ash 1 cp-362.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLTE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.362 OF 2011 Mr. Sudhakar Bhojaya Shetty. .. Petitioner Vs Mr. Pravin Dikshit, The Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai -32. .. Respondent -- Shri S.A. Tawate for the Petitioner. Shri A.R. Patil, AGP for the Respondent No.5. -- CORAM : A.S. OKA, J DATED : 21ST DECEMBER, 2011 P.C. . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. The breach alleged is of Clauses 3 and 4 of the order of the Division Bench dated 5th October, 2010. Clauses (3) and (4) read thus: “3. Hence this petition succeeds with direction to the Assistant Commissioner of Police having jurisdiction in respect of the area in which the offence has been committed to register the FIR and proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 4. Copy of this order be forwarded to the Secretary, Home Department for taking appropriate action against the Senior Police Inspector who failed to register the FIR in spite of the fact that the written complaint disclosed cognizable offence.” ash 2 cp-362.11 2. I have perused the affidavit-in-reply of Shri P. M. Malvadkar, Joint Secretary, Home Department, Government of Maharashtra. In Paragraph 5 of the said affidavit dated 15th December, 2011, it is stated that the FIR was registered on 20th October, 2010. It is stated that a show cause notice has been issued on 9th December, 2011 to the concerned officer of the police calling upon him to show cause as to why an action should not be initiated against him. 3. Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that the action is initiated belatedly. His second submission is that the show cause notice has been issued by treating the misconduct of the Officer as a minor misconduct for which a nominal punishment has been proposed. He submitted that the misconduct on the part of the concerned officer is of a very serious nature and, therefore, issuing him the notice dated 9th December, 2011 does not amount to compliance of the order of this Court. 4. I have considered the submissions. Clause (3) of the order has been complied with within a period of 15 days from the date of passing the order. Acting upon the FIR, if investigation is not properly carried out, it is for the Petitioner to make a grievance by filing appropriate proceedings. ash 3 cp-362.11 5. Clause (4) of the order directs that the State of Maharashtra to take appropriate action against the Senior Inspector of Police. The nature of action to be initiated was not specified by this Court and it was left to the State of Maharashtra. The Special Director General of Police, Konkan Region, Navi Mumbai, has issued a show cause notice dated 9th December, 2011 to the Senior Inspector of Police. Issuance of the notice amounts to initiation of action and, therefore, there is a substantial compliance with the order of this Court. If the Petitioner is aggrieved by the said action, it is for the Petitioner to take appropriate proceedings in that behalf. The show cause notice has been issued belatedly. For the delay, an apology has been tendered in Paragraph 7 of the affidavit. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this is not a case where action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 can be initiated against the Respondent. 7. Subject to what is observed above, the Contempt Petition is disposed of. ( A.S. OKA, J )