Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose out of a contempt conviction imposed by a Magistrate on the petitioner during remand proceedings in a criminal case. The petitioner was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 210/2025 registered at Bundgarden Police Station for offences under Section 324(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 4(25) of the Arms Act, 1959, and Section 37(3) read with Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. On 7 July 2025, while produced before the 6th Joint CJJD and JMFC, Court No.1, the petitioner, in response to a judicial inquiry about ill-treatment, uttered words derogating the authority of the court. The Magistrate took cognizance of contempt and convicted the petitioner under Sections 384 and 385 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, imposing a fine of Rs. 1000 and simple imprisonment of seven days. The petitioner challenged this conviction by filing Criminal Writ Petition No. 3741 of 2025 before the Bombay High Court. Initially, the petitioner also sought a declaration that the arrest was illegal, but later deleted that prayer. The primary grievance was that the Magistrate had usurped power by directly convicting under Section 385 BNSS without following the mandatory procedure under Section 391 BNSS, which requires the court to refer the contemnor to the jurisdictional Magistrate instead of convicting directly. The petitioner also argued that after accepting guilt and praying for pardon, the Magistrate ought not to have convicted him. The State, represented by the APP, contended that the Magistrate was justified and that cognizance had to be taken on the same day as mandated by Section 384 BNSS, relying on S Rajanikanth v. C. Thirumagal. The High Court entertained the writ petition notwithstanding the availability of an appeal under Section 415 BNSS, holding that when there is a violation of fundamental right, a writ petition can be entertained without relegating the party to statutory remedies. On merits, the High Court found merit only in the ground concerning the procedure under Section 391 BNSS. It observed that for convicting a contemnor under Section 385 BNSS, the procedure under Section 391 BNSS had to be followed, and the Magistrate had instead directly convicted the petitioner. The court noted that punishment under Section 385 BNSS can be imposed only when the court feels the contemnor cannot be sufficiently dealt with under Section 384 BNSS, but even then, the court must send the contemnor to the jurisdictional Magistrate. Since this was not done, the separate punishment of seven days simple imprisonment under Section 385 could not be sustained. The High Court rejected the argument that the Magistrate should not have dealt with remand prayer while convicting the petitioner, holding that once the petitioner was convicted, he was in judicial custody and the question of conflict of custody did not arise. Consequently, the High Court partly allowed the writ petition, set aside the conviction under Section 385 BNSS, and directed that the petitioner be produced before a different Magistrate for remand in C.R. No. 210/2025 once released from jail as per the Rules. The Superintendent, Yerwada Police Station was directed to release him and inform Bundgarden Police Station of his release.
Headnote
A) Criminal Contempt - Procedure for Punishment - Mandatory Compliance with Section 391 BNSS - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Sections 384, 385, 391 - The Magistrate convicted the petitioner under Section 385 BNSS for contempt committed during court proceedings without following the procedure under Section 391 BNSS, which requires referral to the jurisdictional Magistrate; the High Court held that direct conviction by the same court was unsustainable and set aside the conviction under Section 385 BNSS. (Paras 4,7,10) B) Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability - Exceptional Circumstances and Fundamental Rights - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 415 - The petitioner challenged the conviction without exhausting appeal under Section 415 BNSS; the High Court entertained the writ petition on the ground that violation of fundamental right constitutes exceptional circumstance, relying on Harish Arora and ors. v. Dy. Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Writ Petition No.3433/2025. Held that when there is violation of fundamental right, writ petition can be entertained without relegating the party to statutory remedies. (Paras 2-3) C) Contempt of Court - Threshold for Enhanced Punishment - Restraint on Direct Conviction - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Sections 384, 385 - Punishment under Section 385 BNSS can be imposed only when court feels contemnor cannot be sufficiently dealt with under Section 384 BNSS, but even then the court must send contemnor to jurisdictional Magistrate as per Section 391 BNSS; the separate punishment of seven days simple imprisonment under Section 385 cannot be sustained absent that procedure. Held that conviction under Section 385 was set aside. (Paras 7,10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under Section 385 BNSS was valid when the procedure under Section 391 BNSS was not followed; whether the writ petition was maintainable despite availability of appeal under Section 415 BNSS; whether the Magistrate properly dealt with remand prayer while convicting the petitioner
Final Decision
Writ petition partly allowed; conviction under Section 385 BNSS set aside; petitioner Suraj Anand Shukla to be produced before a different Magistrate for remand in C.R. No. 210/2025 once released from jail as per Rules; Superintendent Yerwada Police Station directed to release him and inform Bundgarden Police Station.
Law Points
- Contempt conviction under Section 385 BNSS requires compliance with procedure under Section 391 BNSS
- direct conviction by same court is unsustainable
- writ petition maintainable despite alternative remedy when violation of fundamental right
- punishment under Section 385 BNSS only when contemnor cannot be sufficiently dealt with under Section 384 BNSS
