A contempt petition under Article 215 of the Constitution for violating arrest guidelines is not maintainable before the High Court unless the alleged disobedience has already been adjudicated as a manifest violation by a competent court during the underlying proceedings.

*****

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.

The instant contempt petition, preferred under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the “1971 Act”) alleges willful disobedience of the directions issued by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Arnesh Kumar V/s State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273 and further reiterated in the case of Mohd. Asfak Alam V/s The State of Jharkhand and another, (2023) 10 SCALE 370.

2. The case set up is that an FIR No.157 dated 18.09.2024 (Annexure P-3) was registered at Police Station Nawanshahr, District SBS Nagar, on the statement of one Ms. ‘X’ under Sections 74 , 75 and 76 of the Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “the BNS”) against the present petitioner.

3. The allegations were that Ms. ‘X’ had got married on 12.06.2010 and had two children from the wedlock. She was employed as a Computer Operator in a private immigration office “Gulf” in the year 2022. She, however, quit her job on account of ill health of her mother-in-law. One Baljinder Singh Hussainpur was running an organization called ‘Niroya Punjab’ in Nawanshahr. The complainant was desirous of working in the said organization as a result of which, she came in contact with the said Baljinder Singh Hussainpur. She was hired as a computer operator in February 2024 in the office opened by the said Baljinder Singh for the Shiromani Akali Dal party. It was alleged that after the Lok Sabha Elections 2024, the office was closed and the complainant lost her job.

4. It was further alleged that while working in the office, the complainant had got acquainted with the petitioner, who was also working for the said Baljinder Singh in his main office. On 24.08.2024, the petitioner called her on ‘whatsapp’ and invited her to work in his office. However, subsequently, the petitioner started calling her to his office for work. On 26.08.2024 at about 10:40 a.m., when she went to his office, the petitioner started a romantic conversation with her. The allegation was that thereafter, he locked the office from inside and committed obscene acts with her. Upon this, the complainant opened the office and left.

5. She initially did not file a complaint in the police but disclosed about the incident to one Makhan Singh, who also worked in ‘Niroya Punjab’. Subsequently, the FIR (Annexure P-3) was registered after the complainant consulted her husband.

6. The case of the petitioner is that the complainant and her husband had borrowed a sum of Rs.1 lakh from the petitioner on 04.05.2024, which he had withdrawn from his bank. Rs.50,000/- had been repaid but the balance amount was not being returned. It has been averred that the petitioner is a law graduate and he was being threatened by the complainant that he should not demand money, failing which he would be implicated. He submitted a complaint to the SSP, Hoshiarpur on 07.08.2024 (Annexure P-4).

7. The matter is stated to have been amicably resolved and it was decided that the complaint submitted by the complainant would be withdrawn. A compromise is stated to have been arrived at on 08.09.2024 and a compromise deed (Annexure P-5) was executed.

8. It has been averred that on representation dated 14.09.2024 (Annexure P-6) having been submitted by the petitioner, an enquiry was also marked to the DSP, Nawanshahr.

9. The petitioner also filed a civil suit for recovery of the said amount (Annexure P-7). It has been averred that instead of waiting for the enquiry, the FIR in question