Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040002292024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/6/2024 Empalo Mena Son of Late Baloma Mena, permanent resident of Hill colony, Yingkiong, Upper Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS Anant Mittal The Superintendent of Police (SIC) (Vigilance) Block No.3, First Floor Civil Secretariat, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : D K Das, D K Das Advocate for the Respondent : Ojing Pada, T Mingki,D Riba,Likha Moriam BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 18-03-2025 Heard Mr. M. Khataniar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. O. Pada, learned counsel for the sole respondent. 2. This is an application filed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Rule 9 of the Contempt of Courts (Gauhati High Court) Rules, 1977, for non-compliance of the Page No.# 2/5 order dated 12.07.2023 passed by this Court in WP(C)No. 228/2023. 3. The order dated 12.07.2023 reads as under: “...In view of the above and having regard to the nature of the prayer made by the petitioner in this petition; I hereby deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondent No. 4 viz; Superintendent of Police (SIC), Near Information Commission Office, ESS Sector, Itanagar, to act upon the First Information Report (FIR), dated 29.12.2022, lodged by the petitioner, in accordance with law.” 4. The case of the petitioner is that a copy of the order dated 12.07.2023 was communicated to the respondent/alleged contemnor and also requested for compliance of the order, but no action has been initiated even to cause preliminary investigation to register a case against the erring Officials and thus, the respondent has disregarded the order and direction of this Court. Hence, this contempt petition. 5. Mr. O. Pada, learned counsel for the respondent, referring to the affidavit- in-opposition and subsequently, additional-affidavit filed by the respondent/contemnor, denied all allegations made against the respondent. He submits that as per the mandate of Section 17 A of the P.C Act, 1988, when the complaint/F.I.R. dated 29.12.2022 was received, the respondent vide Office Noting dated 16.01.2023, forwarded the same to the Principal Secretary (Vigilance) for approval from the competent authority. The approval under Section 17 A of the P.C Act, 1988, was received by the respondent on 12.07.2023, thereafter, vide order dated 13.07.2023, the matter was endorsed to Inspector W. Kamhua for conducting preliminary enquiry and to submit report and thus, the SIC (VIG) PS ENQ No. 11/2023 was registered in connection with Page No.# 3/5 the F.I.R, dated 29.12.2022. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent further submits that during the course of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has recorded the statement of the informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 18.07.2023, and seizure were also made from the informant/petitioner, wherein, the informant/petitioner had appended signature. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that on completion of the preliminary enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has also submitted a status report on 27.01.2025, wherein, the Enquiry Officer has observed that the point of allegation made in the complaint has been established which needs proper and detail investigation. Additionally, Mr. Pada, learned counsel for the respondent submits that after filing of the status report, the matter has been placed before the Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, SIC. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent, therefore, submits that, given the above facts and circumstances, the grievances of the petitioner have been complied with and there has been no any deliberate or wilful disobedience of the Court’s order, dated 12.07.2023, passed in WP(C)No.228/2023, and since, the order has substantially been complied with, the contempt petition may be closed. 8. Heard both the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the documents available on record. 9. It appears that the petitioner was aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent/alleged contemnor for not registering the F.I.R. filed by him. Therefore, he approached this Court by filing writ petition No. 228 of 2023, Page No.# 4/5 praying for a direction to the respondents to act in the F.I.R. lodged by him in accordance with law. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court vide an order, dated 12.07.2023 directed the respondent No. 4 in the said writ petition, i.e. the alleged contemnor, to act upon the F.I.R. dated 29.12.2022, lodged by the petitioner, in accordance with law. 10. On perusal of the record produced before this Court, it appears that on 13.01.2023, the DySP-cum-Officer-in-Charge of the SIC, has written an Office Note to the Superintendent of Police (SIC), and pursuant to that, the alleged contemnor, vide his File Noting, dated 16.01.2023 forwarded the same to the Member Secretary (Vigilance) for approval from the competent authority. This was done as required under Section 17 A of the P.C Act, 1988. The approval as proposed was received by the alleged contemnor on 12.07.2023, and thereafter, on 13.07.2023 he had endorsed the matter to Inspector W. Kamhua for conducting preliminary enquiry and to submit report. Thus, it appears that the SIC (Vigilance) PS ENQ No. 11/2023, was registered in connection with the said F.I.R., dated 29.12.2022. It also appears that the informant/petitioner, himself has participated during the process of enquiry, he gave his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C; some materials were also seized from him in connection with the case where the informant has put signature in the Seizure Memo. It is further seen that upon completion of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report, wherein, he observed that the point of allegation made in the complaint has been established, which according him needs proper and detail investigation. The above facts are not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the enquiry was conducted, but the relevant documents which he has annexed in his additional-affidavit were not seized by the Enquiry Officers. Page No.# 5/5 11. Be that as it may, since the respondent has caused an enquiry, and got the report submitted in accordance with law, which is now under consideration for decision of the competent authority, it appears that the respondent/alleged contemnor has substantially complied with the order and direction of this Court, passed on 12.07.2023 in WP(C)No. 228 of 2023. 12. In light of the above, and as there is no deliberate violation of the order and direction of this Court passed on 12.07.2023 in WP(C)No. 228 of 2023, this contempt petition is closed. 13. Accordingly, this contempt petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant