Judgment:
S. Chatterji, A.C.J.
1. The petitioner, Dayanidhi Tripathy alias Mahamaya Brahmachari of Meria Bazar, Cuttack, has come to this Court praying. Inter alis, to initiate a proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act and to take suitable action under Section 12 thereof and for imposition of punishment or penalty as against the opp. parties for not taking effective steps to execute the N. B. Ws. in respect of the accused person's in ICC No. 177/92 pending in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Cuttack.
2. Notice was issued on 13-9-1995 and affidavits have been filed. The question of maintainability has been considered by this Court. Our attention has been drawn to a decision reported in AIR 1954 SC 186 : Sukhdev Singh v. Hon'ble C. J. S. Teja Singh and the Hon'ble Judge of the Punjab High Court at Patiala. In the aforesaid case, the nature of jurisdiction to punish for contempt under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and the scope of the contempt proceeding before the High Court were considered. Our attention has also been drawn to a Bench decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1981 SC 723 : S.K. Sarkar, Member, Board of Revenue, U. P. v. Vinay Chandra Misra, in regard to the scope and power of High Court in contempt proceeding under Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution of India. It is specifically observed in paragraph 18 of the aforesaid judgment that if the High Court is directly moved by a petition by a private person feeling aggrieved (not being the Advocate-General), the High Court has, in such a situation, a discretion to refuse to entertain the petition, or to take cognizance on its own motion on the basis of the information supplied to it in that petition. If the petitioner is a responsible member of the legal profession, it may act suo motu, more so, if the petitioner advocate prays that the Court should act suo motu. This mode of taking suo motu cognizance of contempt of a subordinate Court should be resorted to sparingly where the contempt concerned is of a grave and serious nature. Harmoniously construed, Section 15(2) does not restrict the power of the High Court to take cognizance of and punish contempt of a subordinate Court, on its own motion. Hence, it cannot be said that the High Court has acted improperly or illegally in taking suo motu cognizance of criminal contempt of subordinate Court on the petition of an advocate. Various aspects have been discussed and considered in details.
3. Looking at the scope of Section 12 as well as Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act and considering the scope of Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution of India and the materials on record, we find that the case, as it is, is maintainable in law. But without considering the details of the facts in the present case, we are told that, in fact, the N. B. Ws. issued by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Cuttack, have already been executed by the appropriate police authority and the case is of academic interest now. Since we find that on the materials on record and as per the averments made in the petition and as per the provisions of law, the contempt petition is quite maintainable, and in an appropriate case the High Court can take notice of the contempt committed in violation of the order of the subordinate Court in a proper situation. Since there has already been compliance of Court's order, we have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate and we do not find anything to initiate a contempt proceeding except answering the academic question as indicated above. The question of maintainability having been decided in the affirmative, we drop the proceeding and dispose of the case accordingly.
P.K. Mohanty, J.
I agree.