The High Court · 2025

...Petitioner/Accused No.3 The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Telanqana at HYderabad' Age: 53 years, Occ: R/o'H No 5-5-475/65' u.Ped-di Raiu, S/o Challalu d. Hvderabad. "'' """' :.:i;;pondents/Defacto complainant BhagYanagar ColonY M'J Roa Petition under Section 482 of Cr'P C prayingr that in the circumstances stated in the Memorand'#"t iroul"oJoi c'i'in'r Fetition' the High Court may be pleased to quash tn";;'";;;;1i" s;ll'j:-Btor 201e on the file of Hon'ble Soecial Sessions Juoge toi Trial oi Case under SCs/STs (POA) Act-1989-cum- 't L's'Nagar' registered vil Addt. District Sessi'J"t' :;n;' u/sec.447, 427,506'l* s"+"-'l*"i6Elizo-e ipc' sec-(3XrXfXg) (r)and (s) and iia t".l oisrysr (PoA) Act' 2016' I.A. N o: 20F 2020 -R'R'D-i"t'l"t- petition under section 482 0r cr.p.c playlns rhat in the circumstances stated in the Memorand'#ttC:ro*as ot Criminaf detition' the High Court may "'rrj'"'-Iti-pio"t"oingt in S'C'No'84 of 2019 on the be oleased to grant tt'v ot file of Hon'ble Special S"t"i#t'i'ag; iorTrial olCase under SCs/STs(POA) Act 1e8e-cum-Vll Addl Districii;;ti;;;:';s;'-R'R' oi'tti"t at LB Nasar' pending disposal of the Criminal petition' t.A. NO: 1 0F 2025 Between: -- fti.F"Oai Raju, S/o'Challalu Age: 53 colony M'J'Road' Hyderabad' 'a;"gy.nrgri o*?. ...Petitioner/De-facto Complainant ,n. State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad' "'Respondent years, Occ: R/o.H.No'5-5-475/65' llllfr-{€wF.F"*- *ilil; " / ,;' 2 Anumula Revanth Reddv S/o.. Late A. Narasimha Reddy, Occ: Member of parliament Malkajagiri Constituency, Rl/o Road No 44, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. - - -ri!vv'I 'v, Age: 53 years, Plot No.854 p, ...RespondenUA-3/petitioner Petition under Section- 52g of BNSS praying that in the circumstances "'t?iLrrri'petition,_the High C;;;.;ay stated in the lvlemorandum ot Giouno, be pleased to pass orders vacating t" int"rim oiolrs dated 22_09_2020. This petition "orin9-o1-f?r. hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition and upon hJaring th! arguments of Sri C. Raghu, Senior Counset represenring sri-n."Ciii k",lrnri oIro""," for the petitionerind the Mr. pa,e Naoeshw"r.iu:, prOft pr"".iriJln oenuft of the Respondent No.1-State and of n,|r. o.,.Sura["nit n#l*rni, """""' ."or"""nting Mr. Nimma Narayana, Advocate for the Responaenf flo.i. The Court made the foltowing: ORDER THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA CRIMIN AL PETITI-ON No.4L62 of 2020 Mr. N. Peclcti Raju, allegcd Conternnor No l Mr. Ritesh Patit' the allcgcd Contemnor No 2 Mr. Nitln Meshram, the allcged Conlemnor No'3 o RDDR: 1. Thc Criminal PetiLion n'hich was disposed of by this Court by an order d'ated l7 07 '2025 is now been reopened pursuant to the judgme nt dated 11 08 2O25 of the I{on'ble Suprcme court presided ovcr blr the Flonblc the Chief Justicc of India The judgment was passed in Suo Motu Contempl Pctition (Civil) No 3 of 2025 T]]^e judgment was placed before this Court on i 8 08 2025 The matter was listed bcfore this Court at lO 30 a m'' on 19 O8 2025 pursuant to thc pcrmission lor Iistirrg give [r t>y [hc Ilon'blc t hc Chicf Justice of this CourL The matter is norv rcopencd only for the limitecl pllrpose of 2. considering the Afhdavits of Apology tendercd by the thrce alleged Conte mnors

3. On 19.08.2025, the alleged Contcmnor No 1' Mr' N Peddi Raju (the d-e J acto complainant) was prcsent rn Court' The alleged I 2 'ri. \ Contemnor No.2, Mr Ritesh Patil (Aclvocate_on-Record, Supreme Court of India) thc alleged Contcmnor No.3, Mr. Nitin Advocate who drafted the ll\.ansfer petition), Meshram (the appeared online. The alleged ConLemnors were directed to file their respecti'e Afl'idavits for Apology on 27.Og.2025 and u,cre also given libcrty to appear online on thc next date of hcaring i.e.,

22.O8.2025.

4. 'l'he Affidavits of Apology were placed bclore mc on sent by mail ro lhc Rr.gisrrar

21.08.2025. The afficlavits were General/ Registrar (Judicial) of this High Court

5. I have pcrused the Affidavits of Apolog, file{ by thc allcgccl Contemnors. The gist of the afhdavits is as follours: i. The alleged Contemnor No. 1, Mr. N. pcddi ltaju, sLares that he had tendcred his apotogr to the Hon,ble Supremc Court in Suo Motu Contempt petition (Civil) No.3 of 2O2S and is tcndering his apology to thrs court pursuant to the directions o[ the Hon,lile Supreme Court. The alleged contemnor No.2, Mr.Ritesh patii, statcs that he regrets Lhe use of language in the Transfer petition and further 1 { 3 states that the Transfer Petition was drafted by Mr'Nitin Meshram' TheAlfidavitfurtherStatesthattheallegedContemnorNo.2failed to notice that it contained remarks againsL this Court' although he hadtheoccasiontogothroughthesamebeforesigningandlrling. 11r The alleged Contemnor No 3, Mr'Nitin Meshram' states that he appeared as counsel in the 'Iransfcr lretition and sought withdrawal of the same which was not permitted by the Hon'ble dismissing the Transfer Petition, the Supre me Court. While the pleadings and exception to Ilon'ble SuPreme Court against the alleged Proceedings initiated Suo Motu ContemPt Contemnors. The alleged Contemnor No 3 further states that he tenders his uncondiLional apology to this Court' accepts responsibility fo{ drafting the Transfer Petition and expresses regrets for the erlor ofjudgment on his part on the use of language employed in the dra-fting of the said petition'

