Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
K. Annapurna, vs Sri Bhaskar Bhushan, on 29 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
CONTEMPT CASE No.894 of 2021
(Through physical mode)
K. Annapurna W/o. Kumaraswamy Reddy,
Rep. by her GPA holder,
Mungara Vikram Kumar Reddy, S/o. Viswanatha Reddy,
Age about 45 years, Occ: Advocate,
R/o. Vedaipalem, Nellore Town,
SPSR Nellore District, and another.
.. Petitioners
Versus
Sri Bhaskar Bhushan,
Superintendent of Police,
SPSR Nellore District, Nellore Town, and another.
.. Respondents
Counsel for the petitioners : Mr. P.S.P. Suresh Kumar
Counsel for respondents : Mr. V. Maheswara Reddy
ORAL ORDER
Dt: 29.11.2021
(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)
This contempt case has its origin in the order dated 07.09.2020
passed in W.P.No.15823 of 2020 preferred by the petitioners herein for a
direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 therein, the Director General of Police of
A.P. and the Superintendent of Police, SPSR Nellore District, respectively, to
take action (both disciplinary and criminal action) against respondent Nos.6
and 7 therein, i.e., Circle Inspector of Police and Sub-Inspector of Police
respectively of Buchireddypalem Police Station, who were made parties eo
nominee, for their illegal acts, as stated in the complaints dated 21.03.2020
and 11.08.2020 given by the writ petitioners.
HCJ & MSM,J
2. Learned single Judge of this Court, while disposing of the aforesaid
writ petition, has issued the following directions in paragraphs 13 and 14 of
the order:
"13. Therefore, I am of considered view that it is a fit
case to direct respondents 6 and 7 police to follow the guidelines
issued by Ministry of Home Affairs vide Letters No.VI-
24021797/84-GPA.I, dated 4-7-1985 and 10-7-1985 strictly.
14. With the above direction, Writ Petition is disposed
of, at the stage of admission itself, with the consent of both the
counsel. Respondents 3 and 4 are also directed to take immediate
action (both disciplinary and criminal action) against respondents
6 and 7, if the complaints of petitioners disclose commission of
any cognizable offence."
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, respondent Nos.6 and 8 in the writ
petition preferred W.A.Nos.345 and 358 of 2020, which were disposed of by
a Division Bench of this Court vide common judgment dated 17.12.2020,
observing that the directions issued in paragraphs 13 and 14 (supra) of the
order dated 07.09.2020 passed in W.P.No.15823 of 2020 may not be treated
as directory or mandatory and it was open to the authorities to afford
opportunity of hearing to the appellants and pass appropriate orders and
that the authorities were at liberty to take recourse as prescribed under law.
4. Alleging wilful violation of the aforesaid common judgment passed in
the writ appeals, this contempt case has been filed insofar as W.A.No.345 of
2020 is concerned.
5. A perusal of the counter-affidavit and additional material papers filed
by the respondents would reveal that pursuant to the order of this Court, a
HCJ & MSM,J
preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Additional Superintendent of
Police (Admn.), SPS Nellore District, and it has been concluded that the
allegations raised by the petitioners against the original respondent Nos.6
and 7-police officials are false and baseless. A preliminary enquiry report
dated 05.10.2020 to that effect has been submitted by the Additional
Superintendent of Police (Admn.), SPS Nellore District, to the Superintendent
of Police, SPS Nellore District, who, in turn, forwarded the same to the
Additional Director General of Police (Law & Order), HAC of IGP, South
Coastal Zone, Guntur Range, with an observation that no further action is
needed to be taken as the allegations were found baseless and fabricated.
6. In view of the steps taken pursuant to the orders of this Court as
stated above, we see no reason to keep this contempt case pending for
further adjudication.
7. This contempt case is accordingly closed with liberty to the petitioners
to pursue their legal remedies in accordance with law. No costs. Pending
miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J
IBL
