Dismissed¶27

Raj Kumar Pandey v. Shashank Singh Deputy Police Commissioner of Police East Lko.

Allahabad HC11 Feb 2026CAPL/2552/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissal of contempt application under S.12, Contempt of Court Act, for alleged non-compliance of writ order dated 09.08.2024 in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 5781 of 2024; Raj Kumar Pandey v. Shashank Singh, Deputy Police Commissioner (East), Lucknow; grievance moved 05.08.2025, almost a year late; claim of serving the order on 14.08.2024 unsubstantiated; alternate remedy (Judicial Magistrate; Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 1 SCC (Crl.) 440) not availed; Manish Kumar, J.; decided 11.02.2026; Allahabad HC Lucknow Bench.

What did the court decide?

The present contempt application alleging non-compliance of the writ court's order dated 09.08.2024 has no merit and stands dismissed. ¶27

Raj Kumar Pandey vs Shashank Singh Deputy Police… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the contempt application alleging non-compliance by the respondent of the writ court's order dated 9.8.2024 (passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5781 of 2024) has merit and warrants action under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

The present contempt application alleging non-compliance of the writ court's order dated 09.08.2024 has no merit and stands dismissed.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

Supporting ground for dismissal: the petitioner moved an application before the authorities concerned only on 5.8.2025, almost a year after the writ court's order dated 09.08.2024.

¶17

Key takeaways

The petitioner's submission that he had met the respondent on 14.8.2024 and handed over a copy of the writ court's order found no support anywhere on record.ratio¶22
Even the typed copy of the representation dated 14.08.2024 enclosed with the supplementary affidavit did not establish that it was served upon the respondent.ratio¶24
The further remedy left open by the writ court — approaching the Judicial Magistrate concerned if still aggrieved — was not availed by the applicant, contributing to the finding that the contempt application has no merit.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow), Court No. 8 — Contempt Application (CIVIL) No. - 2552 of 2025, decided February 11, 2026 by Manish Kumar, J.: DISMISSED. Applicant Raj Kumar Pandey (counsel Dinesh Chandra Shukla and Vishal Yadav) invoked Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act against Shashank Singh, Deputy Police Commissioner of Police (East), Lucknow, alleging non-compliance of the judgment and order dated 09.08.2024 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5781 of 2024, which had directed the petitioner to raise his grievance before respondent no. 2, Deputy Police Commissioner, East Gomtinagar, Lucknow, leaving open recourse to the concerned Judicial Magistrate in view of Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 1 SCC (Crl.) 440. Grounds for dismissal: the grievance application was moved only on 5.8.2025, almost a year after the writ order; the plea that the order had been served on the respondent on 14.8.2024 was unsubstantiated (the typed representation of even date filed in a supplementary affidavit proved no service); and the Judicial Magistrate remedy left open by the writ court was never availed.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2552 of 2025

Raj Kumar Pandey

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

Shashank Singh Deputy Police Commissioner Of Police East Lko.

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Dinesh Chandra Shukla, Vishal Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:

¶9

Court No. - 8

¶10

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

¶11

Heard.

¶12

Present contempt application has been preferred against the alleged non-compliance of the judgment and order dated 09.08.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5781 of 2024. The relevant para of the said judgment is being reproduced hereinbelow:-

¶13

"Without expressing any opinion on merits of the allegations as the investigation is still pending, let the petitioner approach the respondent no. 2, Deputy Police Commissioner, East Gomtinagar, Lucknow raising his grievance, who shall get the matter inquired and do the needful but only as per law. However, if the petitioner is still aggrieved that is inspite of the aforesaid, he may approach the Judicial Magistrate concerned in this regard in view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in (2008) 1 SCC (Crl.) 440."

¶14

Alongwith the present contempt application, a copy of representation dated 25.08.2025 has been enclosed alongwith postal receipt regarding service of order dated 09.08.2024 upon the respondent. The Court initially passed the order dated 12.08.2025, which is being reproduced hereinbelow:-

¶15

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶16

The instant petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act has been preferred alleging non-compliance of the order dated 9.8.2024 passed by the writ Court in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 5781 of 2024.

¶17

The record indicates that the petitioner moved an application before the authorities concerned on 5.8.2025 almost after an year.

¶18

Specific query was put to learned counsel for the petitioner to indicate as to when the order of writ court was communicated to the respondent authorities, to which, it has

¶19

CAPL No. 2552 of 2025

¶20

¶21

been stated that it is mentioned in paragraph 7 of the petition that the petitioner had met with the respondent on 14.8.2024 and handed over a copy of the order passed by the writ court.

¶22

There is noting on record to substantiate the aforesaid submission. The petitioner states that he has a receiving of the copy served to the respondent. Let the same be filed within a week.

¶23

List/put up this matter on 21.8.2025, as fresh."

¶24

The applicant has filed a supplementary affidavit enclosing therewith the typed copy of the representation dated 14.08.2024 but from the same, it could not be ascertained whether it was served or not upon the respondent.

¶25

Previously on 12.08.2025, the Court has already passed an order that the application was moved before the authority concerned, almost after an year and the situation remains same, even today.

¶26

In the judgment and order dated 09.08.2024, the Court has left open for the applicant if the applicant is still aggrieved i.e. inspite of aforesaid, he may approach the Judicial Magistrate concerned and the said remedy has not been availed by the applicant.

¶27

In view of the facts, circumstances and discussion made hereinabove, the present contempt application has no merit and is hereby dismissed .

¶28

February 11, 2026 Ashish

¶29

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶30

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Raj Kumar Pandey v. Shashank Singh Deputy Police Commissioner of Police East Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar Pandey v. Shashank Singh Deputy Police Commissioner of Police East Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pramendra Sharma vs Shri Vipul Shiv Sagar Distt. Basic Edu. Officer Distt. Jhansi and 2 Others

Ramakant Pandey vs Sri Ram Prasad Tiwari Deputy Collector Sdm Ayodhya and Another

Smt. Vandana and Another vs Smt. Riya Kejariwal Managing Director Madhayanchal Vidut Nigam Ltd. Lko.

Ankita Nigam vs Dr. Surya Kant, Deptt., of Respiratory Medicine, Kgmu, Lko.

Daya Pratap Pal vs Sri Gyanendra Pratap Director General of Police C.R.P.F. New Delhi and Another

Lakhan Singh vs Mr. Manish Chauhan Prin. Secy. General Administration Govt. Sectt. Lko.