Telangana High Court
CC/981/2009 of kalvapalli koti reddy Vs M Srinivasa Rao on 29 December 2009
COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY CONTEMPT CASE No.981 OF 2009 BETWEEN: Kalvapalli Koti Reddy S/o. Venkateswara Reddy ….
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND NINE
PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY
CONTEMPT CASE No.981 OF 2009
BETWEEN:
Kalvapalli Koti Reddy S/o. Venkateswara Reddy
AND
…. Petitioner
M. Srinivasa Rao, Station House Officer,Sattenapalli Rural Police Station,Satendapalli, Guntur District.
…. Respondent
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY
CONTEMPT CASE No.981 OF 2009
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT:
This Contempt Case is filed by the petitioner, who is accusedNo.2 in Crime No.55 of 2009 of Sattenapalli Rural Police Station,alleging that inspite of having knowledge of the order dated 23-04-2009, granting interim stay of arrest of the petitioner in Criminal M.P.No.2491 of 2009 in Criminal Petition No.2667 of 2009 by this Court,the respondent – Station House Officer, Sattenapalli Rural PoliceStation has effected arrest of the petitioner – A-2 and thereby willfullyand deliberately violated the orders of this Court.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedcounsel for respondent. Perused the records including the copies of
3. A perusal of the records would go to show that the ordergranting interim stay of arrest of the petitioner – A-2 was granted bythis Court on 23-04-2009 in Criminal M.P.No.2491 of 2009 in CriminalPetition No.2667 of 2009. Meanwhile, the petitioner – A-2 along withA-1 and A-5 was arrested on 29-04-2009 and was produced before thelearned Magistrate on 30-04-2009 and he was also granted bail on 06-05-2009. The case diary would also disclose that the arrest of thepetitioner – A-2 was duly intimated to T. Govind Reddy on 29-04-2009under his acknowledgment. There is nothing on record to show thatthe orders passed by this Court granting interim stay of arrest of thepetitioner – A-2 was brought to the notice of the respondent either byA-2 or T. Govinda Reddy, who was intimated about the arrest of thepetitioner – A-2 or any other person. In the absence of any material toshow that respondent had information and knowledge of passing of anorder of interim stay of arrest of the petitioner by this Court by the timeof effecting arrest on 29-04-2009, it cannot be said that the conduct of the respondent inarresting the petitioner – A-2 was willful or deliberate and in violationof the orders passed by this Court.
4. Admittedly, the petitioner – A-2 has not made any protesteither before the respondent or before the learned Magistrate at thetime of remand, bringing to the notice of the respondent or learnedMagistrate about passing of the order of interim stay by this Court.
5. In the absence of any material to show that the respondentwas aware of the orders passed by this Court on 23-04-2009, it cannotbe said that the respondent has resorted to willful violation of theorders of this Court and that the effecting of arrest of the petitioner bythe respondent amounts to contempt of the orders of this Court.
6. Under those circumstances, it is held that the allegations made in the affidavit remained totally unsubstantiated and hence nocase of contempt is made out against the respondent, warranting anyfurther action.
7. Hence, the Contempt Case is dismissed.
____________________
G.V.
SEETHAPATHY, J
December 29, 2009KTL