[2023:RJ-JP:14967]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 878/2020

Goverdhan Singh S/o Bharat Singh Parihar, Aged About 41 Years,

R/o B/B-2, Nawalkha Apartment, Bharat Mata Path, Jamna Lal

Bajaj Marg, Near Civil Lines Railway Crossing, C-Scheme, Jaipur-

302001

----Petitioner

Versus

Ravi Prakash Meharda, Presently Posted As ADGP, Civil Rights

And Anti Human Trafficking, Vigilance And Offence Against

Weaker Section, Rajasthan, Through Officer In Charge,

Rajasthan Police Headquarters, Lalkothi Jaipur.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Ashish Devessar with

Mr. Prameshwar Lal Pilania

For Respondent(s)

:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Order

21/07/2023

For the reasons stated in the application No.1/2021, the

same is allowed.

The defect pointed out by the Office is waived.

This contempt petition has been filed alleging willful

disobedience of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India in case of Arnesh Kumar versus State of Bihar

& Anr.: 2014 (8) SCC 273 decided on 02.07.2014.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to direction No.6

in case of Arnesh Kumar (supra), would submit that the Circular

dated 29.05.2020 issued by the respondent wherein, it has been

directed that the benefit of Section 41A of the Code of Criminal

[2023:RJ-JP:14967]

(2 of 2)

[CCP-878/2020]

Procedure, 1973 would not be applicable to an accused under the

provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity “the Act of 1989”),

amounts to contempt of Court. He submits that directions issued

in case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) do not draw any distinction in

between the offences under the Indian Penal Code or under the

Act of 1989. He, therefore, prays that the respondent may be

directed to purge the contempt and he may also be punished

suitably.

Heard. Considered.

The Circular dated 29.05.2020 has been issued by the

respondent in view of provisions of Sections 18 & 18-A of the Act

of 1989 which exclude the applicability of the provisions of Section

438 of the CrPC for the offences under the Act of 1989. It is true

that in case of Arnesh Kumar (supra), a direction has been

issued to ensure compliance of Section 41A CrPC; but, it is trite

law that judgments of the Courts can’t be taken as Euclid’s

formula and cannot be construed as statutory provision. If the

provisions of Sections 18 & 18-A of the Act of 1989 are put in

juxtaposition to Section 41A CrPC, this Court does not find that in

issuing the Circular dated 29.05.2020, the respondent has willfully

disobeyed the direction no.6 issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

of India in case of Arnesh Kumar (supra).

Resultantly, this contempt petition is dismissed.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

Manish/17