HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4526 of 2026 Court No. - 53 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Pushpendra Vishwakarma (AoR No.A/P 1156/2023) holding brief of Sri Keshari Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the State and Sri Brijesh Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party. 2. Since affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and they do not propose to file any further affidavit, the application is being decided at the fresh stage. 3. The case of the applicant is that an F.I.R. came to be lodged by one Jyoti, daughter of Ramesh Singh, resident of Daan Sahai Ki Milak, Shahpur Tigari, Police Station Majhola, District Moradabad against nine persons including the applicant on 29.05.2025 as Case Crime No. 488 of 2025 under Section 69, 123, 351(2) BNS and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act at Police Station Majhola, District Moradabad. 4. On gaining knowledge about the lodging of the First Information Report, the applicant along with two other accused preferred Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12817 of 2025 (Omkar and 8 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) in which on 17.06.2025 the following order was passed:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the First Information Report dated 29.05.2025, registered as Case Crime No.488 of 2025, under Sections- 69, 123, 351 (2) of B.N.S. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Keshari Nath Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Omkar .....Applicant(s) Sri Manoj Kumar Panwar, Sub- Inspector, Police Chauki In-Charge, Khushahalpur, Police Station- Majhola .....Opposite Party(s) Majhola, District-Moradabad. 3. It is stated that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the First Information Report and there is a genuine matrimonial issue in respect of which mediation ought to be tried first before proceeding with criminal investigation as it has the potential of disturbing the marital life for all times to come. Submission is that the matter be referred to Mediation Centre of this Court. 4. In the facts of the present case, we are of the view that an attempt be made to resolve the differences between the parties by way of mediation. It is, therefore, directed that petitioners shall deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- within two weeks from today with the Mediation Centre out of which Rs. 20,000/- shall be paid to the respondent no. 3 for appearance before the Mediation Centre. The remaining amount shall go to mediation centre towards the expenses of mediation. 5. The matter is remitted to the Mediation Centre with the direction that same may be resolved after giving notices to both the parties. 6. It is directed that Mediation Centre shall make all endeavours to resolve the dispute amicably, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months. 7. List after three months. 8. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners pursuant to the aforesaid First Information Report. 9. After depositing the amount as aforesaid, notice shall be issued to the parties. In the event of failure of compliance, the petition shall stand dismissed without reference to the Court." 5. In compliance of the order of the Writ Court, the applicant deposited Rs. 25,000/- as mediation fee. The matter was referred for mediation, however, the mediation failed. The allegation of the applicant is that on 05.04.2026 the opposite party called the applicant and when the applicant went to the Police Chowki Khushahalpur, then the opposite party told the applicant that the mediation has failed and demanded Rs.1 lac for not arresting the applicant. Since the applicant objected to the same, the applicant alleges that he was taken in police custody on 06.04.2026 and presented in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad on 07.04.2026, wherein prayer was made for remand in Case Crime no. 488 of 2025 under Section 69, 123, 351(2) BNS and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act and on 07.04.2026, the In-charge Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad in Case Crime No. 488 of 2025 under Section 69, 123, 351(2) BNS read with Section 3/4 of D.P. Act proceeded to pass the following orders:- CAPL No. 4526 of 2026 2 "राज्य बनाम ओमकार व अन्य। िरमांड शीट िदनांक - 07.04.2026 िववेचक द्वारा अिभयुक्त ओमकार पुत्र हिरिसह को िरमांड हेतु आज िदनांक 07.04.2026 को न्यायालय के समक्ष प्रस्तुत िकया गया। िरमांड प्रपत्रों के अवलोकन से यह स्पष्ट होता है िक अिभयुक्त के िवरुद्ध प्रथम सूचना िरपोटर् अन्तगर्त धारा-69, 123, 351(2)बी.