Lethargy Is Not an Exceptional Circumstance: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Striking Off of Defence for Delay in Filing Written Statement Vague Decree of Injunction Can’t Be Executed by Attaching Machines: Rajasthan High Court Strikes Down Execution Order Mere permission to join proceedings without allowing filing of written statement is illusory: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Proceedings Unregistered Power of Attorney Can’t Transfer Property: MP High Court Denies Title, Dismisses Ejectment Suit Mere Non-Recovery of Weapon Is Not Fatal When Circumstantial and Medical Evidence Prove Guilt Beyond Doubt: Allahabad High Court Failure to Examine Gazetted Officer and Magistrate Who Certified Seizure Goes to Root of Fair Trial Under NDPS Act : Calcutta High Court Tender Years Doctrine Is No Longer Good Law: Delhi High Court Slams Mother’s Custody Claim Built on Parental Alienation Negation of Bail is the Rule in NDPS Cases Involving Commercial Quantity: Himachal Pradesh High Court Denies Bail Single Stab Injury in Heat of Passion During Sudden Quarrel Is Not Murder: Kerala High Court Section 10 CPC Inapplicable To Labour Court Proceedings; Stay Of Individual Disputes Denied: Karnataka High Court 138 NI Act | Once Issuance and Signature on Cheque Are Admitted, Burden Shifts on Accused to Dislodge Statutory Presumption: Madras High Court Confession Cannot Substitute Proof: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Convicted of Wife’s Murder "Sole Eyewitness Testimony, Corroborated by Medical and Recovery Evidence, Is Enough to Sustain Conviction Under Section 302 IPC: Allahabad High Court Partition Once Effected Cannot Be Reopened on Vague Allegations of Fraud: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Registered Family Partition Deed Cancellation of Land Acquisition Compensation Without Allegation or Hearing Is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Restores Compensation to Innocent Land Owner Whether Act Was in Discharge of Official Duty Is a Question of Fact — Magistrate, Not High Court, Must Decide: Supreme Court Restricts Writ Interference in BNSS Cases Section 175(4) BNSS | Affidavit Is Not Optional — Even Complaints Against Public Servants Must Follow Procedural Rigour: Supreme Court Magistrate Cannot Be Directed to Recall His Judicial Order by a Writ Court: Supreme Court Warns Against Article 226 Interference in Pending Criminal Proceedings Even In Absence of Written Demand, If Substantial Dispute Exists or Is Apprehended, Reference Under Section 10 ID Act Is Valid: Supreme Court Absence of Classical Signs of Strangulation and Possibility of Hanging Nullifies Homicidal Theory: Supreme Court Holds Medical Evidence Alone Cannot Prove Guilt Confession Must Be Direct Acknowledgment of Guilt, Not Mere Presence at Scene: Supreme Court Slams Misuse of Section 164 CrPC Reversal of Acquittal Without Dislodging Trial Court’s Reasoning Is Impermissible: Supreme Court Restores Acquittal

"Prima Facie Case for Initiating Criminal Proceedings": Allahabad Court Restrains Advocate Santram Rathore from Practicing Due to Contempt of Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin

In a significant development, the court has issued a notice to Advocate Santram Rathore, restraining him from entering the court premises or practicing in the District Judgeship. The Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi presided over the case, stating that there is a "prima facie case for initiating the criminal proceedings under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971" against Rathore.

The case originated from a reference made by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Pilipbit, who reported that Rathore had made derogatory comments against the court and accused the presiding officer of corruption. The reference also mentioned that Rathore tried to obstruct court proceedings and used abusive and derogatory language.

The court has issued a notice to Rathore, asking him to show cause as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him for "creating obstruction in the proceedings of the court, misbehaving the court, using abusive and derogatory language, scandalizing the court etc."

The notice also stipulates that Rathore may file a reply through counsel after the service of the notice. The Registry has been directed to send a copy of the reference written by the presiding officer along with the notice.

In light of the persistent acts of alleged contempt, the court has imposed immediate restrictions on Rathore. He is barred from entering the court premises or practicing in the District Judgeship until the next date of listing. He is also required to be present in court on the next date fixed in the matter.

Sri Sudhir Mehrotra has appeared for the Court, and his name will be shown in the cause list whenever the matter is listed next. The Registry has also been directed to hand over a complete set of records to Sri Mehrotra within three weeks.

The case is set to be listed after the service of notice, marking a crucial juncture in the ongoing contempt proceedings against Advocate Santram Rathore.

Suomoto

In Re vs  Santram Rathore 

Latest Legal News

  • by Admin
    28 January 2026 8:57 AM
Mere permission to join proceedings without allowing filing of written statement is illusory: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Proceedings
  • by sayum
    28 January 2026 6:55 AM
Reversal of Acquittal Without Dislodging Trial Court’s Reasoning Is Impermissible: Supreme Court Restores Acquittal
  • by sayum
    28 January 2026 6:55 AM
Confession Must Be Direct Acknowledgment of Guilt, Not Mere Presence at Scene: Supreme Court Slams Misuse of Section 164 CrPC
  • by sayum
    28 January 2026 6:55 AM
Absence of Classical Signs of Strangulation and Possibility of Hanging Nullifies Homicidal Theory: Supreme Court Holds Medical Evidence Alone Cannot Prove Guilt
  • by sayum
    28 January 2026 6:55 AM
Even In Absence of Written Demand, If Substantial Dispute Exists or Is Apprehended, Reference Under Section 10 ID Act Is Valid: Supreme Court
  • by sayum
    28 January 2026 6:54 AM
Magistrate Cannot Be Directed to Recall His Judicial Order by a Writ Court: Supreme Court Warns Against Article 226 Interference in Pending Criminal Proceedings