Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee, J.
1. This is an application under Section 439(2) Cr. P.C. in the cause title the application has been described as an application under Section 439(2) Cr. P.C. read with Section 482 Cr. P.C. In the prayer portion the petitioner has prayed for cancellation of the bail of accused opposite party No. 1 Ajoy Kr. Saha as well as for passing several orders and directions of different kinds, such as, direction upon the CBI to investigate the case in place of CID, West Bengal, direction for restoration of certain sections of the Indian Penal Code in the FIR, direction for arresting the accused persons for custodial interrogation, direction upon the learned SDJM to take certain document in safe custody from the I. O. and produce the same before this Court, direction for delivery of possession of certain flats alleged to have been forcibly and surreptitiously occupied by the accused Ajoy Kr. Saha etc. We have mentioned the prayers above only to indicate that this is purportingly an omnibus application covering a wide range of aspects of the grievance of the petitioner and most of the prayers are outside the determination of this Bench. Possibly this has happened because the petitioner Sri Nirmaljit Singh Hoon has been himself conducting his case personally without taking the assistance of any legal expert. Indeed there is no bar against a person preparing and conducting his own case. But in view of the determination of this Bench we have to confine ourselves to the question of cancellation of bail as prayed for in this application and the other substantive prayers are beyond the scope of our consideration. Accordingly, the petitioner addressed us on the question or cancellation of bail of the opposite party No. 1 although he took us in that connection elaborately through the background of his grievance and even did not spare to criticise the judgment of a learned single Judge (S. K. Tewari, J.) passed in certain matters disposed of by the learned Judge. He also while making submissions could not always keep himself within the limits of propriety while making his submissions regarding Judges and we had to remind him of such limits and requirements of propriety on several occasions during his submissions. He has not annexed the order by which the opposite party No. 1 was granted bail by the learned Court below nor the order by which the learned Court below rejected his prayer for cancellation of bail of the opposite party No. 1 which indeed he should have done. However we granted considerable latitude to the petitioner in making his submissions as he was conducting his case himself personally.
2. As far as we could understand there is a dispute about certain property and there were also agreements in respect of such property. Stated in brief the petitioner's case is as follows :-
The petitioner Sri Nirmaljit Singh Hoon is Director/Chairman of Vishnupur electric Supply and Industrial Development Co. Ltd. (Vishnupur, for short). Vishnupur having its registered office at 4th floor, 203 Sarat Bose Road, Calcutta-29 was originally managed by its Director-in-charge A. N. Sen along with its family members. Vishnupur also owns 50 to 66% undivided shares in the building situated at 203, Sarat Bose Road where its registered office is located, since 1981. There was an agreement for sale dt/- 2-3-93 entered with the prospective buyer Ranjan Sen Gupta as a result of negotiation through his advocate Rai Mohan Sinha, the O.P. No. 3 with A. N. Sen for sale of the said building together with the vacant possession of the 4th floor flat in occupation of Vishnupur at a price of Rs. 57 lac and an earnest money of Rs. 6 lac was paid to A. N. Sen which was followed by a further payment of Rs. 2 lac. It was stipulated that the balance money would be paid within six months when the possession of the 4th floor flat and the 5th floor terrace, i.e., the office cum residence of Vishnupur would be handed over. However in August 1993 Ranjan Sen Gupta abandoned the deal because of dearth of fund. Then came Ajoy Kr. Saha, O. P. No. 1 through Rai Mohan Sinha. A new agreement was entered in the name of Ajoy Kr. Saha as purchaser. Only the time was extended to one year in place of six months. A. K. Saha paid nearly Rs. 15 lac by way of earnest money. However Sri Saha could not raise the balance fund. About one month before the expiry of the agreement dt. 25-8-93, the said agreement deed was lost and was suspected to be stolen away by Sri Saha (when Sri A. N. Sen's daughter Sarswati visited the office of Sri Saha on 14-7-94 with