एन.एस. व 3/4 डी.पी.एक्ट िदनांक 29.05.2025 को पंजीकृ त की गयी, िजसके िवरुद्ध अिभयुक्त ओमकार एवं 8 अन्य व्यिक्तयों के द्वारा मा. उच्च न्यायालय के समक्ष दांिडक प्रकीणर् िरट यािचका सं0- 12817/2025, ओमकार व अन्य बनाम उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य व अन्य प्रस्तुत की गयी िजसमें मा. उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश िदनांक 17.06.2025 के द्वारा उपरोक्त प्रकरण को मा. उच्च न्यायालय के सुलह समझौता के न्द्र संदिभत िकया व यािचकाकतार् को सुलह समझौता के न्द्र में मुबिलग 25,000/- रूपये जमा िकये जाने का एवं िलिस्टंग की अिग्रम ितिथ तक िकसी भी प्रकार की प्रपीडात्मक कायर्वाही करने के िलए रोक लगायी गयी। अिभयुक्त की ओर से उपिस्थत अिधवक्ता के द्वारा मेिडएशन सेंटर की िरपोटर् एवं उपरोक्त िरट यािचका की वतर्मान िस्थित व धनरािश जमा करने की रसीद प्रस्तुत िकया गया है। उपरोक्त आदेश को कं प्यूटर अनुभाग िजला न्यायालय, मुरादाबाद द्वारा सत्यािपत िकया गया। उक्त आदेश के अवलोकन से स्पष्ट है िक मा. उच्च न्यायालय के द्वारा िकसी भी प्रकार की प्रपीड़ात्मक कायर्वाही िकया जाना मा. उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा स्थिगत िकया गया है। यहां यह तथ्य भी उल्लेखनीय है िक संबंिधत िववेचक द्वारा मा. उच्च न्यायालय का ऐसा कोई आदेश दौरान िरमांड प्रस्तुत नहीं िकया है, िजससे यह दिशत होता हो िक उपरोक्त आदेश िदनांक 17.06.2025 मा. उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा िनष्प्रभावी कर िदया गया है, िजससे यह स्पष्ट होता िक िववेचक द्वारा मा. उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश का पालन करने में लापरवाही की गई। उपरोक्त तथ्यों एवं पिरिस्थितयों को दृिष्टगत रखते हुए अिभयुक्त का िरमांड स्वीकार िकये जाने का आधार पयार्प्त नहीं है। िववेचक द्वारा िरमांड हेतु याचना अस्वीकार की जाती है। अिभयुक्त को अिवलंब 50 हजार रूपये के व्यिक्तगत बंधपत्र पर िरहा िकया जाए। संबंिधत िववेचक को चेतावनी दी जाती है िक भिवष्य में मा. उच्च न्यायालय व मा. उच्चतम न्यायालय के आदेशों का समुिचत पालन करना सुिनिश्चत करें।" 6. Thus according to the applicant there has been willful defiance of the order of the Court, as though there was a restraint order for not arresting the applicant, but he was taken in police custody on 06.04.2026 and before the Magistrate prayer was made for remand and he was enlarged on bail on 07.04.2026. Prayer was made for punishing the opposite party for willful defiance of the order of the Court under Contempt of Courts Act. 7. This Court on 21.07.2026, proceeded to pass the following order:- "1. Let a copy of the contempt application be served upon Sri Brijesh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel during the course of the day. CAPL No. 4526 of 2026 3 2. Put up this case on 29.07.2026 as fresh." 8. An affidavit of compliance has been filed by the opposite party dated 29.07.2026, to which a reply has been filed by the applicant. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the conduct of the opposite party is contemptuous, as it amounts to creating a situation whereby it is nothing but a clear cut case of willful defiance of the order of the Court. 10. On the other hand, Sri Brijesh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel who appears on behalf of the opposite party submits that the opposite party was not aware about the interim order passed on 17.06.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12817 of 2025. According to him, the applicant was arrested on 06.04.2026, which was in ignorance due to non- communication of the order dated 17.06.2025. He further submits that already there happens to be an order dated 07.04.2026 of the In-charge Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad in Case Crime No. 488 of 2025 warning the opposite party to be careful in future and according to him, the opposite party may be pardoned, he would never repeat such mistake in future and he tenders unconditional apology in that regard. 11. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the record. 12. Apparently, in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12817 of 2025, this Court provided that no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in pursuance of the First Information Report. The applicant was taken in police custody on 06.04.2026 and was presented before the Magistrate for remand, who enlarged him on bail on personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- on the next date i.e. on 07.04.2026. In the compliance affidavit of the opposite party, the following has been averred:- "5- That it is Most Respectfully submitted that the applicant has never served the copy of the of the order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Writ Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.12817 of 2025, Omkar and 8 others v. State of U.P. and 2 others, however, on 28.08.2025, mediation between the parties failed. Further, on 06.04.2025, when the applicant was arrested at that point too, the applicant has never disclosed the aforesaid order dated 17.06.2025 passed by this Hon'ble Court. 