[2026:RJ-JP:6382] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 1233/2024 In SB Criminal Misc. Petition No. 7931/2024 Hansraj S/o Jhabarmal, Aged 24 Years, Resident Of Jajod, Sikar, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Pawan Dular, Station House Officer, Police Station Balara, Sikar, Rajasthan. 2. Bhuvan Bhushan Yadav, Superintendent Of Police District Sikar, Rajasthan. 3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pranav Pareek Mr. Kshitiz Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kartikey Shukla Ms. Akshita Sharma Mr. Vishnu Dutt Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 11/02/2026 It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that vide order dated 03.12.2024, this court directed that petitioner may submit a representation before the Investigating Officer and Investigating Officer after considering the averments if comes to conclusion that cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner then after ensuring compliance of provisions of Section 35(5) of the BNSS proceed accordingly. It is argued that the said order has not been complied with, after issuance of notice under [2026:RJ-JP:6382] (2 of 2) [CCP-1233/2024] Section 35 condition of Section 35(5) and 35(7) BNSS were not complied with. It is contended by learned counsel for the respondent that the direction rendered vide impugned order has already been complied with and after giving notice under Section 35 of the BNSS, the petitioner was arrested therefore no contempt is made out. Heard and perused the material available on the record. The direction was specific with regard to the fact that if the petitioner submits any representation then the Investigating Officer after considering the representation if he found that cognizable offence is made out, then only he would be require to issue notice under Section 35 of the BNSS. In the present case representation was submitted before the Investigating Officer on 07.12.2025 and before that notice under Section 35(5) and 37(5) of the BNSS was given and petitioner was directed to appear on 07.12.2025, whether the provisions contained under Section 35 of the BNSS have not been comply with, its a separate issue and not a subject matter of contempt petition. Be that it may be, substantial compliance of the order has been made by issuing the notice under Section 35 of the BNSS to the petitioner. No case of contempt is made out. Accordingly, the instant civil contempt petition stands dismissed, notices are discharged. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J ashu /38