C. SHAKUNTHALA & ORS. versus H.P. UDAYAKUMAR & ANR.

Citation: [2012] 2 S.C.R. 1056 · Decided: 16-01-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012] 2 S.C.R. 1056 
C. SHAKUNTHALA & ORS. 
v. 
H.P. UDAYAKUMAR & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 158 of 2012) 
JANUARY 16, 2012 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Criminal contempt -
Pursuant to a contempt petition, Division Bench of the High 
C Court by order dated 9-6-2006 held that there was a prima 
facie case against the accused-respondents to proceed 
further and frame charge and try them for criminal contempt 
for ,;ibuse of the process of the law - However, by final 
impugned judgment dated 18-6-2008, another Co-ordinate . 
o Bench of the High Court dismissed the contempt petition and 
acquitted the respondents -
Propriety -
Held: The 
subsequent coordinate Bench without adverting to the 
relevant materials relied on by the earlier coordinate Bench 
passed a cryptic order by dismissing the contempt petition -
E Prima facie conclusion arrived by the earlier Bench in the year 
2006, based on the acceptable materials, could not be 
ignored by the subsequent co-ordinate Bench at the time of 
the passing the final order as if it was an appellate Court -
Order dated 18-6-2008 set aside and matter remitted to High 
F Court for fresh disposal. 
Pursuant to a petition by the predecessor-interest of 
the appellants under Section 11 (2) of the Contempt of 
Courts Act, 1971, the Division Bench of the High C:ourt 
by order dated 9-6-2006 held that there was a prima ifacie 
G case against the accused-respondents to proc:eed 
furtlher and frame charge and try them for criminal 
contempt for abuse of the process of the law. However, 
by final impu.gned judgment dated 18-6-2008, another Co-
ordinate Bench of the High Court dismissed the 
H 
1056 
C. SHAKUNTHALA & ORS. v. H.P. UDAYAKUMAR & ·1 OS7 
ANR. 
contempt petition and acquitted the respondents, 
A 
allegedly without adverting to the plea of the parties and 
· the evidence on record. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD: Keeping in view the stand of complainant, his 
specific assertion with reference to earlier orders and the 
defence of the respondents/accused as well as the prima 
facie conclusion by the Division Bench that the 
complainant has made out a case against the accused 
to proceed further and adjou.rned the matter for two 
C 
weeks for framing charges, it is not understandable how 
another coordinate Bench after two years without any 
discussion and adverting to the relevant materials relied 
on by earlier coordinate Bench passed a cryptic order by 
dismissing the contempt petition. When the coordinate 
D 
Bench on earlier occasion, that is, on 09.06.2006, based 
on the acceptable materials prima facie concluded that 
charges have to be framed, it was but proper by the 
present Bench to arrive and take a final decision in the 
light of the materials formulated by the earlier Bench. It 
E 
is not that the complainant has made out a case for guilty 
of contempt of courts but the prima facie conclusion 
arrived by the earlier Bench in the year 2006, based on 
the acceptable materials, cannot be ignored by another 
Bench at the time of the passing the final order as if it is 
an appellate Court. In view of the same, there is no other 
option except setting aside the impugned order dated 18-
6-2008 and remitting the matter to the High Court for 
passing fresh order. [Para 8] [1064-B-F] 
F 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
G 
No. 158 of 2012. 
From the Judgment & Order dated' 18.06.2008 of the High 
Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal CCC No. 32 of 
2005. 
. 
H 
A 
B 
1058 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 2 S.C.R. 
Basava Prabhu, S. Patil, B. Subrahmanya Prasad, 
Anirudh Sanganeria, V.N. Raghupathy for the Appellants. 
Abha Jain for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and 
order dated 18.06.2008 passed by the Division Bench of the 
High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal CCC No. 32 
c of 2005 whereby the High Court dismissed the petition of .the 
appellants herein. 
. 3. Brief facts: 
(a) The appellants herein are the children and legal 
0 
representatives of late M. Channappa, who was the original 
complainant/landlord before the High Court. Laite M. 
Channappa was the owner of the property bearing Old Survey 
No .. 39/2A, Yediur Village, Bangalore South Taluk. He let out 
the eastern half portion of the said property to one Kachu 
Krishna Achari and western portion to one

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.