1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Contempt Petition No. 6/2009 (Balkrishna Ganesh Khataokar VERSUS A.L. Gujar) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri J.S. Kalbande, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 11, 2009. By the instant petition, the petitioner seeks action against the respondent, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Nagpur, for deliberately and willfully flouting the orders passed by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.740/2004 on 25.10.2005. Prima-facie, it appears that the proceedings for contempt cannot be initiated against the respondent as the order was passed in Criminal Writ Petition No.740/2004 on 25.10.2005 and more than three years have lapsed from the passing of the same. It appears from the perusal of the order dated 25.10.2005 that the District & Sessions Judge, Nagpur was directed to consider the pendency of the 2 summary reports and issue necessary administrative orders and directions for the expeditious disposal of the summaries in accordance with the directions given by the Court in yet another writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.415/2003. It is then stated in the order that the Summary Report in case of the petitioner is filed by the Police and it would be open for the petitioner to object to the same and contest the matter in the Court. Thus, it is apparent from a reading of the order dated 25.10.2005 that no direction whatsoever is issued to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Nagpur to perform any particular act within a particular time frame. The learned District & Sessions Judge, Nagpur was merely asked to consider the pendency of Summary Reports in the Courts of Judicial Magistrate First Class and issue necessary administrative orders in that regard. The order 3 further granted liberty to the petitioner to object to the Summary Report and contest the matter in the Court. No case is made out for initiating any action against the respondents for committing contempt of Court under the provisions of the Act of 1971. The contempt petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE