc. No. 22 of 1996 and those petitions were also directed to be tagged with the record of the original Cr. Misc. No. 22 of 1996 which were to be heard along with the present criminal writ petition. The orders of release of the cattle as also on the modification of the release order passed by this Court were of the same import. 5. Subsequently, the present criminal writ petition was filed by petitioner Pravin Kumar Upadhya, respondent no.7 in original Cr. Misc. No. 22 of 1996. The above noted Cr. Misc. was initiated on the petition of the petitioner of Cr. Misc. No. 8581 of 1996, namely, Fakhruddin who prayed for initiation of contempt action against the Officer-in-charge of Hajipur Sadar Police Station, because he was disobeying not only the orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hajipur 5 but that of this Court also which was duly communicated to him by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hajipur directing him to release the seized cattles to the petitioner Fakhruddin. In due course of hearing it was pointed out that some more persons were necessary to be impleaded as parties and those persons were impleaded. This Court is not concerned with the original criminal miscellaneous petition because that is in context to another issue and that issue is for violation of this Court’s order dated 4.6.1996 and 317.1996 directing release of the cattle to Fakhurddin. 6. As regards the Cr.W.J.C. No. 767 of 1996 which seeks quashing of the orders passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur directing the release of the cattles to Fakhruddin, I have already noticed the facts which are contained in judicial orders either passed at the Orders of this Court by the Chief Judicial Magistrate or by this Court itself including the orders of the Apex Court in the above noted S.L.P. by which all the orders passed by this Court or the court below were confirmed and it was directed that the release orders should be implemented without any loss of time. 6 7. In that view of the matter, there could not be any scope for interference with any orders because those orders have attained finality on account of having been confirmed in S.L.A(Crl.) 3229-3230 of 1996 by the Apex Court by order dated 27.1.1997. 8. In the above view of the matter, Cr.W.J.C.No.767 of 1996 is dismissed as of no consequence and as of no merit. 9. As regards Original Cr. Miscellaneous No.22 of 1996, the Court has appointed Shri Aruni Singh as Amicus Curiae to assist it as counsel who were appearing on behalf of the contemnors or the respondents continued not to appear and one of the counsel Shri Teg Bahadur Singh has now demised. No one is appearing in spite of the case being listed since many dates. I have heard Shri Aruni Singh, in part. 10. List Or.Cr. Misc. No. 22 of 1996 for further hearing on 18.4.2011. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.) Patna High Court The 13th April, 2011 Kanth/N.A.F.R.