##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JP:4121-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

D.B. Criminal Contempt Petition No. 5/2023

Pawan Kumar Sharma (RJ0203), Special Judge Protection of

Children From Sexual Offences Act and the Commissions for

Protection of Child Rights Act No.1 Kota (Raj)

----Petitioner

Versus

Advocate Shri Lokesh Suvalka, R/o

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : None Present

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prahlad Sharma

Mr. Lakhan Sharma

Contemnor, in person

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA

Order

29/01/2026

1. The instant criminal contempt petition came to be registered

before this Court after receipt of written reference dated

31.05.2023 sent by the Presiding Officer, Special Judge POCSO Act

No.1, Kota. In the said written reference, Presiding Officer has

pointed out the indecent and disrespectful behaviour of the

advocate i.e. present contemnor, and his demeanour was noted by

the Presiding Officer in the order sheets dated 31.05.2023 and

05.11.2022.

2. This Court in its previous order dated 20.11.2025, after

perused of the written reference and the order sheets dated

31.05.2023 and 05.11.2022 as also after going through the

written reply filed by respondent-contemnor, observed as under:-

(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 11:02:11 AM)

(Downloaded on 15/02/2026 at 06:05:37 AM)

[2026:RJ-JP:4121-DB] (2 of 3) [CRLCP-5/2023]

“1. From perusal of the reply filed by and on behalf of

contemnor, there is no specific denial of his conduct, as

noticed by the concerned Presiding Officer in the order-

sheets dated 31.05.2023 & 05.11.2022.

2. Contemnor is an Advocate, who is present in

person and with folded hands, prays to apologies his

conduct, if in any manner same has been taken as

contemptuous/demeaning the dignity/ decorum of the

Court as well as interference in the court proceedings.

3. Prima facie, we are of opinion that the contemnor

is guilty for contempt under the Contempt of Court Act,

however, in the interest of justice, he is granted a

week's time to furnish a detailed explanation/specific

written apology, if he so desire.

4. Contemnor is directed to remain present in

person before this Court on the next date of hearing.

5. List the matter on 01.12.2025.”

3. In furtherance to the order dated 20.11.2025 respondent-

contemnor has tendered his unconditional and unqualified written

apology for his conduct stating inter alia that he has been in

practice since 2012 onwards and has always paid high regard to

the majesty of Court as also to the Judges and his intent was

never to disrepute or demean the majesty of Court. Respondent-

contemnor is present in person and states at Bar that he has also

tendered his apology before the concerned Presiding Officer as

well, who now has demitted the office.

4. Considering the manner in which the concerned Presiding

Officer noted the conduct of advocate as disrespectful and

derogatory to the Court as also taking note of the unblemished

record of contemnor, who is a practicing advocate since 2012

onwards, having no discredit to his conduct before any other

Court, and keeping in mind to maintain the pious relationship

(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 11:02:11 AM)

(Downloaded on 15/02/2026 at 06:05:37 AM)

[2026:RJ-JP:4121-DB] (3 of 3) [CRLCP-5/2023]

between Bar and Bench, we do not find the present case a fit case

to punish the respondent-advocate for his misconduct and accepts

the written and unqualified apology tendered by him.

5. Accordingly, contempt notice(s) stand discharged and

proceedings of present contempt petition is hereby closed.

(SANDEEP TANEJA),J (SUDESH BANSAL),J

AVINASH GULERIA /8

(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 11:02:11 AM)

(Downloaded on 15/02/2026 at 06:05:37 AM)