[2026:RJ-JP:4121-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Contempt Petition No. 5/2023 Pawan Kumar Sharma (RJ0203), Special Judge Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act and the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act No.1 Kota (Raj) ----Petitioner Versus Advocate Shri Lokesh Suvalka, R/o ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : None Present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prahlad Sharma Mr. Lakhan Sharma Contemnor, in person HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA Order 29/01/2026 1. The instant criminal contempt petition came to be registered before this Court after receipt of written reference dated 31.05.2023 sent by the Presiding Officer, Special Judge POCSO Act No.1, Kota. In the said written reference, Presiding Officer has pointed out the indecent and disrespectful behaviour of the advocate i.e. present contemnor, and his demeanour was noted by the Presiding Officer in the order sheets dated 31.05.2023 and 05.11.2022. 2. This Court in its previous order dated 20.11.2025, after perused of the written reference and the order sheets dated 31.05.2023 and 05.11.2022 as also after going through the written reply filed by respondent-contemnor, observed as under:- [2026:RJ-JP:4121-DB] (2 of 3) [CRLCP-5/2023] “1. From perusal of the reply filed by and on behalf of contemnor, there is no specific denial of his conduct, as noticed by the concerned Presiding Officer in the order- sheets dated 31.05.2023 & 05.11.2022. 2. Contemnor is an Advocate, who is present in person and with folded hands, prays to apologies his conduct, if in any manner same has been taken as contemptuous/demeaning the dignity/ decorum of the Court as well as interference in the court proceedings. 3. Prima facie, we are of opinion that the contemnor is guilty for contempt under the Contempt of Court Act, however, in the interest of justice, he is granted a week's time to furnish a detailed explanation/specific written apology, if he so desire. 4. Contemnor is directed to remain present in person before this Court on the next date of hearing. 5. List the matter on 01.12.2025.” 3. In furtherance to the order dated 20.11.2025 respondent- contemnor has tendered his unconditional and unqualified written apology for his conduct stating inter alia that he has been in practice since 2012 onwards and has always paid high regard to the majesty of Court as also to the Judges and his intent was never to disrepute or demean the majesty of Court. Respondent- contemnor is present in person and states at Bar that he has also tendered his apology before the concerned Presiding Officer as well, who now has demitted the office. 4. Considering the manner in which the concerned Presiding Officer noted the conduct of advocate as disrespectful and derogatory to the Court as also taking note of the unblemished record of contemnor, who is a practicing advocate since 2012 onwards, having no discredit to his conduct before any other Court, and keeping in mind to maintain the pious relationship [2026:RJ-JP:4121-DB] (3 of 3) [CRLCP-5/2023] between Bar and Bench, we do not find the present case a fit case to punish the respondent-advocate for his misconduct and accepts the written and unqualified apology tendered by him. 5. Accordingly, contempt notice(s) stand discharged and proceedings of present contempt petition is hereby closed. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J (SUDESH BANSAL),J AVINASH GULERIA /8