1 CP-285-286-09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 285 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 433 OF 2009 Prakash Raghunath Shenai ... Petitioner (Orig. Respondent No.2) vs. Mr. S.Sujatan Sukumaran ... Respondent (Orig. Applicant) WITH CONTEMPT PETITIN NO. 286 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATINO NO. 434 OF 2009 Prakash Raghunath Shenai ... Petitioner vs. S. Subhash Unni ... Respondent Mr. Prakash Raghunath, petitioner in person present in Court. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 28th July, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard the petitioner in person. None for the respondents. Perused the record. 2 CP-285-286-09.sxw 2. The present petitioner had filed criminal cases against the respondents in these two matters. He also moved an application before the trial Court i.e. learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 31st Court, Vikhroli, to seize the passport of the respondent on the ground hat the respondent-accused were not attending the Court in the criminal cases. That application was rejected by the learned Magistrate. Against that order, the petitioner had filed Revision Application before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court allowed that revision application, set aside the order of the Magistrate and directed the Passport Authorities to start process for seizure of the passport. The order passed by the sessions Court was challenged by the respondents in Criminal Case Nos. 433/2009 and 434/2009 before this Court. By similar order dated 3.2.2009 in both the Criminal Applications, this Court granted ad-interim relief in favour of the respondents in view of the provisions of Section 6 of the Passport Act and directed the respondents to file an undertaking that they shall attend the future dates in the trial Court. The undertakings were given. According to the petitioner, inspite of giving undertaking, the respondents did not appear. If they failed to comply with the directions of the Court to attend the trial Court, the ad-interim relief could have been vacated. The petitioner states that the Criminal Applications have been rejected by this Court. As a result of that, the ad-interim relief granted to the 3 CP-285-286-09.sxw respondents also stands vacated. Naturally, the undertaking was sought as a condition for the ad-interim relief which is no more in existence now. As the Criminal Applications are already rejected, the remedy of the petitioner would be to pursue the matter with the Passport Authorities to comply with the orders passed by the Sessions Court in the Revision Applications and not by filing a contempt petition. Therefore, in my opinion, these are not the fit cases to take any action for contempt of the Court. 3. Therefore, both the petitions stand dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the matter with the Passport Authorities. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)