IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27.08.2008 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR Contempt Petition No.779 of 2008 V.Jayagopi ... Petitioner Vs. Thiru.Sekar, The Sub-Inspector of Police B-4, Sevvapettai Police Station Tiruvallur District ... Respondent Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 praying to punish the respondent for his willful disobedience of the order of this Hon'ble court dated 05.12.2007 made in Crl.O.P.No.35632 of 2007. For Petitioner : Mr.M.V.Muralidaran For Respondent : Mr.R.Muniapparaj, Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) O R D E R Heard Mr.M.V.Muralidaran, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.R.Muniapparaj, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. On 02.11.2007, regarding the death of Latha, wife of Raghu and Meha, daughter of the said persons, a case was registered in Crime No.377 of 2007 on the file of B-4, Sevvapettai Police Station, Thiruvallur District based on the compliant of the above said Raghu for alleged offences punishable under Section 279, 337 and 304-A IPC. When the said case was under investigation, the petitioner, who is the brother of the deceased latha, preferred a complaint on 05.11.2007 on the file of the very same police station alleging that the deceased had been murdered by the above said Raghu. As no case was registered based on the said complaint of the petitioner, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code on the file of this court, which came to be disposed of by a learned single judge of this court, by order dated 05.12.2007. The operative part of the order reads as follows:- "Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to give a copy of the complaint dated 05.11.2007 to the respondents and in which event, the third respondent is directed to register a case on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner dated 05.11.2007, if the allegation contained in the complaint constitutes a cognizable offence, as per the mandatory provisions under Section 154 of Cr.P.C., in the event of the third respondent not registering a case till today and investigate into the matter in accordance with law and file a final report within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The criminal original petition is ordered accordingly. Consequently, the connected M.P. is also closed." 3. Complaining willful disobedience of the said direction based on the contention that no case was registered as directed by this court, the petitioner has come forward with the present contempt petition praying that the respondent should be punished for the alleged act of contempt. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing on behalf of the respondent raised a preliminary objection stating that Thiru.Sekar shown to be respondent in the contempt petition had nothing to do with the direction issued by this court since he was not the officer holding the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, either on the date of complaint, namely 05.11.2007 or on the date on which this court issued the direction, namely 05.12.2007. 5. It is the further contention of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), representing the respondent, that as already a case was registered on 02.11.2007 itself regarding the death of the sister and sister's daughter of the petitioner herein, any subsequent complaint could be treated only as a statement under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code; that the court itself while issuing a direction, was cautious enough to observe that a case should be registered in the event of the non registration of a case till the date of the order of this court passed in the Crl.O.P; that in view of the said qualification made to the direction issued by this court to register a case, in accordance with the respondent's understanding of the meaning of the direction, he chose to leave the matter to be investigated upon by the Inspector of Police treating complaint of the petitioner dated 05.11.2007 to be a statement under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code and that hence even if the failure on the part of the respondent is to be construed as a non-compliance, the same cannot be termed as a willful disobedience which alone amount to an act of contempt. 6. This court is able to find force and substance in the above said contention made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) representing the respondent and hence comes to the conclusion that though there may be non-compliance of the direction issued by this court, the same will not amount to willful disobedience so as to make the respondent liable for contempt. The order of this court passed in the Crl.O.P., as rightly pointed by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), is qualified by the observation that a case should be registered based on the complaint of the petitioner dated 05.11.2007 only in the event of non-registration of a case till the date of the order passed in the Crl.O.P. A case had already been registered regarding the death of the above said two persons and the complaint of the petitioner was given three days thereafter. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), the respondent proceeded with the investigation taking the subsequent compliant of the petitioner as a statement given during investigation. This court also notices yet another fact that after the registration of the case, the investigation of the same was taken up by the Inspector of Police and a final report was submitted on 21.08.2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) IPC. Under such circumstances, this court is of the view that the petitioner's attempt to hold the respondent liable for contempt is bound to fail. 7. In the result, this court holds that the petitioner has not made out a case for contempt. Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed. 8. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the submission of the final report for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) IPC alone and not for an offence under Section 302 as alleged by the petitioner in P.R.SHIVAKUMAR, J. asr/ his complaint, it is open to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy in an appropriate forum in appropriate proceedings. 27.08.2008 Index : Yes Internet : Yes asr Cont. Petn. No.779 of 2008