logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 GHC 033 print Preview print print
Court : High Court Of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
Case No : R/Misc. Civil Application (For Contempt) No. 248 of 2026 In R/Criminal Misc.Application/5683/2018
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE L.S. PIRZADA
Parties : Dinesh Bhikhabhai Patel Versus State Of Gujarat Through The Learned Public Prosecutor & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Applicant: Vishvesh R. Acharya(14664), Advocate. For the Respondents: Mitrajeet Shukla, AGP.
Date of Judgment : 02-02-2026
Head Note :-
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 -
Judgment :-

Oral Order

Bhargav D. Karia, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Vishvesh R. Acharya appearing for the applicant and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Mitrajeet Shukla appearing for the respondent.

2. By this application filed under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

          "A. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to hold and declare the opponents herein are guilty of fraud and wilful disobedience of the orders dated 10.01.2024 and 26.07.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.5683 of 2018 and Criminal Misc. Application (for direction) No. 1 of 2024 and undertaking dated 08.04.2024.

          B. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to initiate contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the opponents for their wilful disobedience of the orders dated 10.01.2024 and 26.07.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.5683 of 2018 and Criminal Misc. Application (for direction) No. 1 of 2024 and undertaking dated 08.04.2024.

          C. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to the opponents to purge the contempt forthwith by complying with the orders dated 10.01.2024 and 26.07.2024 and undertaking dated 08.04.2024 further pleased to direct the opponents to execute the sale deed as per the undertaking.

          D. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to pass such other and further order in the interest of justice which may be deemed fit to this Hon'ble Court."

3. It appears that the order dated 10.01.2024 was passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.5683 of 2018, whereby consent quashing was permitted by this Court to quash the FIR being C.R. No. I-49 of 2018 registered with Patan City 'B' Division Police Station, in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties.

4. It was agreed between the parties that the respondents shall file an undertaking that the sale deed would be executed in favour of the complainant after accepting the amount of Rs. 2 lakhs for Shop Nos. 28 and

5. Accordingly, the undertaking was filed on 08.04.2024.

6. It appears that thereafter, Criminal Misc. Application (For Direction) No. 1 of 2024 was preferred by respondent No.2 and others for permitting them to file an undertaking as directed by the Court, which was allowed and the undertakings were permitted to be executed, subject to payment of the balance consideration by the applicant.

7. It appears that thereafter, the applicant has sent a blank cheque dated 29.07.2024 amounting to Rs. 2 lakhs. According to the applicant, the said cheque was not accepted, nor the undertaking was complied with or acted upon by the respondents.

8. It appears that Criminal Misc. Application (Recall) No. 11959 of 2025 was also filed by the applicant for recall of the Order. However, the same was not pressed, with a liberty to avail appropriate remedy.

9. Learned advocate Mr.Vishvesh R. Acharya submitted that there is a breach of undertaking by the respondents and, therefore, the respondents are liable for Contempt of Court for not fulfilling the undertakings submitted before this Court pursuant to the Orders dated 10.01.2024 and 26.07.2024.

10. It appears that the applicant has not been able to show that the amount of Rs.2 lakhs was paid in favour of the respondents, as the photocopy of the cheque produced at page 23 is without any name. In such circumstances, the applicant has also failed to comply with the undertaking.

11. Moreover, the undertaking is of the month of April 2024, and the applicant has preferred the application for recall to bring this application within time only in the month of July 2025. Therefore, even otherwise, the application is beyond the limitation, as provided under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
 
  CDJLawJournal