COCP No.1162 of 2011 (O&M) -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision: 18.07.2011 Tarun Sadana Vs. Sucha Singh Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Permod Kohli Present: Mr. GL Sadana, Advocate, for the petitioner. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. This petition has been filed for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to an order dated 28.02.2007 (Annexure P-1 at page 12-A) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh. This order was passed on the application of the present petitioner against respondent Sub Inspector, Sucha Singh, Investigating Officer. This application, however, finally came to be disposed of vide order dated 15.01.2011 (Annexure P-3). It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that even though the learned Magistrate had formulated an opinion that contempt is made out, he did not bother to refer the matter to the High Court. It is further contended that the learned Magistrate was required to refer the matter to the High Court for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent, however, instead of doing so, the learned Magistrate decided the application on his own and dismissed the same. I have perused the order dated 15.01.2011 (Annexure P-3). From the perusal of the order aforesaid, it appears that the learned Magistrate initially issued a notice for contempt to the respondent to appear in person in case FIR No.240 dated 20.06.2005, under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. From the reading of the order dated 15.01.2011, it COCP No.1162 of 2011 (O&M) -2- appears that the petitioner made allegations in the contempt petition against the respondent that the respondent made a mis-leading statement before the Court on 29.07.2005 while appearing for remand that he had no time to make recovery from the locker. It is alleged that the respondents instead of making recovery from the locker on 29.07.2005, consumed the entire day for searching the house of the accused by seizing several articles therefrom which did not form part of the Istridhan. It was further alleged that the respondent has made baseless allegations against the petitioner in respect to extra-marital relationship which did not find mention in the First Information Report. The sum and substance of the allegation was that Sucha Singh, Sub Inspector, respondent herein in collusion with other party had made misleading statement before the Court while seeking remand. On this allegation, the learned trial Court had passed an order dated 15.01.2011 (Annexure P-3). The respondent filed the reply before the learned Court below and denied the allegations of concealment or mis-statement of fact. The respondent further stated that the investigation of the case in question was being done by Ishwar Singh, CAW Cell, Chandigarh, who was to visit the bank for recovery from the locker. The learned trial Court finally found that earlier the petitioner had made similar application for initiating criminal proceedings against respondent Sucha Singh, S.I., under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for commission of offences under Sections 191 and 192 of the Indian Penal Code on the same set of allegations, but that application was dismissed vide order dated 10.05.2008. In view of the dismissal of an earlier application on the same facts, the trial Court dismissed the present application for initiating contempt proceedings. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate should have refer the matter to the High Court. He has also referred to the High Court Rules and Orders to argue that the petitioner was COCP No.1162 of 2011 (O&M) -3- not entitled to move the High Court for initiating contempt and, thus, he had no option but to approach the trial Court. Suffice it to say that Article 215 of the Constitution of India empowers this Court to initiate contempt proceedings in respect to violation of any direction of the Court subordinate to it. There was no legal impediment for the petitioner to approach this Court directly. The other contention that the trial Court has kept the matter pending with it for about five years for the purpose of orders. Thus, the order passed by the trial Court is vitiated in law. A perusal of the order for which contempt proceedings are sought show that the learned trial Court had initially issued notice of contempt to the respondent, however, and on consideration of the reply, the trial Court, prima facie, found that no contempt is made out as on the similar set of allegations earlier application filed by the petitioner for initiating criminal proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, had been dismissed. In view of the above, no ground is made out to interfere in exercise of contempt proceedings. Petition is dismissed. No costs. 18.07.2011 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE