Panckridge, J.@mdashIn my opinion these applications to commit for contempt are becoming too common. Certainly in the Case of the Official Receiver I hold the view that if he considers that members of his staff have been obstructed to an extent which amounts to a contempt of Court, the matter is for his discretion whether he should take proceedings for contempt. As a rule, I presume he would not do so, except in a gross case, unless one of the parties was willing to make him self responsible for the costs of the proceedings.
2. I would also observe that apparently what is alleged to have taken place in this case seems to constitute an offence under sec. 183, I. P. C, as also possibly under sec. 186, I. P. C. Sec. 195 (a) of the Criminal Procedure Code precludes the Criminal Court from taking cognizance of the alleged offence on the complaint of the Plaintiff in this suit. But it is of course open to the Official Receiver or to such members of the staff who are said to have been obstructed to make the complaint. I am of opinion that in most cases the principle which was enunciated by Sir Lancelot Sanderson in Bason v. Skone I. L. R. 53 Cal. 401 (1925), is a salutary one, and that where the contempt is some form of physical violence or obstruction and is as such punishable by a Criminal Court it should be dealt with there. I do not express an opinion one way or the other, whether the Official Receiver should initiate either criminal proceedings or contempt proceedings in the present case. I leave that entirely to his discretion. I propose however to dismiss the present application and it will stand dismissed with costs, unless the Official Receiver initiates proceedings of the sort I have indicated, in which case the costs of this application will be dealt with when those proceedings have terminated.