the file of documents). Thereafter by entering into a criminal conspiracy with the O.P. Nos. 2 and 3, A. K. Saha forged the first six pages of the governing agreements and manufactured altogether a new agreement by deceitfully using the last page No. 7 of the main agreement to fulfil his evil design to grab the property. The forgery will be clear from a comparison of the two agreements with the forged agreement. Finding the situation hopeless for getting his balance money from A. K. Saha, A. N. Sen negotiated with Sri Hoon (the petitioner herein), Chairman Hotel services through Nageswar Singh for the purpose of selling all the shares of Vishnupur held by his family as a result of which 200 shares were transferred on 8-8-94 in the name of Sri Hoon and his nominees who were inducted as Directors of Vishnupur with a view to selling all his interest in Calcutta including the family shares in the building at 203 Sarat Bose Road. After the lapse of agreement of A. K. Saha and resultant forfeiture of his earnest money Sri Saha along with others visited the said building on 3rd and 4th September, 1994 and started to harass and threaten the Vishnupur staff and its Directors with consequences. Thereafter Nageswar Singh as Director of Vishnupur started a proceeding under Section 144(2) Cr. P.C. before SDEM, Alipore being M. P. 2089/94 against A. K. Saha and others and the learned Magistrate on 5-9-94 issued order for giving protection and for ensuring peace and also prevented A. -K. Saha and others from frequently/ visiting the vicinity of the building at 203 Sarat Bose Road. Inspite of that A. K. Saha on secret arrangement with and concurrence of the O.C., Tallygunj P.S. forcibly broke in the office of Vishnupur on the 4th floor in clear violation of the Court's order. Nageswar Singh lodged an FIR on that very day which was registered as Tallygunj P. S. case No. 388/94 dt/- 19-10-94 under Sections 147/148/427/448/188 I.P.C., but the Tallygunj police took the key of the office from its Director Nageswar Singh on the pretext of keeping peace and tranquillity and maintaining law and order in the neighbourhood. Police however, during 20th October to 12th November, 1994 surreptitiously and secretly gave A. K. Saha and S.N. Biswas access to the office of Vishnupur. Subsequently A. K. Saha and two others were arrested in connection with Tollygunj P.S. Case No. 388/94 and were released on bail on the next day. Nageswar Singh filed a petition on 17-11 -94 before the Executive Magistrate for prosecution of A. K. Saha for-violation of Court's order and also for direction upon the police to hand over keys taken over by the police earlier but that petition was rejected. Against that order of the Executive Magistrate, a revisional application being No. 351/94 was moved before the Sessions Judge, Alipore which resulted into handing over of key against receipt A. K. Saha then on 19-11-94 filed a petition before the Sessions Judge, Alipore. Thereafter a fourth revisional application was filed by A. K. Saha in the High Court being Cr. Rev. No. 2926/94 and in that connection he also filed forged documents and false accounts. N. S. Hoon then filed an application before the High Court, being numbered as Cr. Rev. No. 581/95 under Section 340 Cr. P.C. In the last week of January 1995 A. K. Saha filed two title suits being T.S. 8 of 1995 and T.S. 12 of 1995 in the 8th Court of Asst. District Judge. Alipore against A. N. Sen and others enclosing and relying on self-same forged documents, and those two suits are yet pending. In the meantime however another criminal case being Cr. case No. 3071/94 was filed against A. K. Saha and others by Vishnupur Directors before the SDJM Alipore under Sections 147/148/149/396/397 I.P.C. read with Sections 24/25 Arms Act and the learned SDJM ordered the case to be investigated by the DC, DD, Lalbazar. The Cr. Rev. 581/95 filed by N. S. Hoon for prosecuting A. K. Saha and others under Section 340 Cr. P.C. for putting in forged and fabricated documents/evidence in judicial proceeding was however rejected for reasons recorded in the concerned order. Thereafter the complainant N. S. Hoon filed a complaint being C 482 of 1997 before the CMM Calcutta against Ajoy Kr. Saha and others under Sections 120B/193/195/196/199/200/420/465/468/471/34 IPC with a prayer to send the complaint to the DIG, CID, West Bengal under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. for treating the same as FIR and the CMM on 20-2-97 directed the DIG, CID to treat it as FIR under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. and cause investigation.
