Crl.O.C.P. No. 22 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.O.C.P. No. 22 of 2005 Date of Decision:- 15.7.2011 Avinash Narang .....Petitioner Versus Shri Manwinder Singh .....Respondent CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present:- Mr. Baltej Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. **** SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for initiating contempt proceedings against respondent and for punishing him for the criminal contempt for making false statement before the Court. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the petition and the reply filed by respondent. It has been alleged that anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was got disposed of vide order dated 15.2.2003 on the statement of the official incharge of Police Station City Abohar, District Ferozepur, that no case has been registered against the petitioner nor he was required in connection of any case. Thereafter petitioner filed another application for pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 271 dated 17.10.2002 in the Courts of Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, which was allowed on the ground that identity of the applicant in this case is yet to be established and on previous occasion a Crl.O.C.P. No. 22 of 2005 2 statement was made that no case was pending against him. Subsequently when the petitioner again apprehended his arrest in a case he moved another application for anticipatory bail in this Hon'ble Court for grant of pre-arrest bail. In that case a statement was made by the police that the petitioner was not required in any case except in FIR No. 271 dated 17.9.2002 and this Court disposed of the petition as the same having been infructuous with the observation that in case the petitioner is to be arrested in any case except the aforesaid case then he will be given 7 days prior notice. Now the petitioner alleged that when previously the bail application was got disposed of a wrong statement was made and the factum of FIR No. 271 dated 17.9.2002 was not disclosed. Before filing the instant petition the petitioner approached the Advocate General Punjab who after hearing the petitioner did not recommended for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent after coming to the conclusion that the official did not made the aforesaid statement intentionally. In the reply the respondent has stated that the respondent did not made any statement before the Court rather the statement was made by some other police official. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the contents of the petition and keeping in view the fact of the case, we are not inclined to initiate the contempt proceedings against petitioner on the aforesaid matter. In our opinion, the said statement might have been under wrong impression as the person who was assisting the Public Prosecutor might not be aware about the pendency of that case. Merely on such inadvertent mistake it is not desirable to initiate contempt proceedings Crl.O.C.P. No. 22 of 2005 3 against the respondent. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE 15.7.2011 ( A.N. JINDAL ) reema JUDGE