The Calcutta High Court has reiterated that Sub-Ordinate Courts cannot initiate proceedings regarding contempt. They may only refer matters to the High Court for consideration.

The High Court made such observations while quashing an order passed by a Trial Judge intiating contempt action in a case where an order of stay had already been passed by a Co-ordinate Bench. The Court was deeply infuriated with the way the Trial Court had passed the orders which had no legal sustainability.

The revision application before the High Court challenged the proceeding in connection with an Execution Case arising out of a case registered under Sections 420/409/406/418/425 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Single Bench of Justice Bibhas Ranjan De held, “The Hon’ble Apex Court in a wide range of cases has emphasized that the Sub-Ordinate Courts cannot initiate contempt proceeding or issue showcause notices regarding contempt. They may only refer matters to the High Court for consideration as initiation of such proceedings require a conscious application of mind. Therefore, if a Sub-Ordinate Court identifies a potential contempt, it must make a reference to the High Court rather than taking direct action which has taken place in the case at hand."

Senior Advocate Ayan Bhattacharjee represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Krishan Lal Lohia represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Petitioner brought it to the Court’s notice that an order of stay of the entire proceeding in connection with the C.R. case no. 1344 of 2023 as well as execution of warrant of arrest was promulgated. The Court’s attention was also brought to another order passed by the Trial Judge where the order of stay passed by the Court was duly communicated to the Trial Court and the same was kept on record. An application was made under Section 10 read with Section 15 and 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 and on receipt of such application, the Trial Judge registered the same as a Miscellaneous Case in connection with C.R. Case No. 1344 of 2023.

Arguments

It was the petitioner’s case that the Court allegedly passed one cyclostyle order invoking the provision of Section 125 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure thereby taking cognizance of the contempt application for recovery of outstanding maintenance.

It was the case of the Respondent that though the proceeding of the complaint case being no. 1344 of 2023 was stayed by the Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court in connection with a Civil Revision but there is no bar in filing the contempt application for violation of the order passed by the Trial Court in connection with the complaint case being no. 1344 of 2023.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset said, “...it has come to my utter despair that when the proceeding with respect to C.R 1344 of 2023 was already stayed by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 17.05.2024 then how come the Ld. Trial Judge initiate contempt proceedings in connection with the Misc. (Exe.) case no. 55 of 2024.”

Referring to the earlier orders, the Bench noted that such orders were made without any sort of application of mind. “Moreover, they appear to be written in a cyclostyle and mechanical manner which is highly unexpected from a responsible Judicial Officer, discharging his/her official duty. It is more astonishing especially because of the fact that the order of stay was indeed within the knowledge of the Ld. Trial Judge while furnishing orders in connection with the Misc. (Exe.) case. Then, how come the Ld. Judge make such orders is beyond my apprehension and imagination”, it said.

The Bench also clarified that as per the provisions of Sections 10 & 15 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, only the High Court has the power to take cognizance of contempt concerning Subordinate Courts.

Thus, quashing the entire proceeding in connection with the Miscellaneous Execution case no. 55 of 2024 and allowing the Revision Application, the Bench said, "In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I am deeply infuriated with the way the Ld. Trial Judge has passed the orders in connection with the Misc. (Exe.) case no. 55 of 2024 which have no legal sustainability in the eye of law.”

“However, I would like to add that although I am not inclined to pass any adverse observation about the capability of the Ld. Trial Judge through this order, I would except that the concerned Ld. Judge would keep the basic legal procedures in mind before passing orders in future", it concluded.

Cause Title: Bimbadhar Mohakud & Anr. Vs. Bina Shah (Case No.: CRR 268 of 2024)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Ayan Bhattacharjee, Advocates Nabankur Paul, Sutapa Sen Paul, Zulfiquar Ali Ali Quaderi, Aditya Sarkar, Bedasruti Bose, Subham Das, Bodhisatya Ghosh

Respondent: Advocates Krishan Lal Lohia, D. Dhar

Click here to read/download Order


Calcutta High CourtJustice Bibhas Ranjan De

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.