IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.S. PATIL AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO C.C.C.NO.690/2015 (Civil) Between Smt. Venkatalaxmi W/o Sri R. V. Murthy, Aged about 37 years, Residing at No. 6/1, Ground Floor, 2nd Cross, Marappa Garden, J. C. Nagar, Bengaluru-560006.
(By Sri. M. S. Nagaraja., Advocate) And 1. Sri. Rangaiah S/o Late Javaraiah, Aged about 85 years, ... Complainant 2. Sri. R.V. Murthy S/o Rangaiah, Aged about 48 years, 3. Sri. R. Harish S/o Rangaiah, Aged about 45 years, Accused Nos.1 to 3 are residing at No. 6/1, 1st Floor, 2nd Cross, Marappa Garden, J.c. Nagar, Bengaluru-560006.
4. Sri. Keshawaiah, S/o Late Chennegowda, Aged about 55 years, R/at No.23/A, 11th Main, 2nd Block, B.M.T.Layout, 4th Stage, Bengaluru.
... Accused (By Sri. C.V. Nagesh Senior Counsel for Sri K. Raghavendra for A1 & A3, A2 is served A4 deleted vide order dated 19.08.2016) This C.C.C. is filed under section 11 & 12 of the Contempt of Court Act 1971, by the complainant, praying to initiate Contempt Proceedings against the accused for disobedience of the conditional order dated 10.12.2007 passed in Crl. Petition No.4581/2007 dated 10.12.2007 and further the directions of this Hon'ble Court in the earlier contempt proceedings in CCC No.346/2008 and punish the accused.
This C.C.C. coming on for final hearing this day, B.S. Patil, J., made the following:
O R D E R This contempt proceeding is initiated alleging disobedience by the accused of the conditional order dated 10.12.2007 passed in Crl.Petition No.4581/2007. The said criminal petition arose out of the proceedings in Crl.Misc. No.754/2007 which was pending before the learned VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
2. In the criminal petition filed under Sec.482 of Cr.PC, the accused-respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein had sought for quashing the entire proceedings in Crl.Misc. No.754/2007. When the criminal petition came up for admission, the court found that dispute could be resolved, if the second petitioner-Sri.R.V.Murthy, husband of the complainant herein, was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month. Indeed the same was agreed upon by both the parties. Therefore, as agreed, this Court passed an order holding that in the light of request made by both parties, it was appropriate to dispose of the matter instead of proceeding to examine the merits of the case, by directing the husband of the complainant to pay Rs.3,000/- per month towards maintenance.
3. It is useful to extract the observations made in the direction issued at paragraphs 4 and 5 which read as under:-
“4. Now the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner No.2 will undertake to pay Rs.3,000/- per month by way of maintenance to the complainant and he will file an undertaking to that effect.
5. In view of the undertaking to be filed and in view of the submission of the learned counsel for the complainant, the petition is disposed of and the proceedings on the file of the learned Magistrate in Crl.Misc.No.754/2007 are quashed, subject to the petitioner No.2 filing an undertaking within one week to the effect that, he will pay Rs.3,000/- per month by way of maintenance to the respondent-complainant. The respondent- complainant shall not be dispossessed from the house of the in-law’s/husband.”
4. The complainant herein had earlier filed a contempt proceedings in CCC No.346/2008 complaining disobedience of the order passed in the Crl.Petition No.4581/2007 dated 10.12.2007. This Court after appearance of the accused, having regard to the payment of certain sum of money, disposed of the contempt petition holding that the accused shall further pay maintenance as already undertaken by him.
5. Subsequently, another contempt petition was initiated in CCC No.346/2008. The said proceeding was also disposed of on 28.08.2008, recording the submission that there was no allegation of disturbance to the stay of the complainant in the residence and as regards non- payment of maintenance, the complainant had to resort to other remedy of executing the order and to recover the maintenance amount including arrears.
6. Thereafter, another contempt petition was filed in Misc.W.No.954/2011 in CCC (Civil) No.346/2008 and same was also disposed of on 01.04.2011.
