Golasu Narsaiah @ Golusu Narsaiah v. M. Sairamana

[ 32s1 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEI\4BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENIY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CONTEMP T CASE NO:251 OF 2024 Contempt Case filed under Sections 10 lo 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, '1971 to punish the respondents herein for their willful and deliberate disobedience of the Orders of the High Court dated 11-12-2023 made in Crl.P.No. 12012 of 2023. Between:

Golasu Narsaiah @ Golusu Narsaiah, S/o. G. Komaraiah, Aged !! -Vull:' Occ. Business, C/o- M/s. UK Agri Seeds lndia Pvt Ltd., Flat No. 1004' 10th Floor, Babukhan Estate, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad

...Petitioner / Accused No 2

AND

1. M. Sairamana, Circle-lnspector of Police, Narmetta Circle, Narmetta, Jangaon District, Telangana 506224

2. Naresh Yadav, Sub-lnspector of Police, Tharigoppula Police Station, Warangal, Telangana 506224

3. Vithal Nayak, Police Constable, Tharigoppula Police Station, Warangal, Telangana 506224

4. Venkateshwarlu, Police Constable, Tharigoppula Police Station, Warangal, Telangana 506224 Leave granted to file the Present CgntgmplQgse^against RR 1 to 4 as per Court drder dtO4l09l24 in lA No 1124 in CC No.25'1124 (Respondent Nos. '1,3 and 4 are not necessary parties to this contempt case) ...Contem nors Sri T Surya Satish Counsel for the Petitioner GP for Home (Not Present) Counsel for the Respondents The Court delivered the following Judgment :

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER COIYTEMPT CASE l{o. 251OF 2024 JUDGMENT:

This Contempr petition is hled under Sections 10 & 12 of the contempt of courts Act to punish the respondent police ofhcer for deliberate and wiLlful violation of this Court,s order dated 11.12.2423 passed in Crl.P.No. l2Ol2 of 2023. 2.

Petitioner h.erein was arrayed as Accused No.2 in Crime No.137 of 2023 registered for the offences under Section 409 and 42o of the Indian Penal code. petitioner moved this court and frled Crimina-l Petition 12012 of 2023. This Court by order dated 71.12.2023 passed the following order;

"This Ciminal petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Ciminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ,Cr.p.C.) bg the petition.er/accused No.2 to qtash the proceedings in Cime No.1.?7 of 2023 on th.e -file of th-e Tharigoppula Police station, Warangal. TLe offences aileged against the petitioners are punishable under Sectrons 409 and. 42O of Inrlian Penal code.

2. Heard learned counsel for tle petitioner and. learned Additional Pub Lic Proseantor for the re spondent No. 1 _ State. Perused the re<:ord.

3. Tlle quantitg case of the defacto complairuant is that total of paddg of lOO tons, utltich is ualued. at r .?

Rs.22,50,0O0/ - u)as handed ot)er to the petitioner/ acansed No.7. Hou.rcuer, Rs.3,5O,OOO/- u)as paid and Rs.19,00,O00/- is still pending.

4. Prima facie, since as per the transaction, the petitioner does not fatt taithin tle persons mentioned in the Section 409 of Indian Penal Cod.e, this Court deems it appropiate to direct tle police to follotu the procedure laid dotun under Section 41-A Cr.P.C and also tLte guidelines formulated bg the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anlesh Kumar o. State of Blhar (2014) a SCC 273, scrupulouslg. Hotaeuer, the petittoner shall co-operate uith the Inuestigating Offi.cer bg furnishing information and doanments as soughl bg him in concluding the inuestigation.

5. Accordinglg, this Criminal Petition is disposed off."

3. The petitioner was a.rrested on 15.12.2023 early in the morning at 7:00 a.m. at Hyderabad and was taken to Tharigoppula Police Station, Jangaon District and produced before the Judicial First C1ass Magistrate at Jangaon who remanded him to 14 days judicial custody. According to the petitioner, he informed the respondent No.2 Naresh Yadav, Sub-Inspector of Police at the time of arrest ttrat he obtained orders from the High Court to follow 41-A Cr.P.C. procedure ald also informed to the Magistrate regarding the orders of this Court when he was produced before the MagiStrate. \ \ ,<-

4.

Petitioner filed the present Contempt Petition to punish the contemnor/respondents under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for deliberate and willful violation of the order dated 11.12.2023 and also for not following the guidelines of the Honourable Supreme Court in Antesh Kumarb case.