6- That on 07.04.2025, the applicant has been got appeared before the Chief Judicial CAPL No. 4526 of 2026 4 Magistrate, upon which he has been granted bail after furnishing the bail bond. 7- That it is also relevant to mention here that on 23.03.2026, the informant and her family members had informed that mediation between the parties failed. It is only on 18.03.2025, the counsel for the informant has provided the copy of the relevant document about failure of the mediation between the parties, which is entered into the CD. True copy of the CD is being filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE NO.1 to this affidavit of compliance. 8- That it is relevant to mention here that on 06.04.2026, the applicant/petitioner was arrested by the police of police station concerned and on 07.04.2026, he got bail from the court below and warning was given to the Investigating Officer with the direction that in future he shall obey and comply each and every orders of Hon'ble High Court as well as Supreme Court in its letter and spirit. A true Photostat copy of the bail order dated 07.04.2026 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit of compliance. 9- That thus, the order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Writ Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.12817 of 2025 (Omkar and 8 others v. State of U.P. and 2 others) has fully been complied with by the deponent with in its letter and spirit. 10- That it is again Most Respectfully submitted that the deponent being the responsible Government Officer, has full respect to the majesty and the orders of this Hon'ble Court and other Courts of Law, however, if this Hon'ble Court comes to a conclusion that there is any omission on his part or any inconvenience is caused to this Hon'ble Court, for the same, he tenders his unconditional and unqualified apology. 11- That on the facts stated above it is, therefore, Most Respectfully prayed that the notices issued to the deponent in the present contempt proceeding may kindly be discharged and the Contempt Application may kindly be consigned to record, so that justice may be done." 13. The opposite party was expected to be cautious, alert and diligent in performing his duties, as the orders of the Writ Court cannot be taken lightly. As a matter of fact, though according to the applicant, the order of the Writ Court was made available to the opposite party and he had knowledge about the same, but as per the opposite party, he had no knowledge and he could gain knowledge only post taking in custody the applicant. CAPL No. 4526 of 2026 5 14. Evidently, the order dated 07.04.2026 of the In-charge Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad in Case Crime No. 488 of 2025 under Section 69, 123, 351(2) BNS read with Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, takes note of the conduct of the opposite party according to which warning had been administered to him to be careful in future and to follow the orders passed by the competent Court. 15. The said order has not been objected to or challenged by the applicant. Thus, the opposite party has not acted in a manner in which he was supposed to perform his duties. It cannot be said that the order of the Writ Court was not in his knowledge. 16. At this stage, Sri Brijesh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel submits that the opposite party tenders his unconditional and unqualified apology. Though the conduct of the opposite party cannot be appreciated but bearing in mind the unconditional and unqualified apology and also the warning administered by the Magistrate, this Court in the facts and circumstances of the case is not proceeding further in the contempt jurisdiction. 17. Accordingly, the contempt application is disposed of / consigned to record with an observation that the Senior Superintendent of Police, Moradabad shall keep a watch over the conduct of the opposite party, so that such type of mistakes are not repeated in future. September 23, 2026 N.S.Rathour CAPL No. 4526 of 2026 6 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad