COCP.No.2061 of 2010 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP.No.2061 of 2010 Date of decision: 09.2.2011 Harpal Singh ….Petitioner Vs. Gurdial Singh and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Simranjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. S.S.Sahu, AAG, Punjab for respondent No.3. Jaswant Singh, J Petitioner-Complainant has filed the present contempt petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short “Act of 1971”) against the respondents for wilfully and intentionally disobeying the order dated 30.8.2010 (P.1) and order dated 29.9.2010 (P.3) passed by this Court in Crl.M.No.25258-M of 2010. Respondent No.1-accused filed a petition bearing Crl.M.No.25258-M of 2010 under Section 438 Cr.P.C for grant of pre- arrest bail in case FIR No.150 dated 24.7.2010 registered at P.S City Gurdaspur under Sections 420/120-B IPC, which came up for hearing on 30.8.2010 and this Court while issuing notice of motion for 29.9.2010 ordered that in the event of his arrest, respondent No.1 be admitted to interim bail subject to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. On 29.9.2010, learned state counsel assisted by ASI Baldev COCP.No.2061 of 2010 #2# Singh-respondent No.3 stated that in terms of order dated 30.8.2010, the petitioner (respondent No.1 herein) had joined investigation and in view of this, the interim bail granted to the petitioner (respondent No.1 herein) vide order dated 30.8.2010 was made absolute and the petition was disposed of. The petitioner-complainant has filed the present contempt petition by alleging that respondent No.1 through his counsel gave an undertaking that he along with respondent No.2-Jaswant Kaur Pabla is ready to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner-complainant and keeping in view the same, the interim bail was granted to respondent No.1 by this Court vide order dated 30.8.2010 (P.1) and subsequently the same was confirmed vide order dated 29.9.2010 (P.3). Thereafter, on 5.10.2010, the petitioner through his counsel sent a legal notice to respondent No.1 to execute the sale deed in compliance of the order passed by this Court but he refused to accept the legal notice and the petitioner has also got served a copy of the legal notice upon respondent No.3 also but no action has been taken, hence the present contempt petition. Notice to show cause as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated was issued to the respondents. Service of respondent No.2 could not be effected as the office report reveals that she is stated to be residing abroad. Reply on behalf of respondent No.3-Baldev Singh ASI has been filed by way of his affidavit dated 3.1.2011 inter alia submitting that vide order dated 30.8.2010 the respondent No.1 was granted interim bail and as per the direction of this Court, he joined investigation and on 29.9.2010, the factum of joining investigation by respondent No.1 was conveyed to this Court through State counsel. It is further submitted that COCP.No.2061 of 2010 #3# there is no direction to the answering respondents for getting the sale deed executed from respondent No.1 in favour of the petitioner and he is unnecessarily being dragged in the contempt petition. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book, this court is not inclined to accept the submissions of the petitioner. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to reproduce the order dated 30.8.2010 passed by this Court, which reads as under: “Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is having the power of attorney executed by Smt Jaswant Kaur Pabla in his favour. Petitioner is ready to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant. Smt Jaswant Kaur Pabla is also ready to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant. Notice of motion for 29.9.2010. In the meantime, in the event of arrest, the petitioner be admitted to interim bail subject to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. He shall abide by the conditions envisaged under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At this stage, Mr. Simranjit Singh, Advocate appears on behalf of the complainant.” Thereafter, on 29.9.2010, learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Baldev Singh-respondent No.3 submitted that in terms of the order dated 30.8.2010, petitioner-respondent No.1 herein has joined investigation and accordingly the interim bail granted on 30.8.2010 was made absolute. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that despite the undertaking before this Court and after issuance of legal notice dated 5.10.2005 (P.4), respondent No.1 has not executed the sale deed in COCP.No.2061 of 2010 #4# favour of the petitioner and as such for committing the contempt of court he is liable to be proceeded under the Contempt of Court Act is not acceptable. The operative part of the legal notice sent on behalf of the petitioner reads as under: “I hereby call upon you through this notice to execute the sale deed in favour of my client within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this legal notice and regarding the same, the date, time and place be informed to my client, failing which my client will initiate legal proceedings like contempt of court, cancellation of bail and forfeit of surety bond and penal proceeding for giving false evidence will also initiate against you in the competent court of law.” A perusal of the relevant part of legal notice issued on behalf of the petitioner reveals that respondent No.1 was asked to execute the sale deed within a period of 15 days, failing which it was made clear to respondent No.1 that legal proceedings will be initiated for committing the contempt of Court as well as for cancellation of bail and for forfeiture of surety bonds along with proceedings for giving false evidence. The initiation of contempt proceedings is a matter between Court and the contemner. Neither any one can claim it as a matter of right nor can force the court to initiate the contempt proceedings rather this should have been the last resort in the absence of any other appropriate recourse available to the aggrieved party. Undisputedly, in the present case as alleged in the legal notice itself, the petitioner had the alternative efficacious remedy for redressal of his grievance to apply for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.1 by this Court instead of filing the present contempt petition. Moreover, non-execution of sale deed by respondent No.1 in COCP.No.2061 of 2010 #5# favour of the present petitioner is a dispute of civil nature and can be pursued before the appropriate court but at least in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, is not a ground to initiate the contempt proceedings. Needless to say that in case the petitioner, if so advised, files a petition for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.1, the same shall be considered on merits without being influenced by the observations made by this Court. In view of the foregoing discussion, present petition is dismissed and the rule is discharged. February 09, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE