Telangana High Court
B. Anjaiah, vs Smt. Anjali Jain, on 26 September, 2024
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT APPEAL No.1528 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
(per the Hon'ble Sri Justice J. Sreenivas Rao)
This intra court appeal is filed aggrieved by the order dated
28.02.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of the erstwhile
High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ
Petition No.25094 of 2011.
2. Heard Sri S.V.Ramana, learned counsel, representing, Sri
O.Manoher Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Pappu
Nageshwar Rao, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.4. No
representation on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3.
3. Brief facts of the case:
3.1 Respondent No.1 filed Writ Petition No.25094 of 2011 stating
that she was the tenant of Flat No.402, 4th floor, Saraswathi
Residency, Padmarao Nagar, Secunderabad, and respondent No.4 is
owner of the said property and she filed suit in O.S.No.193 of 2008
on the file of I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad,
seeking perpetual injunction against respondent No.4 and obtained
decree. She further averred that respondent No.4 issued a quit
notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and filed
suit in O.S.No.295 of 2008 on the file of I Junior Civil Judge, City
Civil Court, Secunderabad, and the same was dismissed on the
ground that the termination notice was not in accordance with law.
3.2 It is further averred that on 11.03.2011 around 2-30 p.m.
respondent No.4 along with his muscle-men hit her as well as her
family members and threw away the furniture and other articles
belonging to her outside the apartment compound and took forcible
possession of Flat No.402. Then she lodged a complaint on
12.03.2011 before respondent No.3 and the same was registered as
F.I.R. No.184 of 2011 and respondent No.3 did not commence the
investigation even after completion of five months. Then she filed
representation to the respondent No.2, as no action was taken on
her complaint. At that stage, she filed Writ Petition No.25094 of
2011 questioning the action of respondent No.1 therein in not
taking any action on the representations dated 14.03.2011 and
18.03.2011 as well as in not conducting investigation in respect of
F.I.R. No.184 of 2011 dated 12.03.2011 by the respondent No.3.
3.3 Learned Single Judge disposed of the above said writ petition
on 28.02.2012 with a direction to the Crime Branch, Crime
Investigation Department (CB-CID) to conduct investigation afresh
and file final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. within a period of
four months from that day and also directed the Registrar General
to initiate suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against the
appellant and others. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the
present writ appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
has not filed counter affidavit in the writ petition. In spite of the
same, learned Single Judge initiated the criminal contempt
proceedings on the ground that the appellant filed false affidavit,
and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge against
the appellant is contrary to law.
5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the appellant and after perusal of the material available
on record, it reveals that the appellant has raised a specific ground
in the memorandum of grounds of appeal that the appellant has not
filed counter affidavit in the writ petition and the Investigating
Officer filed the counter affidavit. In the absence of the sworn
counter affidavit of the appellant, the learned Single Judge ought
not to have initiated the criminal contempt proceedings against the
appellant on the ground that the appellant filed false counter
affidavit. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the
impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge to the extent of
holding that conduct of the appellant constitutes the criminal
contempt proceedings for filing false statement, is liable to be set
aside.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order passed by the
learned Single Judge to the extent of initiation of the criminal
contempt proceedings against the appellant is set aside and rest of
the order is confirmed.
7. With the above said modification, the writ appeal is disposed
of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_______________________
ALOK ARADHE, CJ
_____________________________
J.SREENIVAS RAO, J
Date: 26.09.2024.
pgp