5. Though, the case was filed against four offrcials of Tharigoppula Police Station, however, cognizance was taken only against Naresh Yadar,, Sub-Inspector who is 2'd respondent, since he was responsible for the arrest of petitioner. The counsel endorsed that he is not pressing the application insofar as the other respondents 1, 3 ald 4 are concerned in contempt petition. 6.

Counter affidar.it dated 04.06.2024 was filed by the Contemnor Sub-inspector Naresh Yadav. In his counter affrdavit he stated at para-4 that the order was not communicated by this Court or by the petitioner or his counsel. The Said order was dispatched from this Court on Ia.12.2O23. At para-S he stated that the respondent-Police tried to serve 41-A Cr.P.C. notice to the petitioner l but the petitioner was absconding. Subsequently, on 15.12.2023, the petitioner /A2 was apprehended after informing the grounds of arrest. Paras 4 and 5 of the counter are reproduced; o4. In replg to Para No.S of the aboue Criminal Petition, it i.s respectfullg submitted tLlat ttle aboue said order u-tas

neither cornlnultic(7ted to th.e Respondent No.2 bg the Hon'ble Court nor bg the Petitioner herein or his counsel' Tle said order tuas dispatched from the Hon'ble Court on 18.12.2023.

5. In replg to para No.6 of the aboue ciminal petition, it is respectfultg submitted tlnt as stated supra tle aboue said. ord.er utas neither communicated to the respondent No.2 bg th.e Hon'ble Court nor bg the petitioner h'erein or his counsel.

Hotueuer, tle respond-ents Police tied to serue tle Notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C to the petitioner but the Petitioner tDo-s abscondinq.

Subsequentlu, on 15.12.2023, the petitioner/ A2 tuas opprete nded after informinq the qrounds of arrest to him as uell as his relatiues bu tssurnq Notice U/ s.50 Cr.P.C. and 50(A) Cr.P.C. on 15.12.2023 and produced tle petttioruer/A2 before the Hon'ble IV M.M In-clwrqe Court at Waranqal. Ttrat tLrc Respondents Police conductin'q.the Lnuestioation into tlw aboue case ln fair and transP@rent manner btl stictlu followtnq due procEssof Iaw more Particularlu the quidelines fram.ed in Antesh Kurnar's case.

7.

This Court questioned about the affrdavit frled by contemnor' claiming following the procedure under section 41-A of cr.P.c and asked the OIIicer to produce the CD file to know whether any attempts were made to serve notice on to the petitioner herein. At that juncture, the contemnor represented by the Government Pleader informed that they need time to file a better aJfidavit'

8. The second a_ffidavit was filed by the Contemnor on 3O.1O.2O24. In the said affrdavit also the contemnor again stated the very same facts which were in the affrdavit dated 115.06.2024. when this court qur:stioned about the assertion of the contemnor at paras-7 and 1,2 of the alhdavit that 4l-A Cr.p.C. procedure and guidelines framed in Arnesh Kumar's case were followed and asked to frle the cD frle in the case, the contemnor again sought time to file a better aflidarril.. In both the affrdavits dated os.o6.2o24 and 3o.1o.2o24, the conl-emnor stated that he had no knowredge about the orders passed by the Court and also submitted his unconditional apol.ogy.

9The contemnor filed 3.a afrrdavit dated 23.1L.2o24 In the 3.a affidavit, the paragraphs in the earlier affidavit pertaining to following the procedure under Section 41-A Cr.p.C and Arnesh Kumar guidelines were removed and stated that he was not aware of the order being passed by this court directing the police to follow the procedure under Section 4l-A of Cr.p.C.

10. This Court questioned the public prosecutor about the manner in which the Police are informed about the criminar appeals or petitions being filed. The public prosecutor stated that in aI quash petitions once notice is received in the public prosecutor,s office, the same is tra,smitted to the concerned police station. Even

after the orders are passed, the said intimation is given to the concerned police station.

1 I . The version of the contemnor in the frrst and second affidavits that he tried to follow the procedure under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C and the petitioner/accused was not available, is not acceptable. It is not explained by the Contemnor as to reasons for not being able to find the petitioner for serving notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. but arrested him on 15.12.2023. If the Contemnor wanted to serve notice as stated by him in his frrst two alfidavits, he ought to have served it on 15. 12.2023.

