# Ratnesh Kumar Singh v. Shri Pushpraj Singh

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 699
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-14
- **Case number:** Contempt Application (Criminal) No. 8 of 2025
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Birla, Jitendra Kumar Sinha
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ratnesh-kumar-singh-v-shri-pushpraj-singh-54634
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

beyond time and hit by section 20 of The
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

Head Notes
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 -
Sections 16 & 20 - Alleged contemnor
misbehaved and insulted the applicant in
open court lowering the prestige of the
applicant - Application filed before the
learned Advocate General on 16.04.2025
was beyond time and was hit by Section
20 of the Act, 1971 - Incident took place
on 21.03.2024 and the application was
filed before the learned Advocate General
on 16.04.2025 which was clearly beyond
time - Contempt application rejected.

Held- In the present case, admittedly the
incident had taken place on 21.03.2024 whereas
the application was filed by the applicant before
the learned Advocate General on 16.04.2025
which was clearly beyond time. In such view of
the matter, initiation of contempt proceeding at
the instance of the applicant was clearly beyond
time. (Para 5, 9 & 10) (E-15)

Case Law Cited
Pallav Sheth vs Custodian and Others, reported
in (2001) 7 SCC 549; Firm Ganpat Ram
Rajkumar vs. Kalu Ram and Others, AIR 1989
SC 2285; Vilas V. Sanghai Vs. Sumermal
Misrimal Bafna, reported in (2016) 9 SCC 439

List of Acts

The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

List of Keywords
Section 20 of the Act, 1971; Application filed
beyond time; hit by section 20 of The Contempt
of Courts Act

Case Arising From
Application filed under Section 16 of the
Contempt
of
Courts
Act,
1971seeking
consent/permission to initiate criminal contempt
proceeding under section 16 of the Act, 1971
against opposite party/contemnor, who was the
Presiding Officer in Appeal No.353/2024 which
was filed against an order cancelling a fair price
shop license.
700 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Applicant :- Devendra Dahma

Judgment/Order of the High Court

## Text

7 All. Ratnesh Kumar Singh Vs. Shri Pushpraj Singh
699
Constitutional Bench of 3 Hon'ble Judges'
that no appeal lies under Section 19 of the
Act, if the court refuses to take action or
initiate proceedings.

8. By the order impugned herein the
learned Single Judge has dismissed the
contempt application, therefore, clearly the
learned Single Judge has refused to take
action or initiate contempt proceedings.

9. Under such circumstances, present
appeal would not lie and the same stands
dismissed as not maintainable.

Re:
Criminal
Misc.
Delay
Condonation Application

1. Since the appeal itself is not
maintainable,
therefore,
there
is
no
occasion to consider this application to
condone the delay in filing the appeal.

2.
The
delay
condonation
application stands disposed of accordingly.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 699
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

Contempt Application (Criminal) No. 8 of 2025

Ratnesh Kumar Singh ...Applicant
Versus
Shri Pushpraj Singh ...Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant:
Devendra Dahma

Counsel for the Respondent:
--

Issue for Consideration
Whether application for initiation of criminal
contempt against the alleged contemnor was
beyond time and hit by section 20 of The
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

Head Notes
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 -
Sections 16 & 20 - Alleged contemnor
misbehaved and insulted the applicant in
open court lowering the prestige of the
applicant - Application filed before the
learned Advocate General on 16.04.2025
was beyond time and was hit by Section
20 of the Act, 1971 - Incident took place
on 21.03.2024 and the application was
filed before the learned Advocate General
on 16.04.2025 which was clearly beyond
time - Contempt application rejected.

