Early Times Report
Jammu, Sept 3: The Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, Anoop Kumar Sharma has set aside the bailable warrant issued against Parvez Sajad, Incharge Police Station Nagrota, holding that a subordinate court dealing with contempt proceedings cannot adopt a coercive process to compel the physical appearance of an alleged contemnor.
The revision petition was filed against the February 3, 2026 order of the Forest Magistrate JMIC, Jammu, whereby a bailable warrant had been issued against the SHO to secure his presence in an ongoing contempt petition filed by Shoket Ali.
The dispute arose after Shoket Ali had approached the Magistrate under Section 175(3) of the BNSS seeking registration of an FIR. He later alleged non-compliance of the court’s directions and initiated contempt proceedings against the Nagrota SHO. The SHO, however, submitted reports claiming that the directions had been complied with.
Appearing for the revisionist, Advocate Zulker Nain Sheikh argued that under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the 2023 Rules governing contempt proceedings of subordinate courts, the Magistrate could only conduct a preliminary inquiry and, if prima facie contempt was made out, make a reference to the High Court.
Advocate Irfan Khan, appearing for the respondent, defended the warrant and contended that the Magistrate was competent to secure the SHO’s presence after repeated non-appearance.
The Sessions Court held that under Rule 7 of the 2023 Rules, a subordinate court may issue a show-cause notice, seek an explanation and give an opportunity of hearing before forming an opinion on whether contempt appears to have been committed.
However, the Court made it clear that there is no scope for a referral court to adopt a coercive course against the alleged contemnor or compel his appearance through a warrant. In case of non-appearance, the subordinate court can record the same and proceed to make a reasoned reference to the High Court on the basis of the available record.
The Court further noted that the SHO had already filed his written response before the Magistrate explaining the alleged compliance. Even if the explanation was found unsatisfactory, the Magistrate could proceed under the prescribed contempt rules but could not secure his physical presence through a bailable warrant.
Allowing the revision petition, the Sessions Court termed the warrant order “perverse and not sustainable in law” and set it aside. The Forest Magistrate was directed to proceed with the contempt petition strictly in accordance with the applicable rules and while considering the response already filed by the SHO. (JNF) |
