@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
A. Ramamurthi, J.@mdashThis contempt application has been filed u/s 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondents for violating the orders passed by this Court in Crl. M. P. No. 130 of 2001 in Crl. R. C. No. 21 of 2001 dated 5-1-2001.
2. The case in brief is as follows :
The petitioner is the President of Trichy Thanjai Pudukottai Quaid-e-Milleth Districts Film Distributors Association, a registered body. The petitioner was elected as the President in the election conducted on 7-5-2000. He is discharging the duties to the best of his ability. One R. Srinivasan convened General Body Meeting on 22-11-2000. As per the byelaws, the Secretary has no power or authority to convene General Body Meeting. It appears that the said Srinivasan has moved a No Confidence Motion against the petitioner and other office bearers. The said Srinivasan brought non-members of the Association and behaved unruly, resulted in (sic) which, there was a confusion. There was an illegal resolution by the said Srinivasan and the petitioner challenged the same by filing a suit in O. S. No. 1432 of 2001 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Trichy. The petitioner has contended that the meeting as well as resolution is illegal and not in accordance with law. After the so-called resolution, the Secretary Srinivasan and few members supported by henchmen attempted to take law into their hands and they planned to take over the administration of the Association including the premises. The petitioner in his capacity as President, has filed a complaint before the Revenue Divisional Officer to interfere since there is a possibility of worsening the law and order situation. Proceedings u/s 145, Cr.P.C. were initiated by the petitioner. The Revenue Divisional Officer, on the same day, issued notice and he passed a detailed order on 27-12-2000 holding that the petitioner and other office bearers can do the day-to-day affairs of the Society and the respondents therein were prevented from interference.
3. The aggrieved parties challenged the order dated 27-12-2000 before this Court in Cri. R. C. No. 21 of 2001 and in the Revision case, respondents 1 to 6 were parties. They also filed Crl. M. P. No. 130 of 2001 to stay the operation of the order of the Executive Magistrate and this Court passed an order dated 5-1-2001 directing both the parties to maintain status quo which prevailed prior to the institution of proceedings u/s 145, Cr.P.C. The respondents are well aware that the petitioner is in possession of the office of the Association and taking care of the day-to-day affairs of the Association. Having got knowledge about this possession, the respondents attempted to interfere with the peaceful administration of the Association which has resulted in a complaint before the Fort Police Station on 12-2-2001 and 9-3-2001. The respondents never obeyed the orders of this Court. On 23-4-2001, the driver of the third respondent came to the office of the Association with deadly weapons and damaged the properties of the Association and one of the staff was injured in the attack. A criminal case was also registered and charge sheet was filed in C. C. No. 301 of 2001 against the driver of the third respondent. Respondents 2 to 5 are having knowledge about the criminal case and respondents 1 and 6 are parties to the case and all of them violated the orders passed by this court intentionally and wilfully and as such, they should be punished.
4. The first respondent filed a counter and denied the averments. According to him, the petitioner is not the President of the Society. On 22-11-2000, an extraordinary general body meeting was convened by the Secretary Srinivasan and No Confidence Motion against the petitioner as well as the Treasurer was moved and passed. The petitioner was removed as the President of the Association. The petitioner however wants to stick on to the chair. No doubt, the petitioner filed the suit but he was not granted any interim injunction. On 27-12-2000, the Revenue Divisional Officer passed final orders without even conducting an enquiry and directed them not to interfere with the applicant''s possession. This Court directed the maintenance of status quo order prior to the institution of proceedings u/s 145, Cr.P.C. Prior to 24-11-2000, it was the ad hoc committee, which had taken charge of the Association. He is not aware of the complaint said to have been lodged by, the applicant. Mere filing of the police complaint will not tantamount to possession. The contempt application is an abuse of process of law. The applicant is a Court bird and he had earlier filed writ petitions also and they were dismissed. If the Court comes to the conclusion that he had committed contempt, he tendered unconditional apology-
5. Respondents 2 to 6 filed separate counter and denied the averments. The respondents 2 to 5 were not parties in the proceedings. The proceedings u/s 145, Cr.P.C. were not warranted inasmuch as the petitioner had already moved the civil court for necessary relief. There is no occasion for them to know the order dated 5-1-2001. The claim of the petitioner that he is in possession of the Association office is a matter yet to be decided. The respondents 2 to 5 are admittedly members of the Association. They have not committed any contempt of Court.
6. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit denying the averments made in the counter filed by the respondents. The petitioner has also stated that there is a clear finding in 145, Cr.P.C. Proceedings that the petitioner alone is in possession of the Association premises and looking after the day-to-day administration. Aggrieved against the refusal to grant interim injunction in the suit, he preferred C. M. A. No. 21 of 2001 before the District Court, Trichy and the II Additional District Judge, Trichy had granted interim injunction. Even after the service of notice in the contempt application, the respondents are interfering in the administration of the Association and disturbed on 8-9-2001 and 10-9-2001 and there were video recorded by the police. Even on the next day, the article was published in the newspaper thereby establishing that the respondents have attempted to interfere with the peaceful possession of the Association. The respondents 2 to 5 although were not parties to the petition, have got knowledge about the order passed by this Court. Only by the timely interference of the police, the Association premises were kept intact. Any person interfering or violating the court order with the knowledge is also equally responsible as if they have violated the Court proceedings.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
8. The points that arise for consideration are,
(1). Whether the respondents have wilfully and intentionally disobeyed the orders passed by this Court on 5-1-2001?
(2). Whether the respondents 2 to 5 although not parties in Cr. M. P. No. 130 of 2001 are liable for contempt?
(3). To what relief?
9. Points : The petitioner was the President of the Trichy Thanjai Pudukottai Quaid-e-Milleth Districts Film Distributors Association which is a registered body, based upon the election conducted on 7-5-2000. It appears one R. Srinivasan said to be the Secretary of the Association convened the General Body Meeting on 22-11-2000 and removed the petitioner as well as other office bearers. The petitioner challenged the same by filing a suit in O. S. No. 1432 of 2001 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Trichy. After the resolution dated 22-11-2000, it appears that Secretary Srinivasan and few members supported by their henchmen attempted to take law into their own hands and they also planned to take over the administration of the Association since ad interim injunction was not granted to the petitioner by the civil Court. Thereafter, the petitioner in his capacity as the President initiated proceedings u/s 145, Cr.P.C. before the Revenue Divisional Officer and after issue of notice, a detailed order was passed on 27-12-2000 holding that the petitioner as well as other office bearers can do the day-to-day affairs of the Society and the respondents therein were also prevented from interfering with the same.
10. Cr. R. C. No. 21 of 2001 was filed by the aggrieved parties against the order dated 27-12-2000 and they have also filed Cr. M. P. No. 130 of 2001 to stay the operation of the same. This Court passed an order on 5-1-2001 directing both parties to maintain status quo which prevailed prior to the institution of the proceedings u/s 145, Cr.P.C. According to the petitioner, the respondents having got knowledge of the order, attempted to interfere with the peaceful administration of the Association which necessitated him to file the complaints before the police. On 23-4-2001, the driver of the third respondent came to the office of the Association with deadly weapons and damaged the properties and one of the staff was also injured for which, the criminal complaint was given and charge sheet was filed in C. C. No. 301 of 2001. Respondents 1 and 6 are parties in Crl. M. P. No. 130 of 2001 and although respondents 2 to 5 are not parties, they have got the knowledge of the order dated 5-1-2001 and as such, they are liable to be punished. Furthermore, on 8-9-2001, the respondents along with their men came in a group to take forcible possession of the property and the prompt action taken by the petitioner in giving a complaint to the police and their swift action has prevented an unlawful act. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further stated that the police had also taken video of the entire incident and if that is produced, it will expose. Furthermore, on the next day, it was flashed in the newspaper with the photographs and the petitioner had also produced a copy of the publication with photographs and the same is not seriously disputed.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that all the respondents joining together had intentionally and wilfully disobeyed the orders passed by this Court on 5-1-2001. Moreover, the third respondent happened to be a Councillor and he had sent a driver to cause damage to the property of the Association and one of the staff was also injured in the attack. Now, the stand taken by the respondents is one of flat denial. They further stated that the petitioner was never in possession of the Association and he had been duly removed by the resolution passed by a majority of the members and under the circumstance, the order passed by the Executive Magistrate also is not proper and correct. It is necessary to state that the rival group consisting of the respondents had convened a meeting on 22-11-2000 and appears to have passed a No Confidence Motion against the petitioner as well as the treasurer and because of this only, they were emboldened to interfere with the administration of the petitioner which necessitated the petitioner to file the suit O. S. No. 1432 of 2001. No doubt, the petitioner was not granted an ad interim injunction. He moved the Executive Magistrate to initiate proceedings u/s 145, Cr.P.C. and after notice to the other side, the Executive Magistrate passed an order on 27-12-2000 holding that the petitioner alone was in possession of the Association and looking after the works. Not satisfied with that, the Criminal Revision was filed. Now the learned counsel for the petitioner also produced a certified copy of the order to show that the respondents herein have not contested the suit and an ex parte decree was passed in his favour. Furthermore, it is admitted that the petitioner preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before the District Court and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was allowed and interim injunction also was granted in his favour. All these things cumulatively put together will clearly establish that the administration was only with the petitioner.