Held- In the present case, admittedly the
incident had taken place on 21.03.2024 whereas
the application was filed by the applicant before
the learned Advocate General on 16.04.2025
which was clearly beyond time. In such view of
the matter, initiation of contempt proceeding at
the instance of the applicant was clearly beyond
time. (Para 5, 9 & 10) (E-15)

Case Law Cited
Pallav Sheth vs Custodian and Others, reported
in (2001) 7 SCC 549; Firm Ganpat Ram
Rajkumar vs. Kalu Ram and Others, AIR 1989
SC 2285; Vilas V. Sanghai Vs. Sumermal
Misrimal Bafna, reported in (2016) 9 SCC 439

List of Acts

The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

List of Keywords
Section 20 of the Act, 1971; Application filed
beyond time; hit by section 20 of The Contempt
of Courts Act

Case Arising From
Application filed under Section 16 of the
Contempt
of
Courts
Act,
1971seeking
consent/permission to initiate criminal contempt
proceeding under section 16 of the Act, 1971
against opposite party/contemnor, who was the
Presiding Officer in Appeal No.353/2024 which
was filed against an order cancelling a fair price
shop license.
700 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Applicant :- Devendra Dahma

Judgment/Order of the High Court

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla, J.
&
 Hon'ble Jitendra Kumar Sinha, J.)

1. Heard Shri Devendra Dahma,
learned counsel for the applicant and
perused the records.

2. Present contempt application has
been filed by the applicant under Section
16 of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971(hereinafter referred to as the Act,
1971)
seeking
consent/permission
to
initiate criminal contempt proceeding under
section 16 of the Act, 1971 against opposite
party/contemnor, who was the Presiding
Officer in Appeal No.353/2024 which was
filed against an order cancelling a fair price
shop license.

3. It is alleged that the applicant was
appointed as Special Counsel Revenue in
Commissionerate, Prayagraj and joined on
03.04.2021. On 21.03.2024 the applicant
appeared on behalf of the State in Appeal
No.353/2024 (Kavita Devi vs. State of
U.P.) which was filed against an order
cancelling a fair price shop license. It is
being claimed that he requested the Court
to give opportunity of hearing on the
question of admission and grant of stay,
however, the Presiding Officer of the Court
on 21.3.2024 while discharging judicial
function openly said in the Court that it was
not
necessary
to
hear
Government
Advocate and admitted the appeal and
stayed the operation of order cancelling fair
price shop license of the appellant. It is
alleged
that
the
alleged
contemnor
misbehaved and insulted the applicant in
open court lowering the prestige of the
applicant. The complaint in this regard was
lodged
by
the
petitioner
with
the
Commissioner
of
Prayagraj,
Division
Prayagraj as well as with the Chairman,
Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow and also
to the Under Secretary, State Government.
It is further alleged that he has received one
letter dated 23.07.2024 from Commissioner
Prayagraj, Division Prayagraj for appearing
before him on 26.07.2024 for personal
hearing.
Consequently,
the
applicant
appeared before him and on 30.07.2024
filed his statement alongwith affidavit as
well as affidavit of two witnesses, the
advocates who were present in the Court on
21.03.2024. Ultimately, an application was
filed before the learned Advocate General
on 16.04.2025 in respect of the incident
dated 21.03.2024 for the purpose of
referring the matter for making motion of
initiation of criminal contempt against the
alleged contemnor-Shri Pushpraj Singh.
Learned Advocate General vide order dated
23.04.2025 rejected the application and
consent sought was refused.

4. Submission of the learned counsel
for the applicant is that the one of the
grounds taken by the learned Advocate
General for refusing to grant consent is that
the application dated 16.04.2025 filed
before him was beyond one year period
from 21.03.2024, which is the date on
which the opposite party had allegedly
made statement against the applicant. It
was thus held that as the limitation for
filing
the
application
expired
on
21.03.2025, therefore, the application was
barred by limitation. The other ground for
rejection of the application by learned
Advocate General was based on the
interpretation of Section 15 of the Act,
1971. By placing reliance upon the
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Vilas V. Sanghai Vs. Sumermal
7 All. Ratnesh Kumar Singh Vs. Shri Pushpraj Singh
701
Misrimal Bafna, reported in (2016) 9 SCC
439. It was held by learned Advocate
General that the applicant has also no legal
right under Section 15(2) of the Act, 1971
to apply before the Advocate General for
grant of consent in a case, if any criminal
contempt of a subordinate Court.

