Patna High Court
AlkaversusThe Union of India through Sri Milind K. Deouskar, G.M. Eastern Railway
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- BIBEK CHAUDHURI
Holding
An order issued under Section 399/401 CrPC is not subject to contempt jurisdiction under Article 215 of the Constitution and Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
Summary
The petitioner Alka filed a contempt application after the Patna High Court, while disposing a criminal revision (No.267 of 2018) concerning a Section 498A case, directed the employer of the accused to conduct a preliminary inquiry into an alleged second marriage. The inquiry concluded that no second marriage had taken place, and the petitioner then sought to hold the court in contempt for its observation. The court examined whether an order issued under Section 399 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code could be the subject of contempt proceedings. It held that such orders are not amenable to contempt because Article 215 of the Constitution and Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act do not confer jurisdiction over them. Consequently, the contempt application was dismissed as being without merit. The court, however, noted that the petitioner remains free to pursue any other appropriate legal remedy.
Issues considered
- Whether an order passed under Section 399 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code is amenable to contempt proceedings
- Whether the petitioner can invoke contempt jurisdiction against the court's observation directing a preliminary inquiry
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 399, 401
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — s. 12
Subjects
- contempt of court
- criminal revision
- Section 498A
- preliminary inquiry
- order under CrPC
- dismissal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2347 of 2025
In
CRIMINAL REVISION No.267 of 2018
======================================================
Alka W/o Sri Ranjan Kumar Rao and D/o Sri Kamleshwari Prasad Singh, R/o
Near Pir Baba, New Shivpuri Colony, P.S.-Tilkamanjhi, District-Bhagalpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through Sri Milind K. Deouskar, G.M. Eastern Railway
1st Floor, 17, N.S. Road, Fairlie Place, Kolkata, West Bengal, Pin Code-
700001.
2. Sri Manish Kumar Gupta, the Divisional Railway Manager (DRM), Eastern
Railway, DRM Building, Malda, P.O. Jhaljalia, West Bengal, Pin Code-
732102.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jai Prakash Verma, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Dr. Krishna Nandan Singh, Sr. Advocate, ASGI
Mr. Shivaditya Dhari Sinha, Sr. Panel Counsel
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
ORAL ORDER
3 18-03-2026 This contempt application has been filed by the
petitioner of Criminal Revision No. 267 of 2018, taking
advantage of some observation made by this Court while
disposing of the above-mentioned Criminal Revision in
paragraph nos. 13 and 14 of the judgment.
2. It is pertinent to mention here that in a case under
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.), the petitioner
challenged that the opposite party/husband had solemnized a
second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage.
3. Initially, the opposite party/accused was convicted
Patna High Court MJC No.2347 of 2025(3) dt.18-03-2026
2/3
and sentenced to suffer imprisonment on different accounts for
the offence punishable under Section 498A of the I.P.C. The
appellant preferred an appeal, the Appellate Court reversed the
judgment, against the said order the petitioner preferred the
instant revision. While dismissing the revision on the ground
that the ingredients of Section 498A of the I.P.C. was not proved
only on the allegation that her husband has solemnized a second
Marriage, this Court directed the employer of the opposite party
to conduct a preliminary inquiry with regard to the allegation
that the husband of the petitioner had solemnized a second
marriage. The competent authority set up Two Members
Committee and after due inquiry informed this Court that the
opposite party did not solemnized any second marriage. Taking
advantage of the observation made by this Court in Criminal
Revision No. 267 of 2017, the petitioner has filed the instant
contempt application.
4. It is needless to say that against an order under
Section 399 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C., no contempt
application lies under Article 215 of the Constitution read with
Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
5. Therefore, the instant contempt application being
devoid of any merit is dismissed.
Patna High Court MJC No.2347 of 2025(3) dt.18-03-2026
3/3
6. The petitioner, however, is at liberty to take
appropriate action in accordance with law.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
Jyoti Kumari/-
U
Checking your session…