Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:23810 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 112 of 2025 Appellant :- Ram Sagar And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 6 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sanjay Kumar Verma,Shivendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. Crl. Misc. Application No.1 of 2025 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 1. The cause shown in the accompanying affidavit are sufficient. 2. The application is allowed. The delay is condoned Order on memo of the appeal: 1. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the appellants and the A.G. A. on behalf of the State. 2. Present criminal appeal under Section 380 (1) of the BNSS has been filed against the judgment and order dated 25.1.2025 passed by Additional Commissioner (Administration), 2nd Devi Patan Division, Gonda in criminal misc.case No.405 under Section 215 read with 379 of BNSS (Ram Sagar and others Vs. Ram Raj and others) in Revision No. C-00074/2015. 3. It has been stated that the appellant had filed a revision against order dated 18.7.2012 passed by Nayab Tehsildar, Manakapur as well as against order dated 18.12.2014 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Manakapur, District Gonda before Additional Commissioner, Devi Patan Division, Gonda which was registered as revision No.C-00074/2015 (Ram Sagar and others Vs. Ram Raj and others). In the said matter the case was heard on 24.4.2024 and judgment was reserved which was delivered after one month and 12 days i.e.on 6.6.2024. It is further stated that after reserving the said matter written submissions were filed by learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 7 on 30.4.2024 and a copy of the same was never given to the appellant and in the said written submissions certain false and fabricates allegations were leveled against the appellants and accordingly it is in aforesaid facts that an application under Section 215 read with 379 of BNSS as preferred by the appellant. 4. Additional Commissioner (Administration), Devi Patan Division, Gonda rejected the said application stating that after perusal of Section 215 of the BNSS it is clear that false and fabricates documents have to be filed in the court and in case the said applications are found to be correctly filed then Section 215 can be initiated by the said authority. He has submitted that the written submissions filed by private respondents did not fall under the said category and consequently has declined to initiate the proceedings as prayed by the petitioner. 5. We have considered the arguments of the appellant and perused the record. 6. The appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Additional Commissioner on merits instead of assailing the said order has tried to implicate learned counsel for the respondents by by moving application under Section 215 of the BNSS by launching contempt application. 7. The only allegation is that false submission were made in the written submissions which were filed after orders were reserved. We find that no false or fabricated documents were filed as pleadings in the matter and even according to the appellant it is only in the written submissions that incorrect and false statements were made. A counsel or party is free to take any plea before any court in support of his case and and it is for the court concerned to look into the said pleadings and merely because particular allegations or plea has been given by one of the parties the same cannot be deemed to be contempt as per Section 215 of the BNSS. In case the said averment is taken it may severely cripple the rights of the parties before any authority or court in a judicial proceedings. Both the parties are present before the court and any plea or fact is raised by any of the parties is liable to be resisted by the other parties who is at liberty to produce the evidence and material indicating that the argument raised by the other party is incorrect. In case, the said averment in the petition or document is held to be contempt it would frustrate the entire judicial proceedings and affect the entire administration of Justice. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Additional Commissioner. 7. For the aforesaid reasons the appeal is found devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 25.4.2025 RKM. Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench