Kerala High Court
Shaila Beegum A vs Santhosh Kumar J on 25 June, 2025
2025:KER:45231
Cont.Case © No.1080 of 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 4TH ASHADHA, 1947
CON.CASE(C) NO. 1080 OF 2025
CRIME NO.278/2025 OF Nedumangad Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram
(ARISING FROM JUDGMENT DATED 27.07.2022 IN Con.Case(C)
NO.808 OF 2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA)
PETITIONER:
SHAILA BEEGUM A
AGED 50 YEARS
W/O LATE MR. HARSHAD, 'BYTHANNOOR', KARINKADA,
CHULLIMANOOR, NEDUMANGAD P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695541
BY ADVS.
SHRI.R.S.LAKSHMAN
SMT.SUDAKSHINA MENA PRASAD
SHRI.NIRANJAN M.S.
SMT.AGRAJHA S.A.
RESPONDENT:
SANTHOSH KUMAR J
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O JAYADEVAN, SUB INSPECTOR OF
POLICE, INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN NEDUMANGAD PS CRIME
2025:KER:45231
Cont.Case © No.1080 of 2025
2
NO. 278/2025 NEDUMANGAD POLICE STATION, NEDUMANGAD P O
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695541.
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 23.05.2025, THE COURT ON 25.06.2025 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:45231
Cont.Case © No.1080 of 2025
3
JUDGMENT
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
The present contempt petition has been filed under Sections
11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article
215 of the Constitution of India, for having illegally arrested the
petitioner, a widow, in violation of the provisions of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in clear violation of the
directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v.
State of Bihar and another [(2014) 8 SCC 273].
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has
been arrayed as the accused in Crime No.278 of 2025, registered
at Nedumangad Police Station on the basis of a complaint by one
Mr.Sakkeer Hussain, alleging offences under Sections 316(2),
318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
The allegations levelled against the petitioner are cheating and
breach of trust in connection with a property transaction.
According to the petitioner, the complaint arises from a purely civil
dispute. Earlier the complainant had lodged a similar complaint at
2025:KER:45231
Cont.Case © No.1080 of 2025
Kattakada Police Station wherein Crime No.336 of 2025 was
registered. The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail in that
case, by the learned Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram vide
order dated 15.03.2025 in Crl.M.C No.752 of 2025 (Annexure II).
When the petitioner came to know about the registration of the
present Crime No.278 of 2025, she moved a fresh anticipatory
bail application before the same court which was subsequently
disposed of as having rendered infructuous since the petitioner
was unlawfully arrested.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
arrest was fully illegal and in complete disregard to the mandatory
directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Arnesh
Kumar (supra), pertaining to cases where offence is punishable
with imprisonment less than or extending upto seven years,
arrest was made without reasons necessitating the same and
without issuing mandatory notice of appearance under Section
35(3) of the BNSS and other conditions laid down in Arnesh
2025:KER:45231
Cont.Case © No.1080 of 2025
Kumar (supra). The petitioner submits that her fundamental
rights have been infringed. She had also made a complaint to the
Home Department, State of Kerala and to the State Police Chief
but no action whatsoever has been taken. In the circumstances,
she is constrained to approach this Court seeking initiation of
proceedings for contempt under Section 12 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India,
for wilful and deliberate disobedience of the binding judicial
precedents as well as violation of personal liberty, in a
high-handed and illegal manner. It is also submitted that a
separate writ petition is being preferred by the petitioner in
respect of the same.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that, as per Arnesh
Kumar (supra), there is a binding direction to ensure that police
officers do not arrest unnecessarily and Magistrates do not
authorise detention casually and mechanically.
