1 Peddinti Medha Reddy v. 1. V. Ramchander

Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, t6e High court may be preased this Honble court may take. necessary action ,gri*t il.,E willfully submitting a false submiision in this Honore Court through para no.5 of the counter Affidavit ,Ig.:g.o^r_dingty take measures as per the manda te of 21s crpc read with 379 BNSS 2023", against the respondent/contemnor of this petition by directing.thg registry to necessary steps in this regard or such other order/s as this Honble Court . Counsel for the petitioner Counsel for the Respondent : SRl. VtJAy GOPAL : ADDTTTONAL pUBLtC PROSECUTOR The Court made the foltowing: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CONTEMPT CASE No.1870 OF 2025 ORDER: This V/rit Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of lndia seeking the'bllowing relief: "...to p'unish the respondent No.1 (V. Ramchander, lnspector of Police, market Police Station, Hyderabad Police) under Secflon 10-12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 (for continuing to call the petitioner to police station, through third notice under Secfion 35 (3) B/VSS 2023 {without mentioning the purpose of the appearance) despite the Orders of this Hon'ble Court in Crl.P.ltlo.7505 of 2025, Orders dt: 20.06.2025 under paragraph 5], ancl also for adding conditions in the third 35 (3) Notice as that ol' a Judicial Officer contrary to 35 (1) ot BNSS 2023 & willfully'violating the Orders of this Hon'ble Court and vehemently disregarding and disrespecting the directions of this Hon'ble Court, as such, additionally impose a cosf of 50,000/- (Fifty thousand rupees) to be submitted to Legal Seryrces Authority of this Hctn'ble Court and rssue such other necessary directicns or Orders as fhis Hon'ble Court may deem fit to uphold Justice.."

2. Heard Mr.Vijay Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Shalini Saxena, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent.

3. This r:ontempt petition has been instituted alleging that the respondent has willfully disobeyed and violated the directions issued by this Hon'ble Court in its order dated 20.06.2025 passed in Criminal Petition No. 7505 of 2025. a 2 NTR, J C.C.I{o.1870 ol2025 4' Submissions of the Petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, while disposing of the aforesaid Criminat Petition, this Court had specifically directed respondent No.1, the lnvestigating Officer, to issue a formal written notice in the event of any further requirement of the petitioner's presence in connection with the ongoing investigation. Contrary to this explicit direction, the respondent proceeded to issue a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023 (BNSS), calling upon the petitioner to appear on certain dates, namely

19.07.2024 and 22.07.2025 at 10:00 A'M' The learned counsel submits that, since the notice issued does not conform to the form and tenor directed by this Court, the petitioner refrained from responding to it. lt is urged that the issuance of such a notice, in defiance of the Court's order, constitutes civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Coutts Act, 1971, being a willful disobedience of a lawful order of this Court. lt is further pointed out that the impugned notice was served by the respondent upon the Station House Officer (S.H.O.) rather than by the Investigating Officer himsetf in the pending crime, which further demonstrates non-compliance / t' 3 NTR. J C.C.No.187O of 2O2S

5. Subnrissions of the ResPondent ln reply, learned counsel for the respondent submits that a detailed counter affidavit has been filed, wherein it is categorically admitted that the notice dated 19.07.2025 was issued inadvertently in the default format, instead of in the formal written form as mandated by this Court. lt is asserted that the lapse was neither willful nor deliberate, but a bona fide administrative error. The respondent has tendered an unconditiorral apology to this Court and assured that such an omission will not recrlr. Accordingly, it is prayed that the contempt proceedings be dropPed.

6. I have perused the material on record and carefully considered the submissions of both Parties'

7. FindtngS Uporr examination of the record, it is evident that in Criminal Petition AIo. 7505 of 2025, this Court had clearly directed the lnvestigating officer to issue a formal written notice specifying the schedule, purpose, and necessity of the petitioner's appearance in connectiorr with the investigation. The issuance of the notice dated 1g.O7.2O2Li under Section 35(3) BNSS, 2023, albeit subsequent to the 4 NTR, J C.C.Ito.187O of 2025 said order, indicates that the directions of this Court were not properly imptemented. However, a close reading of the record does not discloses any evidence of a willful or contumacious disobedience on the part of the respondent. The lapse appears to be technical and inadvertent rather than deliberate The Court also notes that the petitioner neither responded to nor appeared pursuant to the impugned notice, and thus no Substantial prejudice was caused to the petitioner or to the course of the investigation. Judicial precedents, including Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha [(2003) 11 SCC 1] and Debabrata Bandopadhyay v. Sfafe of West Bengat[AlR 1969 SC 189], have consistently held that to constitute contempt, disobedience must be willful and intentional; a mere technical breach or bona fide error does not attract contempt jurisdiction.

8. Conclusion In light of the above observations and considering the unconditionall { apology tendered by the respondent, which this Court accepts as bona 5 NTR, J C.C.No.187O ol2O2S i i fide, this Court deems it appropriate to close the contempt proceedings' The respondent is, however, advised to exercise greater care and caution in the future in strictly adhering to judicial directions. Accordingly, this Contempt Case is closed. liliscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. P.CH.NAGABHUSHAMBA DEPUTY REGISTRAR ,/ (2 SECTION OFFICER To,

1. V. Ramchander, lnspector of Police, Market Police Station, CFMX plus PCV, Railway Officer Colony, Monda Market, Shivaji Nagar, Secunderabad, Telangana 500003

2. One CC to SRl. VIJAY GOPAL Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to the ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , High Court for the state of Telangana, at Hyderabad- [OUT] fu, + Two CD Copies TL/PS L lHE 2 0 F[8 2026 * ;" HIGH COURT DATED:2311012025 ORDER CC.No.1870 ot 2025 CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE. ( \\ v