SAID ALI AND Others vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB And Other
The petitioners filed an application for contempt of court under section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act against five respondents, alleging violation of a status quo order passed by the court on 21-3-1981 regarding the occupation of State land. The Supreme Court observed that cross criminal cases had already been registered at the police station concerning the exact same occurrence regarding possession, trespass, and damage. Holding that a parallel inquiry is not called for when other proceedings afford better opportunities for the determination of disputed questions of fact, the Court declined to initiate contempt proceedings and dismissed the petition.
- Will the court initiate contempt proceedings when cross criminal cases regarding the same factual occurrence are already pending?
- Does a parallel inquiry into questions of possession and trespass warrant the dismissal of a contempt petition?
- Section 3, Contempt of Courts Act
ORDER
SHAFI-UR-REHMAN, J.-The petitioners have filed an application for taking proceedings under section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act ,against the five respondents.
2. The petitioners claiming to be in occupation of State land had challenged their threatened ejectment from the same by a constitutional petition. The petition was dismissed for non- prosecution on 2$-2-1981 and the application for its restoration also failed on 16-3-1981. The petitioners then filed a civil petition seeking leave to appeal against the refusal to restore their constitutional petition. On 21-3-1981 an order of status quo was passed on their application. It is said that the status quo so ordered was violated by the opposite-party on 30-3-1981 when interference with the possession of the petitioners took place.
3. We find from the document filed that cross criminal cases have been registered at police station Toba Tek Singh with regard to the occurrence which has been made the subject-matter of the contempt petition. As the subject-matter of both the proceedings would be identical though the order to be passed ultimately will be materially different a -parallel inquiry is not called for. We consider that there being other proceedings going on which afford better opportunities for determination of question of facts of possession, trespass and damage, physical and personal and of property, we decline to proceed in contempt. The petition is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 1 case
- NAVEED NAWAZISH MALIK Versus GHULAM RASOOL BHATTI 1997 SCMR 193