Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010161882023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/475/2023 BINOD DAS S/O LT. CHAKRADHARA DAS, R/O- HOUSE NO. 54, R.G. BARUAH ROAD, GUWAHATI, PIN- 781005, DISTRICT- KAMRUP(METRO), ASSAM. VERSUS DIGANTA THAKUR AND 5 ORS. S/O- LATE BRINDABAN CH. THAKUR, GENERAL SECRETARY, INDIA CLUB, ADD- GNB ROAD NEAR RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, PIN- 781001. 2:ANUPAM CHOWDHURY S/O LATE NILIMOY CHOWDHURY R/O- FLAT NO. 201 AMITY APARTMENT SK BHUYAN ROAD DIGHALIPUKHURI (EAST) GUWAHATI- 781001. 3:MANASH KUMAR DAS S/O- MR. SUJIT KUMAR DAS R/O- 40 JASWANTA ROAD Page No.# 2/8 PANBAZAR GUWAHATI- 781001. 4:SUMAN KALYAN DUTTA S/O- LATE DR. SARAT DUTTA R/O- BYE-LANE NO. 2 RAJGARH GUWAHATI- 781003. 5:BISWADEEP BORA S/O LATE PULADHAR BORA R/O- 3RD FLOOR PADMA NIWAS CK ROAD PANBAZAR GUWAHATI- 781001. 6:SAMARJIT NEGO S/O- LATE DURGA PRASAD NEGO R/O- DURGA NEGO VILLA HOUSE NO. 15 SUB-BYE LANE NO. 2 BYE-LANE-7 LACHIT NAGAR GUWAHATI- 781007 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D MOZUMDER, MR. S BISWAS,MS D DEVI Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A M BORA (r-1,2,3), MR T DAS (R-4,5,6),R. CHAUHAN (R- 4,5,6),MR. S BISWAKARMA (R-4,5,6),MR. D K BAIDYA (r-1,2,3),MR. M S HUSSAIN BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 14.05.2025 Page No.# 3/8 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. S. Biswas for the petitioner. 2. Also heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. A. M. Bora assisted by learned counsel Mr. D. K. Baidya for the respondent NOS. 1, 2 & 3 and learned Senior Counsel Mr. I. Choudhury assisted by learned counsel Mr. S. Biswakarma for the respondent Nos. 4, 5 & 6. 3. This application has been filed under section 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, read with Rule 9 of the Gauhati High Court, Contempt of Court Rules 1977 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India, against the willful disobedience of the Order dated 23.09.2022, passed by this Court in IA(C) No. 2961/2022 arising out of FAO No. 51/2022 as well as the Order dated 20.02.2023, passed in Review Petition No.171/2022. 4. It is submitted that by Order dated 23.09.2022, in I.A. (C) No. 2961/2022, the respondents were restrained from taking any coercive action including expulsion of the membership of the petitioner from the India club till the next returnable date. Vide Order dated 20.02.2023, in connection with Review Petition No. 171/2022, this order was modified and notices were issued to the respondents, and this matter was listed along with FAO No. 51/2022. However, when this restrain order was still in force, an FIR was lodged on 07.07.2023, relating to an incident which occurred in the year 2022. It is submitted that the cause of action of the title suit No. 569/2022 and the cause of action of the FIR is relating to the same incident. 5. Aggrieved by the Order passed by the Learned Civil Judge No.2, Kamrup, Metro, (M) in Misc(J) Case No. 845/2022, arising out of T.S. No. 569/2022, the petitioner had preferred the FAO No. 51/2022. The petitioner had filed a petition under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, registered as Page No.# 4/8 Misc (J) Case No.854/2022 with prayer for restraining the Club of the respondent from holding Extraordinary Meeting on 25.09.2022. As this Petition was rejected by the Learned Civil Judge No. 2, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the Order dated 21.09.2022, passed in Misc (J) Case No.854/2022. Along with the Appeal, the petitioner also filed a petition under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC with prayer for ad interim injunction to restrain the opposite parties from taking any coercive action including expulsion of membership of the petitioner from India Club in the Extraordinary General Meeting scheduled to be held on 25.09.2022. 6. It is contended that the petitioner has acted in contempt of this order, as despite a specific direction restraining the opposite parties from taking any coercive action including expulsion of membership of the petitioner from India Club in the Extraordinary General Meeting which was scheduled to be held on 25.09.2022, the opposite party/respondent No.1 as the General Secretary of the India Club lodged an FIR with the police at Panbazar P.S. As the club members led by the Secretary have acted in gross violation of this Court's order, the petitioner has prayed to pass appropriate order to punish the contemnor for deliberate disobedience of the Order dated 23.09.2022, passed by this Court in FAO No. 51/2022 and the Order dated 20.02.2023, passed by this Court in Review Petition No.171/2022, or to pass any Orders as this Court deems fit and proper. 7. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. A.M. Bora for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 has raised serious objection against this petition stating that the restrain Order does not indicate that the respondents were restrained from lodging any FIR in connection with a case of forgery. The FIR itself is clear that the petitioner had submitted the purported copies of his B-Com Part I & Part II certificates and the Page No.# 5/8 Returning Officer asked Mr. Das (petitioner) for originals which infuriated him and he snatched away his papers and destroyed them. Thereafter, the Returning Officer of India Club Executive Committee Elections, 2022, communicated with the Controller of Examinations of Guwahati University soliciting verification of B- Com Part I & Part II examination, 1996, and the certificates of the petitioner. In response of this communication, the Controller of Examinations sent a reply dated 09.08.2022 by reference number GU/CON/6229 to the Returning Officer, stating that the name in the marksheet, (Binod Das) does not match the original Merit Register available in the Confidential Custody of the Gauhati University and the marksheet appears to be a forged marksheet. 