Allahabad High Court
NAVI RASULversusSHIVAM RAI, SUB INSPECTOR/ INVESTIGATING OFFICER/ STATION HOUSE OFFICER AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- VIKAS BUDHWAR
Holding
The contempt application was consigned to the record as it had outlived its utility following compliance with the original order.
Summary
The petitioner, Navi Rasul, filed a contempt application alleging that the investigating officer, Shivam Rai, failed to comply with an order dated 30 March 2026 issued in Crime No. 382 of 2024, which required the inquiry to be concluded within two months under Sections 109(1) and 351(2) of the B.N.S. The High Court, on 28 September 2026, directed that the contempt application be served on standing counsel for instructions and listed the matter for fresh hearing on 30 September 2026. On 30 September 2026, the standing counsel produced instructions and a final report dated 29 September 2026 showing that the investigation had been concluded. The Court observed that the contempt application had outlived its utility in view of the compliance demonstrated and therefore ordered the application to be consigned to the record. The application was thus disposed without any finding of contempt.
Issues considered
- Whether the investigating officer’s failure to conclude the inquiry within the two‑month period amounted to contempt of court under Sections 109(1) and 351(2) of the B.N.S.
- Whether the contempt application should be dismissed on the ground that the order sought to be enforced has been complied with.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 109(1), 351(2)
Subjects
- contempt
- non‑compliance
- court order
- investigative officer
- procedural delay
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 6844 of 2026
Navi Rasul
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Shivam Rai, Sub Inspector/ Investigating Officer/
Station House Officer And Another .....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Adeel Ahmad Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :
Court No. - 53
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. The present contempt application has been preferred alleging non-
compliance of the order dated 30.03.2026 passed in Case Crime No. 382 of
2024 under Section 109(1), 351(2) of B.N.S., requiring the Investigating
Officer to conclude the proceedings within a period of two months.
2. This Court on 28.09.2026 proceeded to pass the following order:-
"1. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that despite
the existence of the order dated 30.03.2026 of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Maharajganj, requiring the Investigating Officer/ opposite
party to conclude the inquiry preferably within a period of 2 months but
till date the same has not been concluded.
2. Let a copy of the contempt application be served upon Sri Pavan
Kumar, learned Standing Counsel who shall seek instructions.
3. Put up this case on 30.09.2026 as fresh."
3. Today, instructions have been produced along with copy of the final
report dated 29.09.2026.
4. In view of the same, the contempt application has outlived its utility,
accordingly, the same is consigned to record.
(Vikas Budhwar,J.)
September 30, 2026
Rajesh
Digitally signed by :-
RAJESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…