3. What is narrated above is only a reflection of the petitioner's case described in his complaint being C 482 of 1997 filed before the CMM, Calcutta under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. Although the petitioner did not care to spell out clearly, yet it appears from the petition that on the basis of the said complaint forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. Tollygunj P.S. Case No. 131 of 1997 under Sections 420 and 120B etc. were started. It also appears from the petition that in connection with that case police searched and seized certain documents. It also appears from what has been haphazardly and incoherently described in the present petition that in the said case A. K. Saha was granted bail by the SDJM, Alipore on 31-3-98 and then the petitioner applied to SDJM for cancellation of bail granted to A. K. Saha, but the SDJM rejected the prayer on 6-7-98 and thereafter the petitioner has filed the present application before the High Court on 14-9-98 for cancellation of bail of A. K. Saha with certain other prayers which we have already mentioned.
4. In the present petition it is also stated that both the Cr. Rev. No. 2926/94 and No. 58/95 (referred to earlier) were disposed of by S. K. Tewari, J. on 11-7-96. We have already mentioned that Cr. Rev. 581/95 under Section 340 Cr. P.C. was rejected. In the Cr. Rev. 2926/94 the learned Judge directed the key to be handed over to the petitioner of that case, namely, A. K. Saha. A. K. Saha filed proceedings before SDJM Alipore for physical possession of the 4th floor flat. The application was rejected by the SDJM. A. K. Saha filed a revision application in the High Court against that order of the SDJM and on that application being Cr. Rev. No. 3194/96 S. K. Tewari, J. directed on 17-1 -97 the SDJM to hand over physical possession of the concerned premises to Saha, and accordingly the SDJM, Alipore directed the police to hand over possession to A. K. Saha. The petitioner's allegation in the petition is that as a result of such direction A. K. Saha with others invaded the concerned premises by breaking the locks and gates and looted away and plundered goods and valuables worth over Rs, 5 lac. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by S. K.. Tewari, J. and it is his contention in the petition that the Criminal Court cannot direct eviction of a person from lawful possession which can be done only by civil Court and that the decision of civil Court is binding upon the criminal Court in this respect. The question whether S. K. Tewari, J. was justified in passing the order is however not a matter which can be agitated before this Bench because this Bench does not have the determination to entertain that question. We are however surprised that the petitioner in projecting his grievance has gone to the extent of making certain remarks and observations which arc clearly contumacious. At page 18 of his petition he says thus :-
Thereafter, on the same day, in the Criminal Rev. 2926 of 1994, S. K. Tewari, J. notwithstanding the pendency of civil suit TS 12/9,5 and by usurping civil jurisdiction ordered the key of the flat to be given to Saha, by also completely ignoring that A. K. Saha's entry into the flat was illegal, forcible and in violation of the Court order for which he was already arrested and kept in hajat. (It was like a Judge ordering the police to give back the stolen purse to the pickpocket, because it was recovered by the police during the body search of the pickpocket).
(Underlined for attention).
The underlined portion is perniciously intemperate and contumacious. It is needless to say that whatever may be the grievance in respect of an order of the Court the aggrieved person definitely cannot, become contumacious in his expression. And if he does so he exposes himself to action for contempt. That the intemperate and contumacious language used by the petitioner against a learned Judge of this Court, such as 'usurping civil jurisdiction' by ordering delivery,1 of keys of the flat to Saha in criminal revisional: jurisdiction, is wholly mala fide, if not malicious, is evident from the fact that earlier the petitioner himself approached the Executive Magistrate and also the Sessions Judge for directing the police to hand over the self-same keys to him and obtained such order from the sessions Judge in criminal revisional jurisdiction against which the matter was brought before this Court in its criminal revisional jurisdiction. According to the petitioner therefore the order for delivery of key of the flat when made by the sessions Judge in his favour is very much valid but when a similar order in respect of the self-same keys is passed by a learned Judge of this Court in favour of his adversary the same becomes usurpation of civil jurisdiction on the part of the learned Judge of this Court. The expressions used by the petitioner in respect of the learned Judge prima facie amount to deliberate and desperate contempt. Even in the supplementary note submitted by the petitioner before this Court he also made the following contumacious observations at page 3 :
However, not infrequently does it happen the. Judge drops the mantle of a Judge and Don the robe of an Advocate for one of the parties or against the other party by giving vent to his feelings of apathy or sympathy and in the process losing sight of the basic truth. It is not enough that the appeal Court says that the change of the robe does not become him well and orders a new trial but in between the mischief is accomplished. The party who is the beneficiary of the unfair trial lifts the goods delivered at his door to the corresponding detriment of the party injuriously affected.
