(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. Applicant, complaining of non-compliance with the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in his order dated 29.08.2011 passed in Special Criminal Application No. 2186 of 2011, has filed this contempt petition.
2. The applicant had approached the learned Single Judge complaining about ill treatment meted out to him allegedly by some of the police officers, who were joined as respondents in the said proceedings. The learned Single Judge, while disposing of the petition, directed the Superintendent of Police, Kheda, to hold an enquiry with respect to the allegations of inhuman treatment to the petitioner by the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 of the main petition. It was provided that such inquiry should be concluded within four weeks from the date of the order and further directed that appropriate steps be taken. Such steps may require taking departmental action or even other action.
3. Since the inquiry, as directed by the learned Judge, was not concluded within the time permitted, the applicant moved this contempt petition. In this petition, Division Bench of this Court, on 10.11.2011, gave further directions for conduct of the inquiry.
4. Subsequently, another Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 02.02.2012, directed the respondents to file detail affidavit disclosing whether the directions contained in order dated 29.08.2011 have been complied with or not? Pursuant to such further order, one Shri Somabhai Ravat, In-charge Superintendent of Police, Kheda filed, an affidavit dated 22.02.2012 with copy to the counsel for the applicant. Counsel for the applicant was permitted time to go through affidavit and to make further submissions thereafter. Accordingly, we have heard learned counsel for the sides today.
5. From the affidavit-in-reply, it emerges that an FIR has already been lodged against the concerned police officers. One of the police officers, against whom the applicant had made serious allegations, has also been transferred. Further, the competent authority had also issued departmental charge-sheet against the officials in question.
6. Under the circumstances, we are satisfied that insofar as the directions of the learned Single Judge contained in his order dated 29.08.2011 are concerned, the same stand complied with. No question of taking any further steps in the contempt petition would therefore arise.
7. Before closing we would like to clarify few issues:
1) Firstly, in the report dated 06.12.2011, the District Superintendent of Police, Nadiad has stated that the applicant has made complaint against the police officials to ensure that he is not disturbed from carrying on his hawking activity which was being done in a manner which would cause nuisance and traffic problem. He stated that the complaint is being made to demoralize the police officers taking action against him. To our mind, such conclusions are premature. When an FIR is already lodged at the instance of the applicant, which is being investigated and when departmental charge-sheet is also issued against the concerned officers, such remarks are not only premature but would hamper such pending investigation and departmental proceedings.
2) Further we clarify that we are disposing of this contempt proceedings taking note of further developments recorded in the affidavit dated 22.02.2012. It is expected that the investigation pursuant to the FIR lodged by the applicant and the departmental proceedings shall be pursued with impartiality.
3) We further clarify that disposal of this contempt will not come in the way of applicant in pursuing other remedies in law.
With the above observations and directions, this application is disposed of. Notice is discharged.
[AKIL KURESHI, J.] [C.L.SONI, J.] JYOTI Top