Chhattisgarh HC rules appeal not maintainable under Contempt Act as no punishment or charges were involved

News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 255 | 2026:CGHC:17427-DB

April 16, 2026 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh has dismissed a miscellaneous appeal filed by senior police officials, holding that it was not maintainable under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as the impugned order did not involve punishment for contempt or framing of charges.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput was dealing with an appeal arising from ongoing contempt proceedings linked to a prior writ order dated October 6, 2023. The appellants, including senior police officers, had challenged a subsequent order passed by the Contempt Court on September 17, 2024, which directed them to include certain applicants in a “fit list” and revise it based on seniority.

The appellants argued that the Contempt Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing substantive directions instead of limiting itself to examining compliance with the original writ order. However, the respondents opposed the appeal, contending that it was not maintainable under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, which permits appeals only in specific circumstances.

After examining the legal framework, the Bench clarified that an appeal under Section 19(1)(a) lies only when a court exercises its jurisdiction to punish for contempt or frames charges in contempt proceedings. The Court relied on its earlier Full Bench ruling in Anil Kumar Dubey v. Pradeep Kumar Shukla, which held that appeals are maintainable against orders framing charges in contempt cases.

In the present case, the Court noted that the September 17 order neither imposed any punishment nor framed charges against the alleged contemnors. Instead, it merely issued additional directions during the pendency of contempt proceedings. As such, the order did not meet the statutory threshold required to invoke appellate jurisdiction under Section 19.

The Bench concluded that the appeal was not maintainable and dismissed it accordingly. At the same time, it granted liberty to the appellants to challenge the impugned order through appropriate legal remedies in accordance with law. The interim relief granted earlier was also vacated.

Case Reference : Miscellaneous Appeal No. 145 of 2024, Ashok Juneja and Another v. Goverdhan Korram and Others; Counsel for Appellants: Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate; Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, Advocate.