2025:KER:45231
Cont.Case © No.1080 of 2025
5. In Arnesh Kumar's case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
laid down the following guidelines in paragraph 11:
"11.1xxx
(2) All police officers be provided with a check list
containing specified sub-clauses under Section
41(1)(b)(ii);
(3) The police officer shall forward the check list duly
filled and furnish the reasons and materials which
necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing
the accused before the Magistrate for further
detention;
(4) The Magistrate while authorising detention of the
accused shall peruse the report furnished by the
police officer in terms aforesaid and only after
recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will
authorise detention;
(5) The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded
to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of
the institution of the case with a copy to the
Magistrate which may be extended by the
Superintendent of Police of the district for the
reasons to be recorded in writing;
(6) Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41-A CrPC
be served on the accused within two weeks from the
2025:KER:45231
Cont.Case © No.1080 of 2025
date of institution of the case, which may be
extended by the Superintendent of Police of the
district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;
(7) Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall
apart from rendering the police officers concerned
liable for departmental action, they shall also be
liable to be punished for contempt of court to be
instituted before the High Court having territorial
jurisdiction.
(8) Authorising detention without recording reasons as
aforesaid by the Judicial Magistrate concerned shall
be liable for departmental action by the appropriate
High Court".
6. In the present case, the respondent failed to forward the
check list duly filled to furnish the reasons and materials that
necessitated the arrest while seeking further detention. The
respondent also failed to forward to the Magistrate within two
weeks from the date of institution of the case the decision not to
arrest. Further, the respondent also failed to issue notice of
appearance in terms of Section 41A CrPC (S.35(3) BNSS) to the
accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case.
2025:KER:45231
Cont.Case © No.1080 of 2025
Hence, the 1st respondent has violated above directions (3), (5),
and (6) in Arnesh Kumar (supra), rendering him liable for
departmental action as well as contempt proceedings by this
Hon'ble Court as stated in direction (7) above.
7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
records. Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1971) are reproduced
below:
"11. Power of High Court to try offences
committed or offenders found outside
jurisdiction.--A High Court shall have jurisdiction to
inquire into or try a contempt of itself or of any court
subordinate to it, whether the contempt is alleged to
have been committed within or outside the local limits of
its jurisdiction, and whether the person alleged to be
guilty of contempt is within or outside such limits.
12. Punishment for contempt of court.--(1)
Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in any
other law, a contempt of court may be punished with
simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six
2025:KER:45231
Cont.Case © No.1080 of 2025
months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand
rupees, or with both:
Provided that the accused may be discharged or
the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology
being made to the satisfaction of the Court.
Explanation.--An apology shall not be rejected
merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional if
the accused makes it bona fide.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law
for the time being in force, no court shall impose a
sentence in excess of that specified in sub-section (1) for
any contempt either in respect of itself or of a court
subordinate to it.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this
section, where a person is found guilty of a civil
contempt, the court, if it considers that a fine will not
meet the ends of justice and that a sentence of
imprisonment is necessary shall, instead of sentencing
him to simple imprisonment, direct that he be detained in
a civil prison for such period not exceeding six months as
it may think fit.
(4) Where the person found guilty of contempt of
court in respect of any undertaking given to a court is a
company, every person who, at the time the contempt
was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to,
2025:KER:45231
Cont.Case © No.1080 of 2025
the company for the conduct of business of the company,
as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of
the contempt and the punishment may be enforced, with
the leave of the court, by the detention in civil prison of
each such person:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section
shall render any such person liable to such punishment if
he proves that the contempt was committed without his
knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to
prevent its commission.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in
sub-section (4), where the contempt of court referred to
therein has been committed by a company and it is
proved that the contempt has been committed with the
consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect
on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other
officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary
or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of the
contempt and the punishment may be enforced, with the
leave of the court, by the detention in civil prison of such
director, manager, secretary or other officer.
Explanation.--For the purpose of sub-sections (4)
and (5),--
(a) "company" means any body corporate and
includes a firm or other association of individuals; and
2025:KER:45231
Cont.Case © No.1080 of 2025
(b) "director", in relation to a firm, means a partner
in the firm".
8. Article 215 of the Constitution of India reads as under:
"215. High Courts to be courts of record
Every High Court shall be a court of record and
shall have all the powers of such a court including the
power to punish for contempt of itself".
