OMKARversusSRI MANOJ KUMAR PANWAR, SUB- INSPECTOR, POLICE CHAUKI IN-CHARGE, KHUSHAHALPUR, POLICE STATION- MAJ

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
            CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4526 of 2026

Omkar
                                                                    .....Applicant(s)
                                        Versus


Sri Manoj Kumar Panwar, Sub- Inspector, Police
Chauki In-Charge, Khushahalpur, Police Station-
Majhola                                                                 .....Opposite
                                                                              Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                         :   Keshari Nath Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                    :

Court No. - 53
                      HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

1. Heard Sri Pushpendra Vishwakarma (AoR No.A/P 1156/2023) holding
brief of Sri Keshari Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the State and Sri
Brijesh Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party.

2. Since affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and they do
not propose to file any further affidavit, the application is being decided at
the fresh stage.

3. The case of the applicant is that an F.I.R. came to be lodged by one
Jyoti, daughter of Ramesh Singh, resident of Daan Sahai Ki Milak,
Shahpur Tigari, Police Station Majhola, District Moradabad against nine
persons including the applicant on 29.05.2025 as Case Crime No. 488 of
2025 under Section 69, 123, 351(2) BNS and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act at
Police Station Majhola, District Moradabad.

4. On gaining knowledge about the lodging of the First Information
Report, the applicant along with two other accused preferred Criminal
Misc. Writ Petition No. 12817 of 2025 (Omkar and 8 others Vs. State of
U.P. and 3 others) in which on 17.06.2025 the following order was
passed:-

"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the First Information
Report dated 29.05.2025, registered as Case Crime No.488 of 2025, under Sections-
69, 123, 351 (2) of B.N.S. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-
                                                                   CAPL No. 4526 of 2026
                                     2

Majhola, District-Moradabad.
3. It is stated that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the First Information
Report and there is a genuine matrimonial issue in respect of which mediation ought
to be tried first before proceeding with criminal investigation as it has the potential of
disturbing the marital life for all times to come. Submission is that the matter be
referred to Mediation Centre of this Court.
4. In the facts of the present case, we are of the view that an attempt be made to
resolve the differences between the parties by way of mediation. It is, therefore,
directed that petitioners shall deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- within two weeks from
today with the Mediation Centre out of which Rs. 20,000/- shall be paid to the
respondent no. 3 for appearance before the Mediation Centre. The remaining amount
shall go to mediation centre towards the expenses of mediation.
5. The matter is remitted to the Mediation Centre with the direction that same may be
resolved after giving notices to both the parties.
6. It is directed that Mediation Centre shall make all endeavours to resolve the dispute
amicably, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months.
7. List after three months.
8. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners
pursuant to the aforesaid First Information Report.
9. After depositing the amount as aforesaid, notice shall be issued to the parties. In the
event of failure of compliance, the petition shall stand dismissed without reference to
the Court."

5. In compliance of the order of the Writ Court, the applicant deposited
Rs. 25,000/- as mediation fee. The matter was referred for mediation,
however, the mediation failed. The allegation of the applicant is that on
05.04.2026 the opposite party called the applicant and when the applicant
went to the Police Chowki Khushahalpur, then the opposite party told the
applicant that the mediation has failed and demanded Rs.1 lac for not
arresting the applicant. Since the applicant objected to the same, the
applicant alleges that he was taken in police custody on 06.04.2026 and
presented in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad on
07.04.2026, wherein prayer was made for remand in Case Crime no. 488
of 2025 under Section 69, 123, 351(2) BNS and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act
and on 07.04.2026, the In-charge Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad in
Case Crime No. 488 of 2025 under Section 69, 123, 351(2) BNS read
with Section 3/4 of D.P. Act proceeded to pass the following orders:-
                                                                               CAPL No. 4526 of 2026
                                            3

