TITLE: Rahul Ajaykumar Singhal Versus AY Baloch Inspector of Police
Decided On-: August 22, 2023
1202 of 2023
CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. A.S Supehia & Mr. M.R Mengdey
INTRODUCTION-
Two contempt cases have been filed, one by Rahul Ajaykumar Singhal and the other by Ashwini Kumar Singhal, both of whom have done so in accordance with “Section 10” of the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971..
FACTS OF THE CASE
Mr. Anil Kumar made a complaint, and it was submitted to the Economic Cell, Crime Branch, Surat. In response to the aforementioned complaint, the applicants were given a “samaj yadi” notice to appear before the D.C.B. Police Station, Economic Cell, Crime Branch, Surat City within two days. The applicants contend that by omitting all references to the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973, the aforementioned notice gravely violates the rules and instructions of the Supreme Court. The applicants appeared before the investigating officer of the respondent’s economic cell at the D.C.B. Police Station after receiving this notice.
COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION
Renowned attorney Mr. Manish Gupta argues that it is difficult to understand why and on what grounds Respondent No. 1 issued the notice to appear before him since the applicant has been living peacefully in New Delhi for the last five years and does not have any associations with or business relationships with the complainant. A second notice is given to the applicant in a similar manner. According to the argument, the issuance of the notice was unnecessary because there was no FIR filed against the applicants at the time it was sent out.
Additionally, it has been argued that in actuality, the standing order, which is approved by the Director General and Inspector General of Police, specifies the issuance of notice. The court must begin contempt proceedings against the respondent No. 1 in accordance with “Section 10” of the Act’s rules
Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Mitesh Amin has asserted that the present applications are misguided because the applicants were required to stay in person in light of the complaint within a window of two days in order to submit their response. The learned public prosecutor has claimed that, in reality, the said “samajyadi” is only issued for collecting responses or replies from the applicants and that it cannot in any way be referred to as a notice issued under Section 41A of the Cr. P.C.
The applicants are being prosecuted in this case in accordance with Sections 406 and 409 of the IPC. The maximum sentence for the offence under section 409 of the IPC is ten years in prison.
As a result, the provisions of Section 41(1)(b) of the Cr. P.C. would not apply, the police authority would have the authority to make an arrest without a warrant, and the requirement for giving notice under Section 41A of the Cr. P.C. would not apply. However, since the applicants have been given anticipatory bails, the possibility of their arrest has not materialised. Investigation continues to be conducted.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Steffi Desousa