5. In our opinion, if the application
filed before the learned Advocate General
on 16.04.2025 was beyond time and was hit
by Section 20 of the Act, 1971, no other
question would arise for consideration. The
question of contempt application being
time barred was specifically raised and in
reply learned counsel for the applicant
placing reliance upon the judgment of Firm
Ganpat Ram Rajkumar vs. Kalu Ram and
Others, AIR 1989 SC 2285 submitted that
the action of the opposite party/alleged
contemnor is a continuing wrong and thus,
Section 20 of the Act, 1971 is not
applicable. We find that the argument is
misconceived and is liable to be rejected.

6. Suffice to note that in the case of
Firm Ganpat Ram (Supra) the question of
handing over the possession was involved and it
was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that failure to
give possession amounts to continuing wrong,
which is not so in the present case and as such the
said judgment is not applicable in the present case.

7. Section 20 of the Act, 1971 is quoted 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."

8. Question of limitation as per Section 20
of the Act, 1971 was considered by Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Pallav Sheth vs Custodian
and Others, reported in (2001) 7 SCC 549 in
detail. Relevant paragraph nos.33, 39, 40, 41 and
44 whereof read as under:-

"33. The question which squarely
arises is as to what is the meaning to be given to
the expression "no court shall initiate any
proceedings for contempt..." occurring in Section
20 of the 1971 Act. Section 20 deals not only with
criminal contempt but also with civil contempt. It
applies not only to the contempt committed in the
face of the High Court or the Supreme Court but
would also be applicable in the case of contempt
of the subordinate court. The procedure which is
to be followed in each of these cases is different.

39. In the case of criminal contempt of
subordinate court, the High Court may take action
on a reference made to it by the subordinate court
or on a motion made by the Advocate-General or
the Law Officer of the Central Government in the
case of Union Territory. This reference or motion
can conceivably commence on an application
being filed by a person whereupon the
subordinate court or the Advocate-General if it is
so satisfied may refer the matter to the High
Court. Proceedings for civil contempt normally
commence with a person aggrieved bringing to
the notice of the Court the wilful disobedience of
any judgment, decree, order etc. which could
amount to the commission of the offence. The
attention of the Court is drawn to such a contempt
being committed only by a person filing an
application in that behalf. In other words,
unless a Court was to take a suo motu
action, the proceeding under the Contempt
of Courts Act, 1971 would normally
commence with the filing of an application
drawing to the attention of the Court to the
contempt having been committed. When the
judicial procedure requires an application
being filed either before the Court or
consent being sought by a person from the
Advocate-General or a Law Officer it must
logically
follow
that
proceeding
for
702 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
contempt
are
initiated
when
the
applications are made.

40. In other words, the beginning
of the action prescribed for taking
cognizance of criminal contempt under
Section
15
would
be
initiating
the
proceedings
for
contempt
and
the
subsequent action taken thereon of refusal
or issuance of a notice or punishment
thereafter are only steps following or
succeeding to such initiation. Similarly, in
the case of a civil contempt filing of an
application drawing the attention of the
Court is necessary for further steps to be
taken under the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971.

41.
One
of
the
principles
underlying the law of limitation is that a
litigant must act diligently and not sleep
over its rights. In this background such an
interpretation should be placed on Section
20 of the Act which does not lead to an
anomalous result causing hardship to the
party who may have acted with utmost
diligence and because of the inaction on
the part of the Court a contemner cannot
be made to suffer. Interpreting the section
in the manner canvassed by Mr. Venugopal
would mean that the Court would be
rendered powerless to punish even though
it may be fully convinced of the blatant
nature
of
a
contempt
having
been
committed and the same having been
brought to the notice of the Court soon
after the committal of the contempt and
within the period of one year of the same.
Section 20, therefore, has to be construed
in a manner which would avoid such an
anomaly and hardship both as regards the
litigant as also by placing a pointless fetter
on the part of the Court to punish for its
contempt. An interpretation of Section 20,
like the one canvassed by the Appellant,
which would render the constitutional
power of the Courts nugatory in taking
action for contempt even in cases of gross
contempt, successfully hidden for a period
of one year by practising fraud by the
contemner would render Section 20 as
liable to be regarded as being in conflict
with Article 129 and/or Article 215. Such a
rigid interpretation must therefore be
avoided.