                                      "राज्य बनाम ओमकार व अन्य।

                                                रिमांड शीट

दिनांक - 07.04.2026

          विवेचक द्वारा अभियुक्त ओमकार पुत्र हरिसिंह को रिमांड हेतु आज दिनांक 07.04.2026 को
न्यायालय के समक्ष प्रस्तुत किया गया। रिमांड प्रपत्रों के अवलोकन से यह स्पष्ट होता है कि अभियुक्त के विरुद्ध
प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट अन्तर्गत धारा-69, 123, 351(2)बी.एन.एस. व 3/4 डी.पी.एक्ट दिनांक
29.05.2025 को पंजीकृत की गयी, जिसके विरुद्ध अभियुक्त ओमकार एवं 8 अन्य व्यक्तियों के द्वारा मा.
उच्च न्यायालय के समक्ष दांडिक प्रकीर्ण रिट याचिका सं0- 12817/2025, ओमकार व अन्य बनाम उत्तर
प्रदेश राज्य व अन्य प्रस्तुत की गयी जिसमें मा. उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक 17.06.2025 के द्वारा
उपरोक्त प्रकरण को मा. उच्च न्यायालय के सुलह समझौता केन्द्र संदर्भित किया व याचिकाकर्ता को सुलह
समझौता केन्द्र में मुबलिंग 25,000/- रूपये जमा किये जाने का एवं लिस्टिंग की अग्रिम तिथि तक किसी भी
प्रकार की प्रपीडात्मक कार्यवाही करने के लिए रोक लगायी गयी। अभियुक्त की ओर से उपस्थित अधिवक्ता के
द्वारा मेडिएशन सेंटर की रिपोर्ट एवं उपरोक्त रिट याचिका की वर्तमान स्थिति व धनराशि जमा करने की रसीद
प्रस्तुत किया गया है। उपरोक्त आदेश को कंप्यूटर अनुभाग जिला न्यायालय, मुरादाबाद द्वारा सत्यापित किया
गया। उक्त आदेश के अवलोकन से स्पष्ट है कि मा. उच्च न्यायालय के द्वारा किसी भी प्रकार की प्रपीड़ात्मक
कार्यवाही किया जाना मा. उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा स्थगित किया गया है। यहां यह तथ्य भी उल्लेखनीय है कि
संबधि
   ं त विवेचक द्वारा मा. उच्च न्यायालय का ऐसा कोई आदेश दौरान रिमांड प्रस्तुत नहीं किया है, जिससे यह
दर्शित होता हो कि उपरोक्त आदेश दिनांक 17.06.2025 मा. उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा निष्प्रभावी कर दिया गया
है, जिससे यह स्पष्ट होता कि विवेचक द्वारा मा. उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश का पालन करने में लापरवाही की
गई। उपरोक्त तथ्यों एवं परिस्थितियों को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए अभियुक्त का रिमांड स्वीकार किये जाने का आधार
पर्याप्त नहीं है। विवेचक द्वारा रिमांड हेतु याचना अस्वीकार की जाती है। अभियुक्त को अविलंब 50 हजार रूपये
के व्यक्तिगत बंधपत्र पर रिहा किया जाए। संबधि
                                          ं त विवेचक को चेतावनी दी जाती है कि भविष्य में मा. उच्च
न्यायालय व मा. उच्चतम न्यायालय के आदेशों का समुचित पालन करना सुनिश्चित करें।"

6. Thus according to the applicant there has been willful defiance of the
order of the Court, as though there was a restraint order for not arresting
the applicant, but he was taken in police custody on 06.04.2026 and
before the Magistrate prayer was made for remand and he was enlarged
on bail on 07.04.2026. Prayer was made for punishing the opposite party
for willful defiance of the order of the Court under Contempt of Courts
Act.

7. This Court on 21.07.2026, proceeded to pass the following order:-

"1. Let a copy of the contempt application be served upon Sri Brijesh Kumar, learned
Standing Counsel during the course of the day.
                                                                CAPL No. 4526 of 2026
                                    4

2. Put up this case on 29.07.2026 as fresh."

8. An affidavit of compliance has been filed by the opposite party dated
29.07.2026, to which a reply has been filed by the applicant.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the conduct of the
opposite party is contemptuous, as it amounts to creating a situation
whereby it is nothing but a clear cut case of willful defiance of the order
of the Court.

10. On the other hand, Sri Brijesh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel who
appears on behalf of the opposite party submits that the opposite party
was not aware about the interim order passed on 17.06.2025 passed in
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12817 of 2025. According to him, the
applicant was arrested on 06.04.2026, which was in ignorance due to non-
communication of the order dated 17.06.2025. He further submits that
already there happens to be an order dated 07.04.2026 of the In-charge
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad in Case Crime No. 488 of 2025
warning the opposite party to be careful in future and according to him,
the opposite party may be pardoned, he would never repeat such mistake
in future and he tenders unconditional apology in that regard.

11. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the
record.

12. Apparently, in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12817 of 2025, this
Court provided that no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant
in pursuance of the First Information Report. The applicant was taken in
police custody on 06.04.2026 and was presented before the Magistrate for
remand, who enlarged him on bail on personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- on
the next date i.e. on 07.04.2026. In the compliance affidavit of the
opposite party, the following has been averred:-

"5- That it is Most Respectfully submitted that the applicant has never served the copy
of the of the order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Writ Court in Criminal
Misc. Writ Petition No.12817 of 2025, Omkar and 8 others v. State of U.P. and 2
others, however, on 28.08.2025, mediation between the parties failed. Further, on
06.04.2025, when the applicant was arrested at that point too, the applicant has never
disclosed the aforesaid order dated 17.06.2025 passed by this Hon'ble Court.

6- That on 07.04.2025, the applicant has been got appeared before the Chief Judicial
                                                                  CAPL No. 4526 of 2026
                                     5

Magistrate, upon which he has been granted bail after furnishing the bail bond.

7- That it is also relevant to mention here that on 23.03.2026, the informant and her
family members had informed that mediation between the parties failed. It is only on
18.03.2025, the counsel for the informant has provided the copy of the relevant
document about failure of the mediation between the parties, which is entered into the
CD. True copy of the CD is being filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE NO.1 to
this affidavit of compliance.

8- That it is relevant to mention here that on 06.04.2026, the applicant/petitioner was
arrested by the police of police station concerned and on 07.04.2026, he got bail from
the court below and warning was given to the Investigating Officer with the direction
that in future he shall obey and comply each and every orders of Hon'ble High Court
as well as Supreme Court in its letter and spirit. A true Photostat copy of the bail
order dated 07.04.2026 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. 2 to this
affidavit of compliance.

9- That thus, the order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Writ Court in
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.12817 of 2025 (Omkar and 8 others v. State of U.P.
and 2 others) has fully been complied with by the deponent with in its letter and spirit.

10- That it is again Most Respectfully submitted that the deponent being the
responsible Government Officer, has full respect to the majesty and the orders of this
Hon'ble Court and other Courts of Law, however, if this Hon'ble Court comes to a
conclusion that there is any omission on his part or any inconvenience is caused to
this Hon'ble Court, for the same, he tenders his unconditional and unqualified
apology.

11- That on the facts stated above it is, therefore, Most Respectfully prayed that the
notices issued to the deponent in the present contempt proceeding may kindly be
discharged and the Contempt Application may kindly be consigned to record, so that
justice may be done."

13. The opposite party was expected to be cautious, alert and diligent in
performing his duties, as the orders of the Writ Court cannot be taken
lightly. As a matter of fact, though according to the applicant, the order of
the Writ Court was made available to the opposite party and he had
knowledge about the same, but as per the opposite party, he had no
knowledge and he could gain knowledge only post taking in custody the
applicant.
                                                                                              CAPL No. 4526 of 2026
                                                                     6

                                    14. Evidently, the order dated 07.04.2026 of the In-charge Chief Judicial
                                    Magistrate, Moradabad in Case Crime No. 488 of 2025 under Section 69,
                                    123, 351(2) BNS read with Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, takes note of the
                                    conduct of the opposite party according to which warning had been
                                    administered to him to be careful in future and to follow the orders passed by
                                    the competent Court.

                                    15. The said order has not been objected to or challenged by the applicant.
                                    Thus, the opposite party has not acted in a manner in which he was supposed
                                    to perform his duties. It cannot be said that the order of the Writ Court was
                                    not in his knowledge.

                                    16. At this stage, Sri Brijesh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel submits that
                                    the opposite party tenders his unconditional and unqualified apology.
                                    Though the conduct of the opposite party cannot be appreciated but bearing
                                    in mind the unconditional and unqualified apology and also the warning
                                    administered by the Magistrate, this Court in the facts and circumstances of
                                    the case is not proceeding further in the contempt jurisdiction.

                                    17. Accordingly, the contempt application is disposed of / consigned to
                                    record with an observation that the Senior Superintendent of Police,
                                    Moradabad shall keep a watch over the conduct of the opposite party, so that
                                    such type of mistakes are not repeated in future.
                                    September 23, 2026
                                    N.S.Rathour

                                                                                             (Vikas Budhwar,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad