Contempt Appeal Nos. 1 and 3 of 2013. Case: N. Ramadas Vs C.A. Mohamed Abdul Huq. High Court of Madras (India)
| Case Number | Contempt Appeal Nos. 1 and 3 of 2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: R. Thiagarajan for T. Kannan, Advs. and For Respondents: A.E. Chelliah, Senior Counsel for C. Saifullah, Adv. |
| Judges | Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J. and M.M. Sundresh, J. |
| Issue | Contempt of Court |
| Judgement Date | January 12, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Madras (India) |
Judgment:
M.M. Sundresh, J.
-
Both these contempt appeals have been filed against the order passed by the learned single Judge in Contempt Petition No. 1390 of 2012 in Crl.O.P.No. 25046 of 2011 dated 21.12.2012.
-
A Memo was filed on 25.11.2014 on behalf of the appellant in Contempt Appeal No. 3 of 2013 stating that he had passed away on 31.07.2014. As there is no dispute over the same, the death of the appellant in Contempt Appeal No. 3 of 2013 is hereby recorded.
-
Heard Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in both the appeals, Dr.A.E.Chelliah, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent in both the appeals and the third respondent in Contempt Appeal No. 3 of 2013 and Mr.S.T.S.Moorthy, learned Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent in both the appeals and perused the documents filed.
-
Seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2 therein to complete the investigation on the complaints dated 23.05.2011 and 25.05.2011 with a further direction to file a Final Report before the jurisdictional Court, the first respondent herein has filed Cr.O.P.No. 25046 of 2011. By an order dated 25.01.2012, the following was passed by the learned single Judge.
"8. Today, when the petition was taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate apologized before the open Court for the wrong committed by the concerned police officer. Considering the apology tendered by the learned Government Advocate, this Court finds that the contempt proceedings need not be continued and it may be closed. However, it is ascertained that the second respondent police has now registered the case based on the complaint of the petitioner dated 23.05.2011. Therefore, the second respondent is directed to take up the case for investigation in an impartial manner and file the final report within a period of 60 days without loss of further time. The first respondent is also directed to monitor the progress of the investigation and see that the investigation is completed expeditiously and the charge sheet is filed within the period stipulated above."
-
Though a statement was made on behalf of the second respondent in Crl.O.P.No. 25046 of 2011, no case was registered on the pending complaints. The appellant took charge of the station after the pronouncement of the order in Crl.O.P.No. 25046 of 2011. Finding that no case has been registered as stated before the Court, the appellant duly registered the complaint made by the first respondent on 08.05.2012 in Crime No. 30 of 2012. Thereafter, the appellant sought for extension of time in Crl.M.P.No. 1 of 2012 in Crl.O.P.No. 25046 of 2011. Accordingly, by an order dated 14.06.2012, the time granted earlier was extended for a further period of three months to file the final report. The appellant duly filed the final report before the jurisdictional Court.
-
Alleging that the appellant has committed contempt of the order passed in Crl.O.P.No. 25046 of 2011, by registering the complaint said to have been made on 08.05.2012 by the first respondent as against the statement made before the Court, the first respondent has filed Contempt Petition No. 1390 of 2012 before the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge, by an elaborate...
To continue reading
Request your trial