1998 JTR(SC) 1103
1998 6 Scale 288 ; 2000 1 SCC 224
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.S. Anand, CJI., V.N. Khare and M. Srinivasan, JJ.
(Crl.) No. 2313/98 (with SLP (Crl.) No. 2392/98)
Decided On: 03.11.1998
Maulana Md. Kamaluddin and Ors. Appellants
versus
State of West Bengal and Ors. Respondent
The Supreme Court will not interfere with a High Court's order issuing a show-cause notice to a person accused of aiding or instigating others to flout court orders, directing the party to respond before the High Court.
(A) Criminal Jurisdiction - Special Leave Petition - Interference with High Court order - Show cause notice for aiding and abetting the flouting of court orders - Court not inclined to interfere where petitioner is directed to show cause before the High Court. (Paras 1, 2)
Facts of the case:
Two special leave petitions were filed against orders of the High Court. One petition challenged an order dated 17.7.98, while the other challenged a notice requiring the petitioner to show cause why they should not be penalized for aiding, abetting, and instigating members of a community to flout court orders.
Findings of Court:
The court found no reason to interfere with the impugned orders and directed the petitioner in the second petition to show cause before the High Court as directed.
Issues: Whether the High Court's orders, specifically the issuance of a show-cause notice for aiding the flouting of court orders, warranted interference by the Supreme Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that it was not inclined to interfere with the High Court's order requiring a party to show cause for allegedly instigating others to flout court orders, maintaining that the petitioner should address the matter before the High Court.
Result: Special leave petitions dismissed.
Facts of the case:
Two special leave petitions were filed against orders of the High Court. One petition challenged an order dated 17.7.98, while the other challenged a notice requiring the petitioner to show cause why they should not be penalized for aiding, abetting, and instigating members of a community to flout court orders.
Findings of Court:
The court found no reason to interfere with the impugned orders and directed the petitioner in the second petition to show cause before the High Court as directed.
Issues: Whether the High Court's orders, specifically the issuance of a show-cause notice for aiding the flouting of court orders, warranted interference by the Supreme Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that it was not inclined to interfere with the High Court's order requiring a party to show cause for allegedly instigating others to flout court orders, maintaining that the petitioner should address the matter before the High Court.
Result: Special leave petitions dismissed.
ORDER
SLP (Crl.) No. 2313/98
1. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 17.7.98. The special leave petition is dismissed.
SLP (Crl.) No. 2392/98
2. Since by the impugned order a notice has been issued against the petitioner to show cause why he should not be committed to prison or otherwise penalised or dealt with for deliberately aiding, abetting and instigating members of a particular community to flout the orders passed by the Court. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The petitioner may show cause, as directed, to the High Court. The special leave petition is dismissed.