In Sudhir Kumar @ Sudhir Kumar Gupta v. S. Ravtesh Inderjit Singh (COCP-928-2026(O&M), decided on 05.03.2026), the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a contempt petition filed against a Judicial Officer and imposed costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the petitioner, holding the petition to be a gross abuse of the process of law.
Background
The petitioner had earlier obtained an order dated 10.11.2025 in CR-7687-2025, wherein the High Court directed the Courts below to decide certain pending applications “expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months.” No mandatory or time-bound direction was issued. The application in question (CM-644-2025) was decided by the Ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, on 27.02.2026, well within the indicative timeframe. Despite this, the petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging deliberate disobedience of the High Court’s order.
The Court’s Findings
The Court found that the order dated 10.11.2025 had been complied with before the contempt petition was even taken up. The direction to decide applications “preferably” within three months was not a mandatory deadline, and no contempt could be made out on that basis.
The Court went further, noting the manner in which allegations had been raised against a sincere and competent Judicial Officer. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Nirbhay Singh Suliya v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2026 AIR Supreme Court 412), the Court observed that it is the duty of High Courts to extend their protective umbrella over upright judicial officers and ensure they are not subjected to unmerited attacks by disgruntled litigants. The Supreme Court in that decision had also held that strict action, including contempt proceedings and Bar Council references, should follow against those who file or engineer false and frivolous complaints against judicial officers.
The High Court dismissed the contempt petition with costs of Rs. 1,00,000/-, payable to the respondent Judicial Officer, with a direction that the amount be deposited with the Ld. District and Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. In case of default, the amount was directed to be recovered as arrears of land revenue.
Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Advocate, appeared for the Ld. Judicial Officer, i.e., Sh. Ravtesh Inderjit Singh.