It is always open to the petitioner to work out his remedy in accordance with law, if he is not satisfied with the inquiry conducted by the police on his complaint.
Contempt jurisdiction is a matter between the court and the alleged contemnor, where the petitioner can only bring to the notice of the court that there has been a violation of its order; thereafter, the role of the petitioner ceases and the matter completely vests in the hands of the court, clarified the Madras High Court while disposing of a contempt petition moved against the CB-CID police, Anna Nagar.
Taking cognisance that the court had directed the Economic Offences Wing to conduct an inquiry on the complaint of Shastri Bhavan Staff House Site and Welfare Society, represented by VK Bagavathy, given in 2013, Justice PN Prakash said the court had not stated that the police should register an FIR and prosecute the persons named in the complaint because such a direction cannot be given by the court to the police in view of the settled position of law.
“Therefore, neither under Section 482 of CrPC nor while exercising the powers under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, in a case of this nature, this court can give any direction to the police to register an FIR on the complaint of the petitioner and prosecute the persons named therein,” the judge added.
Justice Prakash pointed out that following the direction by the court through the order dated October 21, 2013, the police have conducted an inquiry on the compliant given by Bagavathy. Thus, the police have complied with the order, the judge said. “Therefore, no statutory notice is warranted in this case. It is always open to the petitioner to work out his remedy in accordance with law, if he is not satisfied with the inquiry conducted by the police on his complaint.”
The inquiry officer in this case had concluded that no criminal case was made out and even the complaint failed to disclose the commission of cognisable offence.