The Calcutta High Court (Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri) has set aside contempt proceedings initiated by a Trial Court in Misc. Execution Case No. 55 of 2024, holding that the action was without legal sanction as the underlying case—C.R. Case No. 1344 of 2023—was already stayed by a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court. Justice Bibhas Ranjan De allowed the revision application filed by the petitioners and strongly criticized the mechanical approach of the Trial Judge.
Background:
The petitioners, Bimbadhar Mohakud and another, approached the High Court to challenge the initiation of proceedings in Misc. Execution Case No. 55 of 2024, which stemmed from C.R. Case No. 1344 of 2023 registered under Sections 420, 409, 406, 418, and 425 of the Indian Penal Code.
On 17 May 2024, a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court passed an order staying all proceedings in connection with the said complaint case, including execution of any warrant of arrest.
Arguments of the Petitioners:
Senior Advocate Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee, representing the petitioners, submitted that despite clear knowledge of the stay order, the Learned Trial Judge registered Misc. Execution Case No. 55 of 2024 on an application under Sections 10, 12, and 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and proceeded to invoke Section 125(3) CrPC for recovery of outstanding maintenance.
Mr. Bhattacharjee further contended that this action disregarded the legal bar against subordinate courts initiating contempt proceedings, especially when the High Court had already assumed jurisdiction in the matter.
Arguments of the Respondent:
Counsel for the respondent, Mr. Krishan Lal Lohia, submitted that while the main complaint case was stayed, there existed no bar on filing a contempt application for alleged violation of the Trial Court’s earlier maintenance order.
Court’s Analysis:
Justice De expressed strong disapproval of the Trial Judge’s conduct:
“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… then how come the Ld. Trial Judge initiate contempt proceedings…”
Reviewing the orders dated 12 July 2024 and 18 July 2024, the Court remarked:
“They appear to be written in a cyclostyle and mechanical manner which is highly unexpected from a responsible Judicial Officer… especially because the order of stay was indeed within the knowledge of the Ld. Trial Judge.”
The Court emphasized that only the High Court has the authority to take cognizance of contempt concerning subordinate courts under Sections 10 and 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Citing settled principles, the Court reiterated that subordinate courts must refer any potential contempt to the High Court and cannot initiate such proceedings themselves.
Decision:
Finding the entire proceeding of Misc. Execution Case No. 55 of 2024 devoid of legal validity, the Court ordered:
“The entire proceeding in connection with the Misc. (Exe.) case no. 55 of 2024, being devoid of any legal sanction, is hereby quashed.”
Accordingly, the revision application (CRR 268 of 2024) was allowed. While refraining from making adverse remarks about the capability of the Trial Judge, the Court urged adherence to “basic legal procedures” in future.