9. On a bare reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear
that as per Article 215, every High Court shall be a court of record
and shall have all the powers of such court including the power to
punish for contempt of itself. As per Section 11 of the Act, 1971,
a High Court shall have jurisdiction to inquire into or try a
contempt of itself or of any court subordinate to it, whether the
contempt is alleged to have been committed within or outside the
local limits of its jurisdiction. Section 12 of the Act, 1971 provides
for the extent of punishment which can be imposed under the Act
of 1971, in case the contemnor is found guilty of wilful
disobedience.
2025:KER:45231
Cont.Case © No.1080 of 2025
10. It is an admitted position that there is no order passed
by the High Court under any of the proceedings. Non-compliance
is alleged of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Arnesh Kumar (supra). As per Article 215 of the Constitution of
India, the High Court has power to punish for contempt of itself
only. According to Section 11 of the Act, 1971, the High Court
can punish for the orders passed by itself or by the subordinate
courts.
11. In the present case, there is neither any order of the
High Court or the subordinate court. It is only with regard to
implementation of Arnesh Kumar (supra). Moreover, there has
been no adjudication as to whether the guidelines laid down in
Arnesh Kumar (supra) have been violated in any of the
proceedings before the High Court or of the subordinate court. In
such a situation, a contempt petition directly before this Court
would not lie.
2025:KER:45231
Cont.Case © No.1080 of 2025
12. A Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at
Madras, in Contempt Petition No.3057 of 2023 [Arul v. N.Settu,
Sub Inspector of Police] had considered a similar issue and
came to the conclusion that 'in the present case, the allegation of
the petitioner is that the respondent violated the procedure and
also Section 41-A. Therefore, liable to be punished'. The Division
Bench held that, 'it seems to be hard to accept such proposition
mooted out by the petitioner, since it may be a procedural lapse
on the part of the Police Officer. If at all such procedural lapse
caused any prejudice, the petitioner has to seek appropriate
remedy before the court concerned or make a complaint against
such Police Official to the Department for initiation of disciplinary
proceedings. Contrarily, contempt petition would not lie'. It went
on to hold that 'in the event of allowing the contempt proceedings
for each and every lapse being committed by the Police Officer,
they may not be in a position to perform their duties freely in the
2025:KER:45231
Cont.Case © No.1080 of 2025
manner contemplated'. Holding that they are not inclined to
entertain the contempt petition, the same was dismissed.
13. In similar situation, High Court of Gujarat and
Ahmedabad, in Fuliben Ashokbhai rathod v. State of Gujarat
[2023 SCC Online Guj 2343], came to the conclusion that courts
while exercising jurisdiction of contempt must not travel beyond
four corners of the order which is alleged to have been flouted or
enter into, question that has not been dealt with or decided in the
judgment or the order, cannot be taken into consideration for the
purpose of drawing contempt. Only such directions which are
explicit in a judgment or the order ought to have been taken into
account for the purpose of consideration as to whether there has
been any violation of the courts order and held that the contempt
petition is not entertainable.
In view of the aforesaid discussions, we are of the
considered opinion that no contempt would lie before this Court
seeking implementation of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
2025:KER:45231
Cont.Case © No.1080 of 2025
Court in the case Arnesh Kumar (supra). Accordingly, the
Contempt Case being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M
JUDGE
smp
2025:KER:45231
Cont.Case © No.1080 of 2025
APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 1080/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure I TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN NEDUMANGAD POLICE
Annexure II TRUE COPY OF THE BAIL ORDER DATED 15.03.2025
IN CRL. M.C NO. 752/2025 PASSED BY LD.
SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN FIR NO.
336/2025 REGISTERED AT KATTAKADA POLICE
STATION
Annexure III TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REMANDING
THE ACCUSED TO JUDICIAL CUSTODY DATED
19.03.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT.
Annexure IV TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 02.07.2014
BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN ARNESH KUMAR
V. STATE OF BIHAR.
Annexure V TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 27.07.2022
BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN
MUHAMMAD RAFI V. SATHISH KUMAR M V.
Annexure VI A TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO. 4/2023/PHQ DATED
14.02.2023 ISSUED BY THE STATE POLICE CHIEF,
KERALA
