IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.488 of 2008 DR.GAGANDEO NARAIN SINGH SON OF LATE MANGNU PRASAD SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DUMARI KALA,P.S.MAJORGANJ, DISTRICT SITAMARHI AT PRESENT RESIDENT OF DOCTOR’S COLONY, LAHERIASARAI,P.S.LAHERIASARAI,DISTRICT DARBHANGA ----- PETITIONER Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.COLONEL(RETD.)BIKRAMADITYA SINGH SON OF LATE RAM CHANDER SINGH,RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DUBAULIA,P.S.RAMGARHWA,DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN, AT PRESENT RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.40,SECTOR 29, BRAHMAPUTRA APPARTMENT, GAUTAM BIDDHA NAGAR, NOIDA (UTTAR PRADESH) --- OPP.PARTIES/RESPONDENTS ----- For the petitioner : Mr.Suraj Narain Pd.Sinha,Sr.Advocate For the State : Mr.Lalit Kishore, AAG3 For Opp.Party.no.2 : Mr.Bindhya Keshri Prasad,Sr.Advocate ----------- 07/ 21.07.2010 The petitioner has filed this petition for initiation of a contempt proceeding and awarding suitable punishment to contemnor, respondent no.2 Colonel (Retd.) Bikramadiya Singh, for his willful and deliberate disobedience/violation of the order dated 22.3.2007 and its modified order dated 13.7.2007 passed in Cr.W.J.C.No. 367 of 2002. The brief facts of the present application is that the petitioner and respondent no.2 are close relatives. Respondent no.2 was allotted a plot in Delhi in the capacity of an Army Officer and as he had no sufficient money to purchase the said plot, he requested the petitioner to share in the purchase on the terms that in future either 2 party shall retain the same by paying amount of the other party. With that understanding, the petitioner Dr.Gagandeo Narain Singh paid a sum of Rs.2,65,000/- to enable respondent no.2 to acquire the said plot. Later on when the petitioner demanded his share in the plot acquired by respondent no.2 or to repay the amount to him, respondent no.2 proposed to give a Flat at Patna which was allotted to him by Bihar State Housing Board. On being agreed by the parties, an agreement was entered in between the petitioner and respondent no.2 on 7.10.1994 whereby respondent no.2 agreed to sell his Flat of Housing Board at Patna bearing Flat No. 3 SFA-1/13 for a consideration of Rs.2,20,000/- which was the rate prevailing in the year 1994 and he issued a cheque on 11.5.1995 for repaying the balance amount of Rs.45,000/- payable at Central Bank of India, Beta Chow Branch, Laheriasarai, Darbhanga. The cheque was presented by the petitioner but it returned unpaid due to insufficient fund and on information respondent no.2 failed to pay the amount covered under the cheque. Thereafter the petitioner filed a complaint Case under 3 Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act vide Complaint Case No. 397 of 1995 against respondent no.2 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga in which cognizance was taken on 30th June,1995. Thereafter respondent no.2 filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vide Cr.Misc.No. 1189 of 1997. In that case, the petitioner appeared before this Court and respondent no.2 paid the amount covered under the dishonored cheque. He voluntarily agreed to honour the agreement dated 7.10.1994 before this Court and said C.Misc.Case was disposed of by order dated 12.8.1997. Respondent no.2 also paid Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner through draft as registration cost. The petitioner was put in possession of Flat of Housing Board with an agreement to sell the Flat bearing Flat No. 3 SFA-1/13 situated at Bahadurpur Housing Colony, Patna. The petitioner kept his man as care taker but respondent no.2 started evading to execute the deed of sale in favour of the petitioner after obtaining permission from Bihar State Housing Board and on the other hand, he forcefully disposed of the care taker 4 of the petitioner. When the petitioner knew that respondent no.2 in collusion with care taker has taken possession of the said Flat, he filed a complaint Vide Complaint Case No. 350 (c)2002 before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna City which was forwarded to Agamkuan police station for institution of a case. Since the petitioner had no remedy, he filed Cr.W.J.C.No. 367 of 2003 before this Court which was listed and after hearing the parties, the same was disposed of on 22.3.2007 vide annexure-2. Thereafter, when some corrections/modifications were required, the matter was brought to the notice of the court and in presence of the parties, certain modification was made but respondent no.2 sat tight over the matter and again evaded in execution of the sale deed. Respondent no.2 has not even paid ‘Labhans’ and dues required for grant of permission to enable him to transfer of the Flat in question and thus respondent no.2 has disobeyed the order of this Court. Hence the petitioner has filed this petition for punishing respondent no.2 through process of the Court. 5 After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that on 12.8.1997 this Court has disposed of Cr.Misc.No. 1189 of 1997 because it was jointly submitted by the parties that good relationship has been restored between them. Later on, on some technical ground, some modifications/corrections were sought for which were made. Learned counsel is aggrieved that despite order passed in presence of the parties, opposite party no.2 is disobeying the complete order, so he is liable to be punished for contempt. From simple narrations of the fact of the case, it is apparent that the parties are closely related and they were having some dispute with regard to their civil rights. For that, criminal cases were also filed. This Court, on bona fide submissions of both the parties, has disposed of the writ petition because both wanted to settle it when the matter was taken up. Thereafter, the parties have raised grievances against each other that they are not complying the order of this Court. The order was passed upon the consent of the parties. From the facts it appears that 6 the case relates to adjudication of the dispute regarding payment of money or regarding execution of sale deed. Such matters deserve thrashing out by a competent civil court. This cannot be done through a criminal prosecution. The plea of the petitioner, in my opinion, does not make out a case for initiation of contempt proceeding against Opposite Party no.2 as according to him, the petitioner is also not complying with the agreement as was entered between the parties. All these matters are not within the purview of contempt of courts Act. Hence, I am of the opinion that no order is required to be passed. This M.J.C. application thus stands dismissed. However, the parties shall be at liberty to take remedy to any other court for settlement of their dispute. Tahir/- ( Shyam Kishore Sharma, J. )