1 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 365 OF 2008 Shri Pravinkumar Trimbaklal Gohil ... Petitioner. Vs. Shri Naval Bajaj & Ors. .... Respondents Ms. Reshma Ravi, i/b K.P. Ravi, for the Petitioner. Ms. Geeta Mulekar, AGP for Respondent No.4. ..... CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATE : 22 nd APRIL, 2010. P.C. 1. This Contempt Petition alleges willful disobedience of Order dated 5th May, 2008 passed by this Court in Criminal Application No.1062 of 2008. 2. The Petitioner before me was Applicant in this Criminal Application which was filed for grant of bail in connection with CR No.46 of 2008 registered by Wagale Estate Police Station. 3. During the course of the arguments on the bail application, a grievance was made by the Petitioner about the conduct of the Investigating Officer. While allowing the bail application, this Court in paragraph 14 of the Order observed that the conduct of the Investigating Officer is required to be inquired into, and the Superintendent of Police, Thane was directed to personally look into the matter, and make inquiry 2 and take appropriate steps if any lapse is found on the part of the Investigating Officer. This Court observed that during the course of the said inquiry it is expected that the Petitioner/Applicant, his wife would be examined by the the Investigating Officer. 4. The Contempt Petition proceeds to allege that some sort of inquiry was held but without participation of the Applicant or his family members and this is gross violation of Order of this Court. 5. A affidavit in reply is filed by the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Thane who has pointed out that as per the Order passed by this Court an inquiry was conduced and a report was submitted to this Court in that behalf, and the copies of the report have been handed over. When the Criminal Application was disposed of on 2.7.2008, no grievance was made and the Inquiry Report was accepted and in such circumstances, the Contempt Petition is devoid of any merits but is filed to harass the Police Department. 6. On the earlier occasion grievance was made that copies of the report filed in the Court were not forwarded or furnished to the Applicant and his Advocate. I ensured that such copies are handed over to Ms.Reshma Ravi appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. Further, I have heard her at length and perused with her assistance the Contempt Petition and annexures thereto including the affidavit in reply. The Petitioner does not dispute that an inquiry was held. All that is disputed is lack of participation 3 of the Applicant/Petitioner. That was something which Court does not direct the Authority. It expects it to do so. Merely because the Petitioner has not been called during the inquiry by the concerned Enquiry Officer does not mean that contempt of Court’s Order is committed much less willfully and deliberately. This is not a case for proceeding in contempt but if the Applicant/Petitioner has any grievance about the manner in which inquiry was held and lack of his participation therein, he would be at liberty to take out appropriate proceedings. 7. Keeping open this remedy, the Contempt Petition is disposed of. No costs. (S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)