High Court of Kerala

R. Jaikrishnan Vs. Praveen Kumar G.

MANU/KE/4123/2019

11.10.2019

Contempt of Court

In order to initiate contempt proceedings, it has to be established that disobedience of order was 'wilful'

Present is a case in which contempt of court proceedings are sought to be initiated against the Respondent, who is a Judicial Officer, on the ground that he has wilfully disobeyed the order passed by this Court to dispose of a case within a specified time. The Petitioner is the accused in the case pending on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate. The allegation against him is that, he has committed the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 409 and 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines 'civil contempt'. As per Section 2(b) of Act, civil contempt means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of undertaking given to a court. It signifies a deliberate action done with evil intent or with a bad motive or purpose

In order to initiate contempt proceedings, prima facie, it has to be established that disobedience of the order was 'wilful'. The word 'wilful' introduces a mental element and hence, requires looking into the mind of person/contemnor by gauging his actions, which is an indication of one's state of mind. 'Wilful' means knowingly intentional, conscious, calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom. It excludes casual, accidental, bonafide or unintentional acts or genuine inability. Wilful acts do not encompass involuntary or negligent actions. The act has to be done with a bad purpose or without justifiable excuse or stubbornly, obstinately or perversely. Wilful act is to be distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently.

In the instant case, the report made by the Respondent reveals that, further investigation was being conducted by the police in the case which was ordered to be disposed of by present Court. This fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. In order to constitute contempt, the order of the Court must be of such a nature which is capable of execution by the person charged in normal circumstances. It should not require any extra ordinary effort nor should be dependent, either wholly or in part, upon any act or omission of a third party for its compliance.

The learned Magistrate could have disposed of the case only after the police filed report regarding the further investigation conducted by them. It means that, there was no wilful disobedience on the part of the learned Magistrate to the order passed by this Court. There is no prima facie case established by the Petitioner for initiating proceedings against the Respondent under the Act. The petition is liable to be dismissed.

In present matter, two Circulars issued by this Court are relevant. As per Circular No. 4/1986 dated 31st January, 1986, present Court had directed that when time bound disposal is ordered by a superior court, it shall be the duty of the Judicial Officer/Chief Ministerial Officer/Members of staff in-charge of Bench and Records to make necessary endorsements in the papers and take steps for compliance with the direction of the High Court. Again, as per Circular No. 3/2000 dated 18th October, 2000, this Court had directed that all the courts below shall maintain a register in the prescribed form and shall make necessary entries in such register regarding the directions issued from the superior courts with regard to disposal of cases within a specific period.

Strict and scrupulous compliance with the directions contained in two Circulars issued by this Court would enable the presiding officers of the lower courts to avoid any omission to make prompt request for extension of time for disposal of time bound cases. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.

Tags : Contempt Proceedings Initiation

Share :