JUDGMENT :

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.

The instant contempt petition, preferred under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the “1971 Act”) seeks initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for willful disobedience of the directions issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar V/s State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273.

2. The case set up is that an FIR No.172, dated 15.04.2025 was registered at Police Station Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, (Annexure P-12) under Sections 316(2), 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “the BNS”) against the petitioner, on the statement of one Gurwinder Singh.

3. The allegations in the FIR were that the petitioner, on the pretext of securing Govt. jobs for the sons of the complainant (Gurwinder Singh), illegally demanded Rs.5 lakhs each. The complainant through his brother Gurpreet Singh paid Rs.4,30,000/- and Rs.3,74,000/- respectively to the petitioner through G-pay. It was alleged that Rs.5,46,000/- was paid in cash to the petitioner. It was alleged that neither the amount was returned nor was any job secured.

4. The case of the petitioner was that he had repaid Rs.3,95,000 to Gurpreet Singh and Gurwinder Singh, the details of which have been given in paragraph 2.2 of the petition. It was averred that on 29.03.2025, when the petitioner was called to the Police Station, Zirakpur, he and his wife returned Rs.10 lakhs. It has been averred that he had falsely been implicated in the FIR.

5. It has been averred that since all offences alleged to have been committed, for which the FIR in question was registered, were punishable with an imprisonment of less than 7 years, it was mandatory for the respondents to issue notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”) (Section 35(3) BNS) in view of the directions issued by the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar V/s State of Bihar and another (2014) 8 SCC 273 and reiterated in the case of Mohd. Asfak Alam V/s The State of Jharkhand and another (2023) 10 SCALE 370. However, the petitioner alleges that he was taken into illegal custody on 14.04.2025 without any such notice having been issued.

6. Status report by way of affidavit of Sh. Ravinder Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Station Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar on behalf of respondent No.1 was filed in which, it was stated that the petitioner was a habitual offender and previously also he had demanded Rs.8 lakhs and Rs.2.5 lakhs from one Bhabita Deka on the pretext of providing two flats under a government scheme. Neither the flats were provided nor was the money returned. It was averred that similarly, the petitioner had taken money from the complainant (Gurwinder Singh and his brother Gurpreet Singh) on the pretext of providing Govt. jobs to the sons of the complainant. It was averred that apart from above, another complaint was also received against the petitioner from one Reena alleging similar allegations. It was averred that the petitioner was served a notice under Section 35(3) BNS through his wife.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a case of clear cut violation and willful disobedience of the directions issued by the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar and Mohd. Asfak Alam (supra).

9. Per contra, learned State counsel submitted that there has been no violation or disobedience.

10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

11. In the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra), the Supreme Court of India issued the following directions :-

“13. Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorise detention casually and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have observed above, we give the following direction:

(1) All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498