6. First and foremost, this Court wishes to record its utmost of the Hon'b1e Supreme Court This respect for the Judgment Court wishes to express a few thoughts' with the leave of the Hon'ble SuPreme Court' \ 4 \

7. Paragraph No.2 of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court men[ions the grounds on which the Criminal petition was sought to be translerrccl from this Court. The grounds stated are of a serious apprehension of partiaiity and procedural discrimination since the argumcnt of the learned counsel appearing for thc petitioner belore the l{on,blc Supreme Court (respondcnt No.2 in the Criminal petition) \,as summarilJ, curtailed. The petiti oncr/ re spondent No.2 complarned that he u,as given only fivc minutes to argue the mattcr. paragraph No.3 of the judgment statcs that the pe titioner/ alleged Contemnor No.1 believed that there existed a likelihood of derailment oI. justicc.

8. It is noI necessary to dwell on thc allegations since thc Hon'ble Supreme court has comprchcnsively considerecr the issucs raised in the Transfcr petition. This Court only intcnds to record that the allegation of the allegcd Contcmnor No.1 ol-not bcing given a proper hearing is contrary to the records.

9. It may not be out of place to say that the act of hearing learned counsel represcnting a litigant is an indispensable part of decision maktng. Giving a proper hcaring to counscl as the 5 reprcsentative of a litigant is also an expression of respect The ongoing dialoguc dissipates boundaries betwcen the Bar and the Bench and merges into a common quest for justice' After a decisionispronounced,anaggrievedpartyhastherighttoseek recall or review of the judgment or challenge it before a higher forum. While criticizing a judgment is part of the legal process' personal attacks on a Judge on allegations of bias and collateral motives rupture the implicil trust between lhe Courl and lhe ofhccrs oi thc Court

10. Contempt of Court includes Criminal Contcmpt which encompasses any act which scandalises or tends to scandalise' or lorversortendstolowertheauthorityof,anyCourt.Anexpression ofsincereremorsehastheeffectofcleansingthcscandalousacton the part of the allcged Contemnor' While a Court can choose to accept or rcject an apology, it is important to bear in mind that the authority of the Courl stems, not from retaliation or the pol{'er to penalize and Punisl]L, but thc power to balance the sca-Ies of justicc

11. A trend of vilifying Judges has emerged in recent tlmes' s and litigants often demand release, recusal Disgruntled lawYer \ II 6 . ..: . and transfer of matters on the pretext of oblique motives attributed to the Judge. Such rccklcss allcgations derail thc course ofjustice by creating an environmcnt of intimidation rvhich is not conducive to the cffective administration of justice. personal attacks on Judges breach the safety_net of impartial decision_making and is antithetical to independcnt judgcs. Targetting of .Iudges makes for skeptical and unsure .Iudges.

12. Thc attackcrs a.lso forget that while casting _ and circulaling - aspersions in print or on social media can be donc by the flick of a key, the concernecl Judge does not havc a platform to present his/her si<le of the story. One_siclccl mud slinging, more often than not, su,ings right back to besmirch thc attacker. .lhc 'Majesty'of a Court is an inalienable part of the respect associated with upholding of thc Rule ol I_aw. Attacks on Judges irrcvocably dent the dignit_v of Courts as impartial arbiters of justice and affects public trust and confidence in thc judiciary. Advocates. as equal participants 1n the qucst for a greater ;usticc, responsibility in ensuring that the Court is brought to disrepu te. \ ! t aa ,s3#ils$z ':,rrl.lli I 1

13. As an end-note, Judgeship is never about the power of the Chair but is always about the responsibility of disseminating and comPassion' The justice wilh conscience, commilment and confidence on the common man should repose full laith Courts.I]ortunately,notwithst'andingtheoccasionalstrcssesand strains,CourLscontinuetobetheproudflag-bearersoljustice"

14. I accept the apology tcndcred by the three allegcd Contemnors. Let the matter bc placed before the Honblc Supreme Court, as dirccted in the judgmen[ dated 1 1'08'2025' 15- This Court rcmains grateful and indebtcd to lhe Hon'ble Supreme Cou rt and the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India SD/- AHMED ABDULLAH KHAN SISTANT REGISTRAR. //TRUE GOPY// SECTION OFFTCER To, 2 3

1. The SPecial Sessions Judge for Trial of C ase nder SCs/STs (POA) Act- 1989-cu m-Vll Addl. District Sessions Judge, R.R.District at L.B'Nagar Gachibowli Police Station, Cyberabad District' The Station House Officer' secutor, High Court for the State of Telanga na at Two CCs to the Public Pro Hvderabad. [OUT] 6L: #i;i;R. bi'i K"n"' Advocate toPUCl -- 5.# & iI rtri. rlirrc Naravana' Advocate toPUCl Two CD CoPies

4. 5. 6. W HIGH GOURT DATED:22!OB12O2S 7 ORDER CRLP.No.4162 of 2020 Ro Y oEH i:{ 2 5 A 6U ? 025 o * 'i:"- I ACCEPT THE APOLOGY 1 ?5 g 6