Heard Sri Ram Autar Verma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Grievance of the petitioner as prayed for is that opposite party be summoned in person and be punished for committing deliberate and wilful contempt of the order dated 04.12.2019 (annexure no.6) passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.52588 of 2014, Smt. Razeena Bano and another Vs. State of U.P and others.
In this case, in spite of fact that specific report was made regarding commission of cognizable offence to the authority concerned and to the Superintendent of Police, Kannauj by way of sending registered post, copy whereof has been annexed as annexure no.4 to this application whereby the Superintendent of Police, Kannauj was requested to lodge the report on 12.08.2020 regarding some incident which took place initially on 11.08.2020 and culminated into commission offence on 12.08.2020 as narrated in the letter of the Superintendent of Police, Kannauj but no worthy steps were taken and no report was registered by the police authority. It is obligatory and incumbent on the part of opposite party, particularly, Superintendent of Police, Kannauj, to get report of every cognizable offence be registered in view of catena of cases wherein there is specific mandate for lodging report - say cognizable offence as per Section 154 Cr.P.C. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance in the case of Lalita Devi Vs. Government of U.P. and others 2014(1) JIC 166 (SC). Therefore, any violation of clear mandate which mandate had effect of the judgment in rem cannot be avoided by any authority whatsoever at the length and breadth of the entire nation what to say the Uttar Pradesh.
Learned counsel for the applicant while concluding his argument has specifically claimed that mandate which was applicable in rem, was violated by police authority Kannauj in not lodging report. In that regard, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the mandate contained in the judgment reported in the case of Smt. Razeena Bano and another Vs. State of U.P. and others 2015 (2) ADJ 232 that is annexure no.6 to this application. The applicant is not seeking any relief for lodging of the first information report in his matter but he is aggrieved by the functioning of the police authority Kannauj in not giving effect to the mandate as contained in the case of Lalita Devi and Smt. Razeena Bano cited hereinabove. Non-lodging of the first information report in the matter disclosing commission of cognizable offence is always contemptuous and the authority and official concerned are liable to be punished for non-compliance of the order of this Court.
Lastly, learned counsel for the applicant has laid emphasis on the order dated 05.11.2019 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in Contempt Application (Civil) No.6586 of 2019, copy whereof has been annexed as annexure no.9 to this application.
What a strange petition is in the shape of contempt, the contemnor has been tried to be punished in accordance with the judgment in rem regarding violation of non-lodging of the report under Section 154 Cr.P.C. which makes out lodging of the report for commission of the cognizable offence. Even the petitioner has got no specific relief which he wants to achieve before this Court and he is not interested in lodging the first information report, however, he is interested in enforcing the law laid down in the case of Smt. Razeena Bano (supra).
Attention of the Court was engaged to the order of the coordinate Bench of this Court dated 05.11.2019 (annexure no.9) whereby certain observations have been made. No doubt, the judgement referred to certain extract which contents pertain to the directions issued by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lalita Devi (supra) Now the point is whether such prayer which does not seek any relief to be achieved by the petitioner, can act on behalf of the petitioner and can treat himself / herself of the guardian of citizen of India and as such to punish the authority concerned. Next point as to what specific relief sought by the petitioner by moving this application. In absence of any specific relief sought by the petitioner, this Court finds itself unable to grant any consequential relief to the petitioner. Therefore, such prayer as present one cannot be allowed in the present form and no relief is granted therefor. The petitioner in the garb of moving contempt application has in fact sought interpretation, applicability and impact of directions on the authorities. Its interpretation and constructions cannot be given as such by this Court because interpretation of the case is domain of Hon'ble Apex Court which cannot be done as asked by the petitioner at this juncture. If the petitioner has any grievance, appropriate remedy can be availed by him. However, such vague prayer cannot be allowed to stand on its legs.
Consequently, the instant petition is dismissed with costs.
Order Date :- 12.1.2021 rkg