Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court at Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri, Single Bench of  Justice Bibhas Ranjan De set aside contempt proceedings initiated by a Subordinate Court in disregard of an existing stay order issued by a Co-ordinate Bench of the same High Court. The court quashed Misc. Execution Case No. 55 of 2024, finding it devoid of legal sanction and strongly criticized the trial court's approach, terming its orders as "cyclostyle" and issued without "application of mind". The judgment records that despite full knowledge of the stay order dated May 17, 2024, the trial court proceeded to entertain and act on a contempt application under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971.

The revision application challenged the legality of proceedings in Misc. Execution Case No. 55 of 2024 arising from C.R. Case No. 1344 of 2023, which had been initiated under Sections 420, 409, 406, 418, and 425 of the Indian Penal Code.

Also Read: “‘Every Consensual Relationship Cannot Be Painted as Rape’: Supreme Court Quashes Case Against Retired Judicial Officer, Citing Abuse of Process”

Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Counsel Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee referred to the stay order passed on May 17, 2024, by the Co-ordinate Bench in CRR 183 of 2024. He submitted that the stay extended not only to the proceedings of C.R. Case No. 1344 of 2023 but also to the execution of the warrant of arrest. He further pointed out that this order was duly communicated to the concerned trial court.

Despite such communication, the trial judge continued with contempt proceedings based on an application purportedly filed under Sections 10, 15, and 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971. Mr. Bhattacharjee contended that the proceedings were initiated improperly and in violation of settled legal provisions.

The trial judge treated the contempt application as Misc. Execution Case No. 55 of 2024 and passed orders under Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Counsel for the petitioners argued that these actions were taken for "reasons best known to him" and alleged that the judge had exceeded his jurisdiction.

In opposition, Mr. Krishan Lal Lohia, appearing for the respondent, argued that the stay order did not bar the filing of a contempt application. He maintained that the alleged violation pertained to orders issued in connection with C.R. Case No. 1344 of 2023 and that seeking redress for such violation was not explicitly restricted by the High Court’s earlier stay.

The High Court, however, disagreed with this position. Justice De observed that since the core proceedings of C.R. Case No. 1344 of 2023 had been stayed, any subsequent action in relation to those proceedings, including contempt claims, lacked legal validity unless processed through appropriate channels.

Justice Bibhas Ranjan De examined the orders dated July 12, 2024, and July 18, 2024, issued by the trial court. He found them mechanically drafted, stating: "such orders were made without any sort of application of mind. Moreover, they appear to be written in a cyclostyle and mechanical manner which is highly unexpected from a responsible Judicial Officer."

Further, the court noted that the stay order was already on record and within the knowledge of the trial judge. Justice De expressed incredulity at the judge's conduct, remarking: "Then, how come the Ld. Judge make such orders is beyond my apprehension and imagination."

On the legal propriety of initiating contempt proceedings, the court referenced the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, specifically Sections 10 and 15. Justice De recorded: "only the High Court has the power to take cognizance of contempt concerning Sub-Ordinate Courts."

He cited established legal precedent to assert that subordinate courts cannot independently initiate contempt proceedings but may only refer potential cases to the High Court. He stated: "initiation of such proceedings require a conscious application of mind. Therefore, if a Sub-Ordinate Court identifies a potential contempt, it must make a reference to the High Court rather than taking direct action which has taken place in the case at hand."

Justice De expressed his dissatisfaction with the trial judge’s approach, stating: "I am deeply infuriated with the way the Ld. Trial Judge has passed the orders in connection with the Misc. (Exe.) case no. 55 of 2024 which have no legal sustainability in the eye of law."

Justice Bibhas Ranjan De concluded the judgment with the following directives:

"The entire proceeding in connection with the Misc. (Exe.) case no. 55 of 2024, being devoid of any legal sanction, is hereby quashed."

Also Read: "Detention Cannot Be Punitive or Preventive": Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in NDPS Case Involving Commercial Quantity After Finding No Prima Facie Guilt and Prolonged Incarceration

The revision application, CRR 268 of 2024, was accordingly allowed.

Additionally, Justice Bhibhas Ranjan De remarked: "Although I am not inclined to pass any adverse observation about the capability of the Ld. Trial Judge through this order, I would except that the concerned Ld. Judge would keep the basic legal procedures in mind before passing orders in future."

The Court  ordered that the connected applications, if any, be disposed of accordingly, and authorized use of the server copy of the judgment downloaded from the official website of the court.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee, Senior Advocate; Mr. Nabankur Paul; Ms. Sutapa Sen Paul; Mr. Zulfiquar Ali Ali Quaderi; Mr. Aditya Sarkar; Ms. Bedasruti Bose; Mr. Subham Das; Mr. Bodhisatya Ghosh

For the Respondent: Mr. Krishan Lal Lohia; Mr. D. Dhar

Case Title: Bimbadhar Mohakud & Anr. Vs. Bina Shah

Case Number: CRR 268 of 2024

Bench: Justice Bibhas Ranjan De

[Read/Download order]