The Bombay High Court has dismissed a contempt petition filed by Binod Agarwal against Maharashtra police officials, holding that allegations of an illegal arrest alone are not enough to initiate contempt proceedings. The court observed that contempt jurisdiction can be exercised only when there is clear and deliberate disobedience of a specific court order, which was absent in the present case.
Background of the Case
The petition arose from FIR No. 93 of 2018, registered against Binod Agarwal under provisions of the Information Technology Act. Agarwal claimed that his arrest violated the safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court in Joginder Kumar, Arnesh Kumar, and Lalita Kumari, particularly those relating to arrest procedure and issuance of notice before arrest. He also alleged that the authorities had disregarded directions issued by the Bombay High Court in another case concerning preservation of CCTV footage.
The petitioner sought initiation of contempt proceedings against the police officers, arguing that their actions amounted to deliberate defiance of binding judicial precedents. However, the State opposed the plea, maintaining that the investigation and arrest were carried out in accordance with law. It also pointed out that the criminal proceedings arising from the FIR had already been quashed in 2019 after both sides entered into consent terms.
Court's Observation
A Division Bench of Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Advait M. Sethna explained that the foundation of civil contempt is wilful disobedience of a judgment, order, or direction of a court. The Bench noted that, although the petitioner had questioned the legality of the police action, there had never been any judicial determination declaring the arrest illegal or recording that the respondents had violated court directions.
The Bench observed:
“There is no wilful, deliberate and/or intentional disobedience of the judgment/order passed by this Court, by the Respondents, so as to justify taking action.”
The court further held that the principles laid down in earlier Supreme Court judgments cannot automatically result in contempt proceedings unless there is material establishing their violation and a judicial finding to that effect. It also found that the requirements for criminal contempt were not satisfied on the facts of the case.
Decision
Concluding the matter, the High Court held that no case of either civil or criminal contempt was made out. It clarified that it had not examined the correctness of the petitioner's allegations regarding the police action, leaving those issues open to be raised in appropriate legal proceedings.
Accordingly, the contempt petition was disposed of.
Case Details
Case Title: Binod Agarwal S/O Sitaram Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Number: Contempt Petition No. 529 of 2019
Judge: Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Advait M. Sethna
Decision Date: 28 July 2026