12. The short question that has to be decided is whether there was an intentional and wilful disobedience on the part of all or any of the respondents. Now admittedly, respondents 2 to 5 although members of the Association, are not parties in criminal revision case. When they are not parties in the criminal revision case, the burden is only upon the petitioner to prove that they have also got knowledge of the order dated 5-1 -2001 and they have intentionally and deliberately flouted the same. The petitioner has not filed any record to show that respondents 2 to 5 have also got knowledge of the order dated 5-1 -2001. In the absence of any positive proof, I am of the view that the contempt proceedings against the respondents 2 to 5 cannot be proceeded further and as such, it is to be dropped.
13. It is admitted that respondents 1 and 6 are parties in the criminal revision and they are well aware of the order dated 5-1 -2001. Now the first respondent in the counter stated that he has not committed any contempt of the court order and even if the court comes to the conclusion that he had committed any contempt, he has tendered his unconditional apology. On the other hand, the sixth respondent has also stated that he had not committed any contempt but he had not tendered any unconditional apology. There is ample material in this case to come to the conclusion that the respondents 1 and 6 with their men have gone to the premises of the Association and created a trouble. This can be easily seen from the number of complaints filed by the petitioner before the police. The contention of the petitioner that the police took video picture of the entire incident that took place on 8-9-2001 was also not seriously disputed. A copy of the publication with the photographs containing respondents 1 and 6 also would establish that they have gone in a group on 8-9-2001 by taking law into their own hands. It is their duty to establish when there is an order of status quo on 5-1-2001, what prompted them to go to the spot on the said date. In the absence of any explanation on the part of respondents 1 and 6, would clearly indicate that they have wilfully and intentionally disobeyed the orders passed by this Court. It appears that there is rivalry among the two groups and they want to capture the office by hook or crook. When a Court order is passed to the knowledge of respondents 1 and 6 directing them to maintain status quo, more so, when the Executive Magistrate had prima facie come to the conclusion that the petitioner was in the driver seat, respondents 1 and 6 have no right whatsoever to go to the spot and create a scene, moreso, against the order passed by this Court on 5-1-2001. Hence I am of the view that respondents 1 and 6 have deliberately flouted the orders passed by this Court. Considering the fact that the first respondent even in the counter filed in the initial stage has tendered unconditional apology he can be warned and no further action is necessary. But so far as respondent 6 is concerned, he had not tendered unconditional apology and on the other hand, wanted to stick to his stand that he continues to be in the administration of the Association. As such, I am of the view that respondent 6 has wilfully disobeyed the orders passed by this Court and he is liable to be punished accordingly.
14. For the reasons stated above, respondents 1 and 6 are found guilty and since respondent 1 has tendered unconditional apology, it is accepted and he is warned and further action is dropped. Respondent 6 is found guilty u/s 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act and he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three weeks. The contempt application is dismissed in respect of respondents 2 to 5. The police authorities are also directed to investigate into the complaints given by the petitioner relating to the occurrence which took place after 5-1-2001 and take appropriate action in accordance with law irrespective of their position and status in the Society. Time for payment is three weeks.