8. It is further contended that a Court will never restrain lodgment of any FIR against a serious offence as forgery of documents. An FIR has been lodged and the respondents have not acted in contempt of the order of this court. The petitioner has not been arrested or jailed and thus there is no question of any coercive action being taken against the petitioner. The FIR was lodged to intimate the police about a forgery. 9. It is further contended that although it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been harassed as after the lodgment of the FIR, he was called by the police not once but thrice, yet the petitioner has not mentioned about his plight in the petition. 10. It is further submitted that although a title suit arising out of the same facts and circumstances is pending, this does not debar a simultaneous criminal case on the same facts and circumstances and both the cases can run simultaneously. 11. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 has drawn the Page No.# 6/8 attention of this Court to Annexure-12 of the objection of respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3, which is a letter from the Controller of Examinations to the Returning Officer by reference number GU/CON/6229, which clearly reflects that the marksheet submitted by the petitioner was a forged marksheet. The Annexure-C of the petition has been admitted by the petitioner. The Annexure-C of the petition i.e., the FIR lodged against the petitioner clearly reflects that the Annexure-12 of the objection of respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 is the letter referred to in the FIR. 12. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. I. Choudhury for the respondents has submitted that this is a frivolous petition and is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac). It is submitted that this frivolous petition amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. There was no specific direction not to register any FIR rendering the lodgment of the FIR to be a contempt of any order of this Court. An order has been passed not to take coercive action, which cannot be interpreted in this manner. 13. It is further submitted that the interpretation of the order relied upon by the petitioner in connection with I.A.(Civil)/2961/2022 and Review Petition No. 171/2022 and the submission that the petitioner was called by the police twice are mere oral submissions. 14. In reply to the submissions of the learned Senior counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had to seek relief through this contempt case as the FIR lodged by the respondents, was not registered by the police but, at the same time although the FIR has not been lodged, it cannot be ignored that the respondents have acted in violation of this Court’s order. It is submitted that what prevented the respondents from lodging the FIR, immediately after receipt of the letter from Page No.# 7/8 the Controller on 09.08.2022 vide Reference No. GU/CON/6229. When this Court has specifically directed through the aforementioned order dated 20.02.2023 in connection with Review Petition No. 171/2022 and order dated 23.09.2022 in connection with I.A.(Civil)/2961/2022, not to take any coercive action, the respondents ought to have complied with the order of this Court. What prompted the respondents to lodge an FIR relating to the incident of 09.08.2022 on a later date i.e. on 07.07.2023 when this Court’s order directing the respondents not to take coercive action in connection with Review Petition No. 171/2022 and I.A. (Civil)/2961/2022 was still in force. Thereby, the respondents have violated the Court’s order and are liable under the Contempt of Court’s Act. 15. I have considered the submissions at the bar with circumspection. I find force in the argument forwarded by the learned counsel for the respondents. It is true that the FIR was not lodged promptly after receipt of letter from the Controller of Examination on 09.08.2022. There was a delay in lodgment of the FIR relating to forged documents. It is also true that there was no specific direction from this Court vide order dated 23.09.2022 in connection with I.A. (Civil)/2961/2022 and order dated 20.02.2023 in connection with Review Petition No. 171/2022, except for the fact that it was directed by this Court not to take any coercive action. When a criminal offence is detected, it is incumbent upon the person who detects such an offence to inform the police. 16. The aforementioned orders of this Court debarring the respondents from taking any coercive action against the petitioners cannot be construed to be an order debarring any person or any institution from lodging an FIR if a criminal offence is detected despite the fact that the lodgment of the FIR appears to be with an intent to harass the petitioner, as the FIR was lodged after 11 months Page No.# 8/8 after receipt of information from the Controller of Examination of Gauhati University.. However, this cannot be considered to be any coercive action taken against the petitioner by the respondents. 17. It is true that despite the fact that the report was received on 09.08.2022, the FIR was lodged on a much later date i.e., 07.07.2024. Although, this Court’s order was in force, restraining the respondents from taking any coercive action against the petitioner, yet the lodgment of the FIR against an offence of forgery cannot be considered to be violation of this Court’s order in connection with Review Petition No. 171/2022 and I.A.(Civil) NO. 2961/2022. 18. In the wake of foregoing discussions, it is thereby held that the order passed by this Court not to take any action against the petitioner cannot be interpreted to be an order restraining the respondents from lodging any FIR, if any criminal offence is detected by them. It has also to be borne in mind that the FIR has not been registered by the police and has not culminated into any criminal case. 19. In view of my foregoing discussions, this petition is dismissed. 20. No order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant