IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2010 / 24TH JYAISTHA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 169 of 2010(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.902/2010 Dated 12/01/2010 .................... PETITIONER(S): 2ND PETITIONER ----------------------------- SALILA KUMARI, AGED 49 YEARS, W/O.RAGAHAVAN, PALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MEMURY, PO, MANJOOR, DIST.KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM RESPONDENT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT ----------------------------- K.N.ANIRUDHAN, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNWON TO THE PETITIONER, THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADUTHURUTHY CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM DIST. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.MEERA THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.CHELAMESWAR, C.J. & P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Cont. Case (C)No.169 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Ravindran, J. The petitioner along with her husband, son and mother- in-law filed W.P.(C)No.902 of 2010 in this Court seeking police protection for the construction of a residential house. The cause of action for filing the said writ petition was the obstruction caused by the party respondents in the said writ petition to the construction of the residential building. In that writ petition, a Division Bench of this Court passed the following interim order: “Notice before admission to respondents 4 to 8. In the meantime, learned Government Pleader will get instructions on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. There will be an interim direction to the 2nd respondent to maintain law and order.” This contempt case is filed alleging that the respondent herein who was the Circle Inspector of Police, Kaduthuruthy Circle till 2.2.2010 has failed to comply with the said order. It is alleged that notwithstanding the interim order passed by this Court, the respondent did not take steps to maintain law and order as a result of which, the party respondents in W.P.(C)No.902 of 2010 and their COC.No.169/2010 2 hired goondas attacked the petitioner and others at 5.30 p.m. on 15.1.2010. On this ground, the petitioner prays that proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 may be initiated against the respondent. 2. Sri.K.V.Vijayakumar, the Circle Inspector of Police, Kaduthuruthy since 2.2.2010 has sworn to an affidavit dated 27.2.2010. In paragraph 1 thereof it is stated that when he came to know of the incident that took place on 15.1.2010, Crime No.92/2010 was registered and that it is being investigated. In paragraph 3 of the said affidavit it is stated that O.S.No.279 of 2009 filed by the petitioner in the Munsiff Court, Vaikom is pending regarding the right of way claimed by the party respondents in W.P.(C)No.902 of 2010. It is further stated that there is a dispute between the parties as regards the land to be surrendered for widening a pathway and that the petitioner is constructing a new house after demolishing the old one. He also stated that the disputed land is about 6 Kms. away from the police station, that the petitioner is residing about one kilometre away from the disputed land, that patrolling is done everyday, that no incident has happened after 15.1.2010 and that the construction of the house is going on smoothly. COC.No.169/2010 3 3. Sri.K.N.Anirudhan, the respondent who was the Circle Inspector of Police, Kaduthuruty Police Station till 2.2.2010 has sworn to an affidavit dated 1.6.2010. He has stated that upon receipt of Annexure 15 telegram from the petitioner it was forwarded to the Sub Inspector of Police, Kaduthuruthy for urgent action, that though efforts were made to record the petitioner's statement, the Police could not succeed as she was not available for recording her statement. The respondent has also stated that on 12.1.2010, the day on which Annexure 14 interim order was passed, Crime No.30/10 of Kaduthuruthy Police Station was registered against the petitioner's sons for the offences punishable under section 323, 451, 294(b) and 506 (iii) of the Indian Penal Code. The deponent has also stated that the petitioner and her children are staying away with a view to avoid arrest in connection with the said crime. 4. We have gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. In our opinion, apart from merely alleging that the respondent has failed to maintain law and order, the petitioner has not produced any cogent material to show that the respondent who was the Circle Inspector of Kaduthuruthy till 2.2.2010, that is for a period of 20 days from the date of Annexure 14 order has willfully failed to obey the directions issued by this Court. Further, the COC.No.169/2010 4 direction issued by this Court was to maintain law and order. If a group of persons have violated the law and committed an illegal act or offence, the respondent cannot in our opinion be held liable to be proceeded against under the Contempt of Courts Act. In our opinion, the attempt of the petitioner appears to be to put pressure on the Police officers with a view to ensure that her sons who are the accused in Crime No.30/10 of Kaduthuruthy Police Station are not arrested. In our opinion, this contempt case is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. We accordingly hold that no grounds have been made out to initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act against the respondent. The Contempt of Court Case fails and is accordingly dismissed. J.CHELAMESWAR Chief Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge TKS