The expressions used by the petitioner are pointedly contumacious for which he deserves to be appropriately dealt with.
5. We now take up the question of cancellation of bail of the opposite party No. I as prayed for in this petition. We have earlier mentioned that the petitioner did not annex any copy of the order by which the learned Magistrate granted bail to the O.P. No. I .Even he has not given the case number of the SDJM's Court in which the order for bail was passed. He has not also annexed the copy of the order passed by the learned Magistrate on his application for cancellation of bail. Be that as it may, so far as it appears to us, the petitioner is aggrieved by the grant of bail by the learned SDJM in favour of the O.P. No. 1 in connection with Tollygunj P.S. case No. 131 of 1997 which was started on the basis of the complaint forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. What is submitted by the petitioner is that the police by search and seizure has recovered some document which if compared with certain other documents would show that the opposite party No. I along with others committed forgery and cheating and therefore the offence being very serious the opposite party No. 1 should not have been granted bail and that is why bail should be cancelled. It however seems to us that the offences in connection with which the opposite party No. 1 was granted bail by the learned Magistrate are triable by the Magistrate of the first class and the maximum punishment for the alleged offences is imprisonment for seven years, such as, Sections 420/465/468/471 etc. It therefore also cannot be said that it was a case in which the Magistrate could not have granted bail under 437 Cr. P.C. in exercise of his judicial discretion. He was well within his jurisdiction to grant bail. Therefore when it is found that the Magistrate was not acting without jurisdiction in granting the bail this Court certainly will not interfere in the matter by cancelling the bail granted by the Magistrate in exercise of his power under Section 437 Cr. P.C. simply because the allegations in the complaint may ultimately turn out to be true and are not of light nature. In paragraph 47 of his petition the petitioner says that the accused Ajoy Kr. Saha who was enlarged on bail on 31-3-98 is interfering with investigation, tampering with evidence and threatening the witnesses with dire consequence with the help of his gang of goondas through which he took possession even earlier by violating Court's order and was arrested on 13th November, 1994. The learned Advocate for the opposite party No. 1 Ajoy Kr. Saha submits before the Court and invites the Court to put on record that his client, the opposite party No. 1 specifically denies this allegation and indeed does not admit any of the allegations made against him in the petition. We would however like to say that the allegations made by the petitioner in paragraph 47 are patently of omnibus nature without giving precise particulars as to in what manner the O.P. No. 1 was interfering with the investigation or tampering with evidence or threatening the witnesses and what are the names of those witnesses and at what date, time and place they were threatened. In the circumstances only on the basis of such omnibus allegations we do not consider it to be a fit case for directing cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner by the learned Magistrate. We accordingly reject the prayer for cancellation of bail of the opposite party No. 1.
6. It may be noted that the criminal Court does not decide title and any order of any criminal court regarding or touching possession of any property is effective for the purpose of criminal proceeding only and obviously is subject to the decision of any competent civil Court relating to title and possession in respect of the property. Notwithstanding any order of any criminal Court generally one can establish his claim of title and possession in an appropriate proceeding in civil Court.
7. Before we part with we would also like to record once again as has been recorded earlier that the petitioner has prima facie committed contempt by using contumacious language and expressions in the present proceeding. However without taking any immediate action against the petitioner for such contempt we only caution the petitioner to be careful in future so that the Court is not painfully compelled to take action against him for contempt. It is however made clear that this order or the caution administered herein does not exonerate the petitioner from his liability to face a charge of contempt if called upon to do in future, simply because no immediate action is taken against him in the matter. We also making it clear that nothing in this order shall be construed as our opinion on any aspect of the petitioner's case on merit inasmuch as there is no scope here for us to test the merit of his case and we have also not done so. The prayer for cancellation of bail stands rejected and the present application stands disposed of.
Nure Alam Chowdhury, J.
8. I agree.