Dismissed

Tushar Pandey v. Si Devender Yadav

Delhi HC14 Sept 2026CONT.CAS(C)/1675/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of the Delhi High Court disposed of a contempt petition filed for alleged wilful disobedience regarding the late placement of an FSL Report. The Court held that the delay was not deliberate or substantial and found that the report was actually filed earlier, leading to the dismissal of the application.

What did the court decide?

Exemption allowed subject to exceptions (CM APPL. 62175/2026). The contempt petition was dismissed.

Tushar Pandey Vs Si Devender Yadav — Contempt of Court | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~50

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CNR No. DLHC010433082026

¶4

- CONT.CAS(C) 1675/2026

¶5

TUSHAR PANDEY .....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Shubham Prajapati with Ms. Eram Afrin, Mr. Pratik Yadav and Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocates.

¶7

versus

¶8

SI DEVENDER YADAV .....Respondent Through: Mr. S.K. Tyagi, SPC with Ms. Sadhna Sandhu, GP and Mr. A. Tyagi, Advocate. W/SI Purvi Ahlawat and SI Devender Yadav, PS Janakpuri.

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 14.09.2026

¶12

CM APPL. 62175/2026 (exemption)

¶13

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶14

CONT.CAS(C) 1675/2026

¶15

Applicant seeks initiation of contempt for deliberate and wilful disobedience of the directions passed by this Court on 01.04.2026. The relevant portion of the abovesaid order reads as under:-

¶16

“7. In the meantime, the Investigating Officer (IO) is directed to ensure that the FSL Report be placed on record, prior to the next date of hearing.”

¶17

The abovesaid order clearly indicates that the Investigating Officer was, merely, directed to ensure that FSL report is placed on record.

¶18

CONT.CAS(C) 1675/2026

¶19

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2026 at 11:30:11

¶22

The aspect of preparation of any such report lies with the concerned laboratory and even if there is some delay in submitting the report, it would not mean anything substantial and would not be suggestive of any deliberate and wilful disobedience of the abovesaid direction.

¶23

To make the things worse, learned Addl. P.P. for the State, who appears on advance notice, reveals that the FSL result was, actually, placed before the learned Trial Court on 07.09.2026. He submits that the concerned Investigating Officer had, rather, gone to the concerned Trial Court to submit report on 05.09.2026 but since the learned Presiding Officer was on leave, it could not be filed that day. Copy of such report has also been filed in the main petition which is pending consideration before this Court.

¶24

It is really unfortunate that the applicant, without even cross-checking the relevant facts, has ventured into filing of the present petition which, even otherwise, does not contain any substance.

¶25

Learned counsel for the applicant acknowledged that the he was not aware whether the FSL report has already been filed before the learned Trial Court.

¶26

Be that as it may, even otherwise, the contempt, in the abovesaid factual matrix, does not lie.

¶27

The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶28

MANOJ JAIN, J

¶29

SEPTEMBER 14, 2026 st/sa

¶30

CONT.CAS(C) 1675/2026

¶31

¶32

This is a digitally signed order.

¶33

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2026 at 11:30:11

Tushar Pandey v. Si Devender Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tushar Pandey v. Si Devender Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Kumari Vs R. Mohanraja & Anr.

Rwa E Block Preet Vihar Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi through Its Commissioner & Anr.

Smt Zarmaben Shankarbhai Patel College Vs Ms Rashmi Shukla Regional Director Western Regional Committee Ncte and Anr.

Kunwarpal & Ors. Vs Rbl Bank Limited & Anr.

Sukhmani Kaur Oberoi Vs Chanpreet Singh Bammi

Virendra Lal Tuli Vs New Delhi Muncipal Council & Anr.

Anil Kumar & Ors. Vs Dr. Pramod Kumar, Registrar, Jnu & Anr.

Kundan Lal Arya Vs Mr Challa Sreenivasulu Setty Chairman and Managing Director & Anr.