Sri Sri Sri Pururava Vamsa Mudiraj ... vs The State Of Ap
2022 Latest Caselaw 9553 AP

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

                       Contempt Case No.2448 of 2022

Judgment:

        This contempt case is filed alleging that the respondents-Police

officials have deliberately violated the interim direction given by this

Court in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.5987 of 2021 and thereby

committed an act of contempt.

        2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-Trust and Sri T.M.K.

Chaitanya, learned Government Pleader-II for Home, for respondents 1

to 4.

        3. In I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.5987 of 2021 this Court on

16-3-2021 passed the following order:

        "There shall be a direction to the respondents-Police officials not to
        interfere in the management affairs of the petitioner-Trust till the next
        date of hearing."


        4. Now, it is stated by the petitioner that despite the aforesaid

order passed by this Court directing the respondents-Police officials

not to interfere in the management affairs of the petitioner-Trust that

they have on 17-6-2022 and 18-6-2022 forcibly collected keys from

the Manager of the petitioner-Trust and handed over the same to one

Sai, who is the Associate of respondent No.4 and that colour

photographs relating to the said incident are produced and thereby

the respondents-Police officials have committed an act of contempt.
                                   2


     5. Respondent No.4 filed counter affidavit denying the material

allegations made in the contempt case. It is stated that on 19-6-2022,

the 4th respondent, who is the Circle Inspector of Police of I Town

Police Station, Srisailam, received phone call from mobile phones

numbers 988595217 and 9985993298 at 11.40 a.m. to 100 number

stating that Mr. K.Purnachandra Rao, who is the petitioner herein and

11 others on one hand and Mr. Pothuraju Venkateswarlu and

11 others on the other hand are making loud noise and creating

nuisance and causing breach of peace and tranquility at Mudiraj

Satram and immediately this respondent along with staff reached the

spot and dispersed the said persons to prevent any untoward incident

to happen and thereafter a suo motu case in Crime No.2/2022 under

Section 110(e) and (g) of Cr.P.C was registered on 19-6-2022 against

both the groups i.e. the petitioner herein and other unofficial

respondents and produced them before the Mandal Executive

Magistrate, Srisailam, with a request to bind over both the parties to

keep good behavior for a period of six months. It is stated that M.C.

No.44 of 2022 was also registered against both the groups in the Court

of Mandal Executive Magistrate and both the parties were called upon

to enter into a bond to keep good behavior for a period of six months.

It is stated that except registering the above cases and investigating

the same in accordance with law, the respondents-Police officials

never interfered in the management affairs of the petitioner-Trust and
                                    3


they did not deliberately violate the order of this Court and did not

commit any act of contempt.     Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the

contempt case.

     6. Learned Government Pleader-II for Home has also placed on

record copies of FIRs registered in connection with the said instances

along with the counter.

     7. Therefore, now the question is whether the respondents-Police

officials have deliberately violated the interim order passed by this

Court and thereby committed an act of contempt or not.

     8. The respondents-Police officials have stoutly denied that they

have deliberately violated the interim order of this Court and

committed any act of contempt as alleged by the petitioner-Trust.

So, the burden is on the petitioner-Trust to prove and establish that

the respondents-Police officials have deliberately violated the order of

this Court and thereby committed an act of contempt as alleged.

In support of the contention of the petitioner-Trust to substantiate

their version that the respondents-Police officials have deliberately

violated the order of this Court and committed an act of contempt, the

petitioner-Trust solely relied on the photographs filed along with the

contempt case. No doubt, the presence of Police is evident from the

said photographs at the premises of the said Trust.       However, the

photographs do not contain the date of the incident or the date of

taking the photographs. So, it cannot be held that those photographs
                                    4


pertain to the alleged incident said to have taken place on 17th and

18th of June, 2022.    Explaining the presence of Police in the said

photographs, it is contended by the learned Government Pleader-II for

Home that as information is received through phone by the Police that

some altercation has taken place between the two groups at the

premises of the Trust which is disturbing the public peace and

tranquility that the Police reached the said premises of the Trust and

pacified the said situation and also registered certain cases apart from

taking steps to pass orders by the Mandal Executive Magistrate

against both the groups to execute bonds for keeping peace and good

behavior.

     9. Therefore, when it is stated that the Police have visited the

premises of the Trust only after receiving information relating to the

altercation that took place between the two groups to control the law

and order situation and to keep the public peace and tranquility,

it cannot be said that they have reached the said premises and

thereby deliberately violated the order of this Court and committed

an act of contempt.

     10. It is well settled law that in order to hold a person guilty of

contempt of Court by violating the order or direction given by the

Court, it must be shown that the alleged contemnors have deliberately

and willfully disobeyed the order or direction of the Court and violated

the same and thereby exhibited contumacious conduct and committed
                                   5


an act of contempt. Evidence is lacking in proof of the said material

requirement in this case to hold that the respondents-Police officials

have deliberately violated the order of this Court and thereby

committed an act of contempt.

     11. Therefore, the contempt case is dismissed.


                            _________________________________________
                            CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J.

12th December, 2022. Ak

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

Contempt Case No.2448 of 2022

12th December, 2022.

(Ak)