CA/12/2020 of Ashok Naik Vs Ramadugu Omkar Varma on 31 December 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT FORor r"orJ*.oBhrE [oF ][rELANGANA]

FRIDAY.,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWo rHousAND AND TwENTy oNE -- [.]

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMArHE HoNouRo".= *ll?.rcE N.T,KARAMJT

coNTEM PTPPEA

N1OF 20 0

Contempt Appeal Under Section 19 of Conteno rde r d ated ii-o i -ziio' ii' cc N i "iis' .r-2; ilffi':ffit ". "r:;I",ffi E:i ;.",,n iis' .r-2; ilffi':ffit ". "r:;I",ffi E:i ;.",,n Between:

A:JlL).1i;rtis 3nN"n"u Naik' Ased to *1'...d;:r.ffs.fl:,.";:ffll!,,s R r,r,s,,AND

Ramadugu Omkar Varma. Sl9, Stationery Shop R/o. a-a-aoslr aE, ^L^atg BailiiJ"lr:rsji1, [R.yadeshwar Varma,Aged ]#rtunou, Hyderabad[35 ][years, ][Occ]

...RESPONDENT/ Petitioner

lA NO: 1 oF 2020

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in theaffidavit filed in support of the petition, the irigh court may be pleased to suspend theorder dated 2410112020 made in order dated 2410112020 made in c.c.No.117gl2o1g, pending disposai of theContempt Appeal.Contempt Appeal.

Counsel forthe Appellant: SRt ANDAPALL| SANJEEV KUMAR

Counsel forthe Respondent: SRI VEMPATI MALLTKARJUN SHASTRY

The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HON'BL][;THE ][CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDR.PGE'ABI4A]ANDTII E HON'B[LE ][SRI JUSTIC][EN.][ TUKARAMJI]

C.A.No.L2 of 2O2O

JUDGMENT, iPe [ttrc ][tlon'bte ][the ][ciltel ][Jrsnc' soirsi ][chon'ira 'shor''dl]

The presrnt contempt appeal is arising [out ][ol ][th(r ][orrler dated]24.O1.2O2O paised by the learned Single [Judge ][in ][C.C.No.ll79 ][of]2019 by u,hichthe appellanr (respondent in the contempt [petition)]has been senlerced to imprisonment for a [period ]of four u'eeks anda fine ol Rs.2,(J0/- has also been imposed upon him,The uni.sputed facts of the case reveal that the contemptpetition was pl:ferred by the respondent herein, Ramadugu OmkarVarma, for ar'esting him without issuing notice under Section41-A of Cr.P.L in relation to Crime No.486 of 2019 dated25.06.2019 re1,istered under Sections 420, 354 and 509 of I.p.C,thereby allegin1 [violation of ][the ][judgment ]delivered b1. the Hon,bleSupreme Courin the case of Arnesh Kumar us, State of Bihart.

Learnedcounsel lor the appellant has argued before thisCourt that the'espondent, Ramadugr-r Omkar Varma, was involvedin an of'fence ocheating, a crime was registered even f,tr an offenceunder Sectioni54 of l.P.C. and after arresting the accrrsed person,he u,as immeriately produced before rhe learned lll AdditionalCourt that the'espondent, Ramadugr-r Omkar Varma, was involvedin an of'fence ocheating, a crime was registered even f,tr an offenceunder Sectioni54 of l.P.C. and after arresting the accrrsed person,he u,as immeriately produced before rhe learned lll AdditionalChief Metropoltan Magistrate, Hyderabad, who by an orcler dated27.06.2019 hes arrived a conclusion that Section zt 1 ( 1 )(b)(ii) ofCr.P.C is complied v,'ith. There is a check list also at page No. 5427.06.2019 hes arrived a conclusion that Section zt 1 ( 1 )(b)(ii) ofCr.P.C is complied v,'ith. There is a check list also at page No. 54and the checkist reveals that arrest of the accused w.ls necessaryfor {ioper invrstigatlon of the case, thereby keeping in view thefact that therevas a threat to the victim and other witnesses. The' [zo t+1sy ]scc [zt3]fact that therevas a threat to the victim and other witnesses. The' [zo t+1sy ]scc [zt3]

learned Single Judge, only because a notice was not given, hasinflicted the punishment. It has been stated that the learnedSingle Judge, u'hiie inflicting the punishment, has not at alrconsidered the order d,ated 2.1 .06.2019 passed by the learned IIIAdditional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

It is true that the Hon,ble Supreme Court has framedguidelines in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra). The fact remainsthat satisfaction was recorded by the learned ir Additional chiefMetropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and the learned Single Judgehas not taken into account the aforesaid fact at all.

Conclusion

This Court is of the opinion that the interest of justice wouldbe subserved by issuing a warning to the present appellant to bemore cautious in future and to adhere to strict complance of lhedirections issued by the Hon'ble Srrp.l-" Court in thc case ofArnesh Kumar (supra).Arnesh Kumar (supra).

Resultantly, the Contempt Appeal is allowed. The impugnedorder sentencing the appellant is set aside with a warning to bemore cautious in future and to comply the judgment delivered inthe case of Antesh Kumar (supra).

Learned counsel for the appellant is fair enough in informingthis Court that the line amount has been deposited by theappellant in the Registry of the High Court and the same betransferred to the Prime Minster's COVID- 19 Pandemic ReliefFund.this Court that the line amount has been deposited by theappellant in the Registry of the High Court and the same betransferred to the Prime Minster's COVID- 19 Pandemic ReliefFund.

Resultantly, the Regtstrar General of this Court shalltransmit the fine amount already deposited by the appellant to thePrime Minsters' COVID- 19 Pandemic Relief fund.

i

/€

Pending miscellaneous [applications, ][if ][any, ][shall ][stand]

closcd. There : hall be no order [as ][Lo ][cosls]

sD/-M sqJ+'k[tLDHH(,1, rSECTION [OFFICER]

//TRUE [COPY//]

'o',,. [rn" ][ltl ][Additional ][( ][hief ][lvletropolitan- ][Magistrate' Hvderabad']StationerY- 2. Ramadugu [omkar ][\ ][#t' ][!;;' i;i" ][R'iade"sh*ar varma'Aged ][35 y'''ars' ][ucc]il,"p n,3 s-+ ,r'1 1q iiltilX,'ffff?',1ii,fi'Ji1i,l,.o"1l Lo'uqt, ^i.3l! 33 [ [,'X,l ][.|] ][?#;tiiiiu-njum-suasrilv ][aj"'i*'" ][ro'pucl]5. Two [CD ][CoPies]6. P.S. to [Registra(Gt ][neral) ][for information and necessary action']{. [One ][SPare ][CoPY]TR'/4>\)'--\'

DATED:31 11212)21

ORDERCA.No.12 o12020

ALLOWING THE CON] EMPT APPEAL

/t\.)!

:3-\-aailE [S ][i414])./'( ,:24riil7l?:l,}, [.n ..,./]