- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1896-DB CCC No. 216 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.216 OF 2023 BETWEEN: VINOTH KUMAR S. S/O. T. SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS RESIDENT OF NO.84 BHAJANA KOIL STREET SAMANTHAWADA PALLIPAT TALUK NEDIYAM, TIRUVALLUR TAMIL NADU - 631 207. …COMPLAINANT (BY MS. PRAKRUTHI RAJ, ADVOCATE, FOR SRI SRINIVAS RAO S. S.) AND: 1. SRI MARUTHI B. POLICE INSPECTOR CUBBON PARK POLICE STATION BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001. …ACCUSED (BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B. G., A.G.A.) Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1896-DB CCC No. 216 of 2023 THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950, PRAYING TO HOLD THE ACCUSED GUILTY OF CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 2.7.2014 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT OF INDIA IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1277 OF 2014, (ARNESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER) AND ETC. THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR) This contempt proceedings has been initiated against the accused for disobeying the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ARNESH KUMAR v. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER (Criminal Appeal No.1277 of 2014 dated 2-7-2014) reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, wherein clear guidelines has been issued regarding the powers of the Police to arrest without warrant, which ought to be followed before arresting the complainant. 2. Ms. Prakruthi Raj, learned counsel for the complainant, submits that on 19-8-2021, the accused issued notice to the complainant, who works as a General Manager Finance of ONB - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1896-DB CCC No. 216 of 2023 Technologies India Private Limited and Norte Technologies Private Limited, summoning him for investigation with respect to Crime No.137 of 2019 (C.C. No.23541 of 2019). The accused has failed to specify any provisions under which the complainant is being summoned. The accused has asked the complainant to produce the documents, which the complainant clearly stated that he does not have any such documents. In spite of which, the complainant came to be illegally arrested on 26-8-2021 without following the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, action of the accused in proceeding to arrest the complainant for non-production of documents in spite of the guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court amounts to gross contempt of Court. 3. Office has raised objection stating that the petition is barred by limitation. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant has filed I.A. No.1 of 2025 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condoning the delay of 186 days in filing the contempt petition. 5. Smt. Namitha Mahesh B.G., learned Additional Government Advocate, submits that in view of Section 20 of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1896-DB CCC No. 216 of 2023 the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the present contempt proceedings are not maintainable as there is delay of 186 days in initiation of the contempt proceedings. 6. Keeping in view the submission made by the learned Additional Government Advocate, it is relevant to refer Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short, 'Act'), which reads as under: "20. Limitation for actions for contempt.- No court shall initiate any proceedings of contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed." 7. Further, keeping in view the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, it is deemed appropriate to refer the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S. TIRUPATHI RAO v. M. LINGAMAIAH AND OTHERS reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1764, wherein at paragraph No.53, it has observed as under: "53. Reverting to the point of limitation, even in case of a petition disclosing facts constituting contempt, which is civil in nature, the petitioner cannot choose - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1896-DB CCC No. 216 of 2023 a time convenient to him to approach the Court. The statute refers to a specific time limit of one year from the date of alleged contempt for proceedings to be initiated; meaning thereby, as laid down in Pallav Sheth (supra), that the action should be brought within a year, and not beyond, irrespective of when the proceedings to punish for contempt are actually initiated by the high court." 8. Therefore, keeping in view Section 20 of the Act and so also, the reliance of the Hon'ble Apex Court stated supra, there is no substance to consider I.A. No.1 of 2025 for condoning the delay of 186 days in filing the contempt petition. Accordingly, I.A. No.1 of 2025 is dismissed. Even on merits, there is no substance to consider this contempt petition. Consequently, this contempt petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE KVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4