2nd Additional Sessions Judge Sets Aside Bailable Warrant Issued Against Nagrota Police Station Incharge
JAMMU, SEPTEMBER 2 :
The Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, Anoop Kumar Sharma, has held that a subordinate court cannot issue warrants or adopt coercive measures against an alleged contemnor to secure his appearance in contempt proceedings.
The significant ruling was passed while dealing with a petition challenging a bailable warrant issued against Parvez Sajad, Incharge Police Station Nagrota, by the Forest Magistrate, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (JMIC), Jammu.
The contempt proceedings had been initiated on the allegations that the police officer had failed to comply with directions earlier issued by the Magistrate in a matter concerning Shoket Ali.
After examining the matter, the Sessions Court observed that contempt proceedings before a subordinate court are governed by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, along with the applicable Rules of 2023, and cannot be treated in the same manner as ordinary criminal proceedings.
The Court held that the jurisdiction of a subordinate court in such matters is limited. It may conduct a preliminary inquiry, provide the alleged contemnor with an opportunity of hearing, and examine whether a prima facie case of contempt is made out.
If, after such examination, the subordinate court finds sufficient grounds to proceed, its role is to make an appropriate reference to the High Court, which is competent to deal with contempt proceedings in accordance with law.
The Court made it clear that the subordinate court does not possess the authority to directly invoke coercive measures, including the issuance of warrants, against an alleged contemnor merely to secure his presence in such proceedings.
Justice Anoop Kumar Sharma observed that the Magistrate had erred in adopting coercive measures against the police officer during the contempt proceedings.
Consequently, the Court set aside the bailable warrant issued against Parvez Sajad, Incharge Police Station Nagrota, holding that the order was not sustainable in view of the legal framework governing contempt proceedings.
The ruling underscores the distinction between ordinary criminal proceedings and contempt jurisdiction, and reiterates that subordinate courts must follow the prescribed procedure when allegations of contempt arise before them.
The Court’s decision also clarifies that while subordinate courts may examine allegations of non-compliance with their orders at the preliminary stage, the power to proceed with contempt jurisdiction cannot be exercised beyond the limits prescribed under the law.(KNC)