Rajasthan HC holds statements made by police during inquiry do not amount to criminal contempt

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has held that statements made by police officials during the course of an official inquiry, in compliance with judicial directions, do not amount to criminal contempt of court merely because they contain allegations or criticism against a Presiding Officer, particularly when such statements are not published or intended to scandalise the judiciary.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Farjand Ali and Justice Yogendra Kumar Purohit observed that contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked to suppress expressions made within the confines of lawful investigation, especially when such statements form part of a case diary and are not disseminated in the public domain.

These observations were made while deciding D.B. Criminal Contempt Petition No. 3/2019, arising out of a reference made by a Presiding Officer at Mandalgarh, Bhilwara, seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against several police officials including an Additional Superintendent of Police and other personnel.

The case originated from FIR No. 130/2019 registered at Police Station Mandalgarh involving serious allegations under Sections 376, 420, 389, 120-B, 166-A and 509 IPC. During the proceedings, the Presiding Officer noticed certain statements recorded by police officials during an inquiry conducted under the supervision of the Additional Superintendent of Police, and alleged that these statements scandalised the court and interfered with the administration of justice.

The reference for contempt was triggered after the police officials, in their statements recorded during inquiry, expressed grievances regarding the conduct and functioning of the Presiding Officer, including allegations of misbehaviour, improper handling of proceedings, and harsh treatment of police personnel during court interactions.

Before the High Court, the State and the concerned police officials contended that the statements were made strictly in response to queries during an official inquiry initiated pursuant to court directions. It was argued that the statements were neither intended to scandalise the judiciary nor circulated in public, and were confined to the case diary prepared under Section 172 Cr.P.C.

The respondents further submitted that no judicial proceedings were obstructed or prejudiced by such statements, and that the inquiry itself was conducted in compliance with orders passed by the Magistrate directing further investigation into the role of the SHO and other officials.

Examining the material on record, the High Court noted that the statements in question were part of an internal investigative process and were recorded in response to specific queries put to the officials. The Court emphasized that such statements were not voluntarily made in public nor intended to undermine the authority of the court.

The Bench further observed that the case diary, in which such statements were recorded, is not a public document and is meant solely for judicial scrutiny. Therefore, any remarks contained therein cannot automatically be treated as acts of contempt unless they are shown to have been published or to have caused real interference with the administration of justice.

The Court also took note of the broader principle that contempt jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly and with caution, particularly where allegations arise from internal processes such as investigation or inquiry. It reiterated that the purpose of contempt law is not to protect the personal dignity of judges but to preserve the administration of justice.

Significantly, the Court held that criticism, even if harsh or unpalatable, when made within a lawful and limited forum such as an inquiry, cannot be equated with criminal contempt unless it crosses the threshold of scandalising the court in a manner that affects public confidence in the judiciary.

Finding no evidence of publication, dissemination, or deliberate attempt to interfere with judicial proceedings, the High Court concluded that the essential ingredients of criminal contempt were not satisfied in the present case.

Accordingly, the Court declined to initiate contempt proceedings and discharged the notices issued against the police officials.

Case Title
In Re, Bhilwara (Raj.)

Case Number
D.B. Criminal Contempt Petition No. 3/2019

Court
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jodhpur Bench

Bench
Justice Farjand Ali
Justice Yogendra Kumar Purohit

Date of Order
March 17, 2026

Advocates
For the petitioner: Mr. Sajjan Singh Rathore, AAG
Respondents: Present in person (police officials)