Case Title: Anjaliben Prakashbhai Trivedi v. Jaydeepsinh K Rathod
The Gujarat High Court declined to entertain a contempt petition against a Police Inspector for allegedly failing to comply with the Supreme Court's decision in Lalita Kumari v. State of UP, for prompt registration of FIR on receipt of information regarding a cognizable offence.
The case, in brief, is that the applicant had mortgaged her gold ring and two nose rings (nathani) and borrowed an amount of Rs.14,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Thousand Only) from the original accused and it was conveyed that the said borrowing was made in such a manner that the father of the applicant may not have the knowledge and for this purpose, no name is given in the bill. The said amount was promised to be paid back within a period of two months by the applicant but could not be repaid. Resultantly, the respondent accused started making some immoral demands. It is the case of the applicant that later on, the accused started sending some messages on WhatsApp and tried to blackmail and thereby inclined to establish physical relations and was threatened by the accused that he would inform her father about the mortgage of the jewellery.
After a few days, the nephew of the accused started following the applicant and one day, the applicant was intercepted in the way, compelled to sit in the car and then she was brought inside the Hotel/Guest House where no identity card or anything was demanded after which the accused misbehaved and raped the applicant. It was conveyed that some photographs of the applicant have been taken by the accused and by blackmailing her for about five times, she was taken to the Guest House and threatened. There were injuries caused to the applicant by the accused, but on account of fear and reputation, she did not lodge any complaint of this incident. Consequently, the harassment continued, and, in the end, the applicant finally registered a complaint against the accused.
However, shockingly, the applicant complainant was picked up by the police personnel who came to arrest after sunset and in civil dress. She was also not produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours of her arrest.
The Court observed that there are certain circumstances that cannot be ignored by the Court, however, it is a settled position of law that while dealing with the contempt petition, the Court is not expected to conduct a roving inquiry and the said principle would apply with same vigour when disputed questions of fact are involved and when two views are possible, such disputed version would be normally outside the realm of contempt jurisdiction. Looking into the facts in hand, in the context of the directions which are issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court, The Hon'ble Judges stated, "we are of the opinion that no satisfactory case is made out by the applicant which may persuade us to initiate contempt proceedings and additionally the applicant is not remediless. She can either file a criminal prosecution or take appropriate measures permissible under the law and one of the measures is already set in motion in the form of a complaint having already been filed against the accused persons, as such we deem it proper not to exercise our jurisdiction in favour of the applicant."