Court Orders Criminal Case Against SDM for Defying Judicial Directives
A local court in Ellenabad, Sirsa district, Haryana, has taken a stern stance by ordering criminal proceedings against the serving Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Paras Bhagoria. The court cited "direct or colourable defiance" of judicial orders and repeated failures to submit required affidavits despite multiple directives.
Strong Judicial Rebuke and Legal Action
In a strongly worded order dated February 16, Civil Judge (Junior Division) Prateet Singh Dhonchak directed that proceedings be initiated against SDM Paras Bhagoria under Sections 198, 208, and 210 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS). The matter will now be registered separately under the title "Court on its own motion Versus Paras Bhagoria."
The case originated on January 15, when the court ordered the SDM to file an affidavit clarifying the legal basis for installing loudspeakers and connecting wires over a suit property. The affidavit was to address whether legal sanction was required for their installation and operation, and which authority was competent to remove loudspeakers installed without proper authorization.
Repeated Non-Compliance and Flimsy Excuses
Despite the clear directive, the affidavit was not filed by the January 22 deadline. Instead, the court received a letter stating that the SDM was engaged in preparations for Republic Day, preventing him from submitting the document. The court rejected this explanation, noting that the officer was given "ample time" to comply and describing the ground as "flimsy."
Judge Dhonchak emphasized that court orders are meant for "prompt compliance and not defiance at own whim and fancy," observing a prima facie case of disobedience. The SDM was directed to submit an explanation via affidavit and to remain present in court.
On February 12, the affidavit was again not filed. Another letter cited a strike call by officials of the transport department and apprehensions of law-and-order issues at Dabwali, where the SDM held additional charge. The court recorded that the order dated January 22 was received in the SDM's office the same day and that he was given "more than ample time" to comply.
Final Warning and Judicial Restraint
The court remarked that the case was "stuck up since January 15 awaiting the affidavit" and that there was "once again a prima facie case of disobedience." While granting one final opportunity in the "interests of justice," the court made it "abundantly clear" that the majesty of law would be upheld and that judicial restraint should not be misconstrued as weakness.
On February 16, with neither the affidavit nor the explanation filed, and following an oral request for appearance through video conferencing, the court declined the plea. It observed that the distance between Dabwali and Ellenabad did not justify non-appearance and that there was no material to show the SDM no longer held charge of Ellenabad.
Harsh Observations and Legal Principles Invoked
In strong observations, the judge stated that the SDM appeared to be "labouring under the misconception that he can keep seeking adjournments… without any cogent reason" and that the court's orders were kept "in abeyance for no rhyme or reason." The order further recorded that the officer "has grown too big for his boots" and "cannot be permitted to cock a snook at the orders of this court."
Invoking the principle that "Be you ever so high, the law is above you," the court held that it had "no other option" but to proceed against the SDM to uphold the majesty of law. The order was treated as passed under Section 210(1)(c) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Procedural Directions and Legal Safeguards
Certified copies of the February 16 order, along with previous orders dated January 15, January 22, and February 12, were directed to be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Sirsa, for proceeding against SDM Paras Bhagoria.
The court also clarified that neither the presiding Judge nor any court official would be required to appear as a witness in the criminal case. It noted that certified copies of judicial orders are per se admissible in evidence and that Section 127 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, confers immunity in this regard.
Separately, the Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa (DC), was asked to submit an affidavit in court on February 23 regarding the issues earlier enumerated in light of the factual matrix detailed in the order dated November 20, 2025.
