Mere Allegations Of Illegal Arrest Insufficient To Initiate Contempt Proceedings Against Police: Bombay High Court
Mere allegations that an individual's arrest violated the Supreme Court guidelines in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and other decisions do not attract civil or criminal contempt against Police, the Bombay High Court held on Tuesday (July 28).A division bench of Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Advait Sethna refused to initiate contempt action against Mumbai...
Mere allegations that an individual's arrest violated the Supreme Court guidelines in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and other decisions do not attract civil or criminal contempt against Police, the Bombay High Court held on Tuesday (July 28).
A division bench of Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Advait Sethna refused to initiate contempt action against Mumbai Police officers over the arrest of a man in a case registered under the Information Technology Act.
The Court dismissed a plea filed by one Binod Agarwal, who questioned his arrest by the Mumbai Police in October 2018, wherein he was in custody for over 65 days as he was released only after the police filed its chargesheet in December 2018.
The judges noted that Agarwal was arrested in relation to a case lodged under section 43 (damage to data) and 66c (identity theft) of the IT Act and that there were cross complaints too. The bench noted that in June 2019, the FIRs, both filed by Agarwal and one filed against him, were quashed following a 'settlement' between the parties.
However, in the instant proceedings, Agarwal sought invocation of contempt proceedings against the sleuths of Mumbai's Santacruz Police Station for arresting him in complete breach of the Arnesh Kumar guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court.
The bench noted that no satisfaction has been recorded by the High Court so as to meet 'quint essential' requirements of Section 14 and/or Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act in any order related to this case.
"We have serious doubts as to whether the ingredients of criminal contempt are satisfied, in any manner whatsoever. Accordingly, we do not find this to be a fit case to initiate contempt proceedings against the Respondents in the given factual complexion as sought to be urged by the Petitioner in the absence of the requisites thereof being met/satisfied," the judges held.
The bench clarified that both civil and criminal contempt are two distinctly different categories of action contemplated under the aegis of the Contempt of Courts Act and that the attempt of Agarwal to use these inter-changeably and/or synonymously is not in conformity with the statutory scheme of the said legislation.
"Therefore, this is an approach which we cannot countenance. Moreover, mere allegations questioning the arrest of the Petitioner by the Respondents would not make out a case of civil and/or criminal contempt of Court, unless the yardstick to initiate such action is established to the Court's satisfaction. This would constitute the essence of contempt action, which we find is missing in the given factual matrix," the judges held.
With this finding, the bench dismissed Agarwal's plea.
Appearance:
Petitioner Binod Agarwal appeared as a Party-in-Person.
Additional Public Prosecutor Jayesh Yagnik represented the State.
Case Title: Binod Sitaram Agarwal vs State of Maharashtra (Contempt Petition 529 of 2019)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 348