Cops produce rape survivor in court without directions, ‘surprised’ judge initiates contempt action

‘Deliberately produced’

• The court recorded that the alleged rape survivor started “shouting and wailing” from the public gallery and expressed a desire to speak. When called to the Bar, she allegedly started throwing tantrums, disturbing the proceedings, it added.
• According to the bench, the prosecutrix had been deliberately produced before the court in order to disrupt proceedings at the instance of a station house officer (SHO).
• The court further noted that the sub-inspector who had brought the prosecutrix initially disappeared from court and later stated that he had been instructed by “higher-ups” to produce her before the bench “so that this Court may learn what is the truth of the case”, it noted.
• The bench found that the conduct of the station house officer and the sub-inspector was prima facie contumacious.
• It directed registration of a separate criminal contempt case against them and ordered the matter to be placed before the appropriate bench dealing with criminal contempt matters.

Case

• The case before the court related to a First Information Report (FIR) alleging abduction and gang rape, along with accusations that private videos of the prosecutrix had been recorded.
• The bench noted that the allegations in the prosecutrix’s statement under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) were specifically against one accused (second petitioner) and not against his father, who was one of the petitioners before the high court.
• Section 183 of the BNSS empowers judicial magistrates to record the confessions of an accused or statements of a witness/victim during the investigation phase. It corresponds to Section 164 of the older Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
• While refusing to interfere with the FIR against the second petitioner, the court admitted the writ petition filed by his father and granted him protection from arrest till further orders in connection with the case.

Contempt action for threatening with gun

In another case, the Delhi High Court sentenced a man to a month’s imprisonment after finding him guilty of criminal contempt for threatening a court-appointed commissioner with a gun. Justices Prathiba M Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta were, on October 29, 2025, hearing a suo motu case against a man who placed a gun on the table before the court-appointed commissioner during the inspection of the man’s office.

The bench held the man guilty, observing his conduct “clearly constitutes criminal contempt”. “Accordingly, in terms of Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Contemnor is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month along with Rs 2,000 as fine,” it held.

The section provides that a person found guilty of contempt of court may be punished with imprisonment for a term of up to six months, a fine of up to Rs 2,000, or both. However, the section also states that the accused may be discharged, or the punishment remitted, if he or she tenders an apology to the satisfaction of the Court, provided that such apology is made bona fide.