AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Amar Saran and S.C. Nigam, JJ.—Heard learned Counsel for the applicants and learned Additional Government Advocate.
By means of this application the applicants have prayed for initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against Gaurav Kumar Dev. The basis for initiating the said proceeding was that a habeas corpus petition was filed by Gaurav Kumar Dev before this Court in which the applicants appeared. The applicant No. 1 Km. Ansul Pagaria denied having married with Gaurav Kumar Dev and also denied the photographs etc., which were produced by him and she stated that she had been kidnapped for ransom and she had, not voluntarily married to him and that she is living with her father voluntarily and has not been illegally detained by him. Thereafter it appears that the opposite party Gaurav Kumar Dev made some statements before the Press and three-cuttings of the Daily News Papers Nai Dunia, Hah Bhoomi and Desh Bandhu dated 13.10.2007 have been annexed with this application.
It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicants that in the said interviews before the Press, the opposite party Gaurav Kumar Dev again reiterated the allegation of Ansul Pagaria being kidnapped by her father. He also mentioned that he had filed a case at Lucknow Bench, Lucknow but has not received any relief from the Court so far.
It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the applicants that by not disclosing the factum of dismissal of the habeas corpus petition by this Court on 14.5.2007, the opposite party has committed contempt of this Court. Criminal Contempt has been defined u/s 2(c) and so far as it is relevant to the case of the applicants Section 2(c), (i) and (ii) reads as follows:
2(c) "Criminal contempt" means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which-
(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers to tends to lower the authority of, any court; or
(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding.
As obviously the petition before the Allahabad High Court has already been disposed of, therefore, the alleged statement of the opposite party to the Press could not prejudice or interfere with the due course of any judicial proceeding. Secondly as there was no reference even to any proceeding before the High Court, there was no question that the High Court Authority has been lowered or this Court has been scandalised in any manner.
Furthermore, we are not in a position to test the veracity and reliability of the statement given in the Press (sic) whether such a statement was given at all by the alleged contemnor. Also the applicants only stand in the position of informant and it is for the Court to take cognizance in a matte against the alleged contemnor for any reason.
We are of the view that no ground exists for issuing notice to opposite party to answer the charge of contempt of court or to punish the opposite party. However this will not debar the applicants from seeking other remedy which may be available to them.
There is no force in this contempt petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.