Calcutta High Court Expresses 'Despair' Over Trial Court Initiating Contempt Proceedings Despite HC's Stay Order On Case

The Calcutta High Court has taken exception to an order passed by the trial court, which initiated contempt proceedings for recovery of outstanding maintenance in a proceeding which had already been stayed by a coordinate bench of the High Court.

Justice Bibhas Ranjan De held:

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 vide order dated 17.05.2024 then how come the Ld. Trial Judge initiate contempt proceedings in connection with the Misc. (Exe.) case no. 55 of 2024....it would be crystally clear that 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, discharging his/her official duty. It is more astonishing especially because of the fact that the order of stay was indeed within the knowledge of the Ld. Trial Judge while furnishing orders in connection with the Misc. (Exe.) case. Then, how come the Ld. Judge make such orders is beyond my apprehension and imagination.

The present revision application was filed to challenge the proceeding in connection with Misc. Execution Case No. 55 of 2024 arising out of C.R. case no. 1344 of 2023 under Sections 420/409/406/418/425 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC).

Counsel for the petitioners drew the attention of the Court to the order dated 17.05.2024 passed by a Coordinate Bench in connection with C.R.R. 183 of 2024, which stayed the entire proceeding in connection with C.R. case no. 1344 of 2023.

Counsel submitted that the order of stay passed by this Court was communicated to the Trial Court and the same was kept on record. At this juncture, an application was made under Section 10 read with Sections 15 and 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971.

It was submitted that on receipt of such application, the Trial Judge registered the same as Misc. (Exe.) Case No. 55 of 2024 in connection with C.R. Case No. 1344 of 2023 and allegedly passed one cyclostyle order invoking Section 125 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, thereby, taking cognizance of the contempt application for recovery of outstanding maintenance.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent submitted that though the proceeding of the complaint case being no. 1344 of 2023 was stayed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in connection with C.R. No. 183 of 2024, there is no bar in filing the contempt application for violation of the order passed by the Trial Court in connection with complaint case being no. 1344 of 2023.

Court noted that in the present case, the "Trial Judge is ought to be reminded of the provisions of Section 10 & 15 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 which clearly prescribes that only the High Court has the power to take cognizance of contempt concerning Sub- Ordinate Courts."

"In the light of the aforesaid discussion, 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," the court held

Therefore, it quashed the proceedings but stopped short of making an adverse remarks against the trial judge, while reminding them to keep basic legal procedure in mind before passing future orders.

Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee, Sr. Adv. Mr Shounak Mitra, Adv Mr. Nabankur Paul, Adv. Ms. Sutapa Sen Paul, Adv. Mr. Zulfiquar Ali Ali Quaderi, Adv. Mr. Aditya Sarkar, Adv. Ms. Bedasruti Bose, Adv. Mr. Subham Das, Adv. Mr. Bodhisatya Ghosh, Adv. 

Click here to read order