44.
Action
for
contempt
is
divisible into two categories, namely, that
initiated suo motu by the Court and that
instituted otherwise than on the Court's
own motion. The mode of initiation in each
case would necessarily be different. While
in the case of suo motu proceedings, it is
the Court itself which must initiate by
issuing a notice. In other cases initiation
can only be by a party filing an application.
In our opinion, therefore, the proper
construction to be placed on Section 20
must be that action must be initiated, either
by filing of an application or by the Court
issuing notice suo motu, within a period of
one year from the date on which the
contempt
is
alleged
to
have
been
committed."
(Emphasis Supplied)

9. In the present case, admittedly the
incident had taken place on 21.03.2024
whereas the application was filed by the
applicant before the learned Advocate
General on 16.04.2025 which was clearly
beyond time. In such view of the matter,
initiation of contempt proceeding at the
instance of the applicant was clearly
beyond time.

10. The present application is time
barred and as such it is not necessary to go
into any other question that may be
involved in the present case.

11. The contempt application is
accordingly
rejected.
However,
the
7 All. Vijay Prakash Shukla Vs. State
703
petitioner is at liberty to pursue his remedy
elsewhere, as already observed, by
learned Advocate General in the second last
paragraph of the judgment.

12. We make it clear that rejection of
the present contempt application as being
time
barred
would
not
effect
the
proceedings, if any, pursued by the
applicant herein.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 703
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 21.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 200 of 1999

Vijay Prakash Shukla ...Appellant
Versus
State ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Yogendra Singh, Kailash Nath Mishra, Kaushal
Mani Tripathi, R.P. Misra, Trishita Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the conviction of the appellant under
Sections 363, 366, 368, and 376/511 IPC was
legally sustainable based on the evidence
presented, and whether he was entitled to any
relief or benefit under law, including the First
Offender provision.

HEADNOTES
Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section - 164, 313,
374(2), - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section - 363, 366, 368, 376, 511, -
Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 - Section - 24, -
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - Section
- 4- Criminal Appeal - against conviction and
sentenced - Appellant convicted for kidnapping
and attempted rape of minor cousin under
Sections 363, 366, 368, and 376/511 IPC - FIR
lodged with delay - court held delay immaterial
due to familial ties and social stigma - Victim's
testimony consistent and corroborated
by
medical and witness evidence - Defence failed
to prove enmity or alibi - no credible explanation
under Section 313 CrPC - Trial court's judgment
upheld - with observation that convicted and
sentenced, beyond any doubt and appeal filed
on misconceived and baseless grounds - held,
benefit of first offender could not be extended
to a culprit who was found guilty of abducting a
teenaged girl and forcing her to sexual
submission with criminal motive - consequently,
Appeal is dismissed. (Para - 12, 27, 28, 29)

Appeal Dismissed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
Satpal Singh v. State of Haryana - 2010 Cri LJ
4283; State of Himachal Pradesh v. Prem Singh
- AIR 2009 SC 1010); Tarkeshwar Sahu v. State
of Bihar
- (AIRONLINE 2006 SC 383);
Pandharinath v. State of Maharashtra - (2009)
14 SCC 537); Koppula Venkat Rao v. State of
Andhra Pradesh - (2004) 3 SCC 602); Chaitu Lal
v. State of Uttarakhand - (2019) 20 SCC 272);
Israil v. State of U.P. - Criminal Appeal No. 40 of
2001); Smt. Devki v. State of Haryana - 1979
(3) SCC 760); Kalu @ Laxminarayan v. State of
M.P. - (2019) 10 SCC 211).

LIST OF ACTS
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Indian Penal
Code,
1860;
Juvenile
Justice
Act,
1986;
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Criminal Appeal - Kidnapping - Attempt to Rape
- Minor Victim - Familial Abuse - Delay in FIR -
First Offender Denial - Medical Evidence -
Credibility of Testimony - baseless grounds.

CASE ARISING FROM
Date of Judgment and order: 28.04.1999 passed
in Sessions Trial No. 545 of 1987 passed by Trial
Court - 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Gonda.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant: - Yogendra Singh, Kailash
Nath Mishra, Kaushal Mani Tripathi, R. P. Misra,
Trishita Singh