7. Thus, it is clear that, in the light of the order already passed in CCC No.346/2008 on 23.03.2009, there was no need to initiate any contempt proceeding. If there was any subsequent conduct of the respondents which would give rise to an action for initiation of contempt of court proceedings, it was always open to the petitioner to initiate fresh contempt petition against the respondents.
8. The present contempt petition has been filed on 25.06.2015 alleging that there was violation of the directions issued by this Court in Crl.Petition No.4581/2007 in as much as the accused had dispossessed the complainant from the ground floor of the premises belonging to her husband/in-law’s contrary to the direction issued by the Court and in violation thereof.
9. In this regard, we have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
10. The respondents No.1 and 3 have filed their statement of objections on 30.09.2015, followed by additional statement of objections dated 28.01.2016.
11. The main contention urged by the respondent/accused Nos.1 and 3 is that they have not violated the direction issued by this Court and indeed the complainant herself has voluntarily delivered possession of the premises to the purchaser one Sri. Allah Bakash as is evident from the complaint lodged by the complainant before the Police Inspector, J.C. Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru on 18.06.2015.
12. We have perused the said complaint. In the complaint it is stated that in the first week of January 2015, one Sri. Gangadhar and Sri. Irfan came near the house of the complainant and assured that Harish and his wife Smt.T.Shathakshi would pay Rs.30,00,000/- to the complainant and the ground floor in which the complainant was residing would be renovated and advance of Rs.10,00,000/- would be paid to her and the balance would be paid subsequently; they further assured, according to the complainant that she had to temporarily vacate the ground floor which would be delivered back after carrying out repairs; complainant agreed for the same and vacated the premises and started residing in another house. She further stated that she had put signatures on some blank papers in that regard. The grievance made in the said complaint also discloses that assurance given to her that balance of Rs.20,00,000/- would be paid was not paid to her and therefore, the said persons had committed an act of cheating, against her.
13. It is noticed from the complaint and also the representation dated 18.06.2015 which is enclosed to the contempt petition and is marked as Annexure-G that the complainant had vacated the premises based on the assurance given to her that she would be re-inducted in the premises after the same had been renovated and that she would also be paid certain additional amount. The grievance, therefore, is non compliance of the promise made to her regarding payment of balance amount and failure to reinduct her in the ground floor of the premises as promised. If this is the foundation for this contempt petition, it would be a case where the complainant has to proceed in accordance with law against the accused under the criminal Law. It cannot be said that there is violation of the direction issued by this Court. Contempt jurisdiction of this Court can be invoked where the orders passed by this Court are intentionally and deliberately violated.
14. In the instant case, the complainant herself has stated in the complaint and also in the representation submitted to the Police Inspector, J.C. Nagar, Bengaluru as per Annexure-G that she vacated the premises on the assurance given to her that she would be re-inducted to the premises after renovation and would be paid a certain sum. These assertions made by the complainant would disclose that there are certain other transactions that have taken place between the complainant on the one hand and the purchaser of the premises on the other. This Court will not be justified in embarking into an enquiry into the dispute in question and to record findings in that regard.
15. We are also appraised that the complainant along with her minor daughter, has instituted O.S.No.5583/2007 on the file of City Civil and Sessions Judge, at Bengaluru. The said suit is pending. It is also brought to our notice that application filed by the plaintiffs (complainant and her daughter) seeking an order of temporary injunction against Smt.T.Sathaskshi, wife of respondent No.3 herein from alienating the property in question, has been dismissed. It is also necessary to notice that respondent No.1-Sri. Rangaiah, who was the original owner of the property had gifted the property in favour of his wife on 01.12.2006 and he in turn, has gifted it in favour of her daughter-in-law, Smt.T.Sathakshi on 10.12.2008. Thereafter, the said property has been sold by Smt.T.Sathakshi along with accused No.3 in favour of one Sri. Allah Bakash on 21.06.2015. In the wake of the above development and having regard to the pendency of the suit, we are not entertaining the contempt proceedings.
Therefore, this contempt proceeding is dropped.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE MBM/DL