12. Any person who has obtained an order protecting his personal liberty restraining the Police from arrest initially, directing the police to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 4I-A of Cr.P.C, would inform the police officer invariably when the police offrcer wants to arrest him. The petitioner/accused has specifically stated in his affrdavit that he had informed the contemnor about the order of this Court to follow procedure under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C.

13. The petitioner/accused also stated that he informed the concerned Magistrate on the date of remand i.e. 15.12-2023. However the Magistrate had ordered for remand. Before the Magistrate Court also the contemnor had prepared the remand \

report citing the provision of law under Section 409 of IPC, and also suppressing the order of this Court. The said penal provision is punishable up to life imprisonment as such the provision of 41-A of Cr.P.C. would not apply. For the said reason, though this Court had deemed it appropriate to issue suo motu notice to the Magistrate for remanding the petitioner/accused, however, restrained from doing so since the remancl report was prepared under Section 409 and 42O of IPC and bail petition was not filed on the same day but filed on 18.12.2024 informing about this Court's order. Further, on 21.12.2023, the Magistrate referred to ttre order of this Court and granted bail.

14. The petitioner'/accused was remanded on 15.12.2023. However, the bail petition was hled on 18.12.2023. in the bail petition at para-6 it was specifically mentioned that the High Court in the Criminal Petition No.l2Of2/2023 by order dated 11.12.2023 directed the Police, Tharigoppula, to follow the procedure laid down under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. To the said bail petition, counter was (, frled by the prosecution which was signed by the Contemnor on 19.12.2023. Contemnor stated in all the three alfrdavits filed bv him that the order was dispatched on 18.12.2023. In the counter dt.19.12.2o23 which was signed by the contemnor though the bail petition mentioned regarding the orders of this Court, in the counter

there is no avennent. It is appa-rent that the contemnor had knowledge of the orders and has deliberately arrested the petitioner/accused in flagrant violation of the orders of this Court. Such deliberate violation by the contemnor and his conduct clearly refleits his arrogance and wilIful disobedience of the direction of this Court to follow the procedure under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C.

15. After the contempt petition was filed the contemnor in the frrst two affidavits asserted that he tried to serve 41-A Cr.P.C. notice on the petitioner/accused. The contemnor is again lying on oath in the affidavit. It is not explained as to how the petiticner/accused could be arrested on 15.L2.2O23 and the contemnor has not issued any notice under Section 4l-A of Cr.P.C. but, arrested the petitioner/accused. As claimed by the contemnor in tl're two affrdavits, if at all he had the intention to serve Section 41-A notice, it should have been done on 15.12.2023 without arresting ttre petitioner/accused and given time to the petitioner to explain as required under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. The version in the affidavits that he wanted to follow Section 41-A Cr.P.C. procedure and also Araesh l(umar guidelines is false and made up to wriggle out of the contempt proceedings.

16. I have no hesitation to hold that the contemnor is guilty of civil contempt for deliberate and willful disobedience of the orders of this \

Court dated ll.I2:2O23. As already discussed, i) the contemnor having knowledge of the orders of this Court resorted to arresting the petitioner/ accused without serrring 4 1-A Cr. P. C notice as claimed in both the affidavits, ii) filed counter before the Magistrate Court on 19.t2.2O23 without adverting to this Court's orders though it was specifically mentioned in the bail petition of the petitioner/accused and according to the Contemnor the'orders of this Court were dispatched on La.12.2O23 itself. The Public Prosecutor's offrce inftlrms every officer concerned about 1'he quash petition being f,rled ancl also the orders of this Court.

17. The unconditional apolory tendered by the contemnor is unacceptable. His conduct as discussed above clearly reflects his deliberate and arrogant approach in violating this Court's order and coming up with a fal se version that he tried to follow procedure under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C., when questioned by this Court' There is absolutely no remorse or contrition ald therefore the apolory does not merit accePtance.

I

18. The deliberate act of the contemnor in violating this Court's order resulted in the petitioner being jailed for seven days' Under Article-2l of the Constitution, personal liberty is a fundam et'tal I right and can only be deprived in accordance with procedure established by law. It is the duty and responsibility of a public

L0 servant to uphold the law and not misuse hiq official position to deprive an individuat of his personal liberty by deriberately flouting Court orders. The State is responsible for the acts of public servants. However keeping in view the manner in which the contemnor acted undermining the order of this court, the petitioner has to be compensated at the cost of the contemnor. The Contemnor shall pay compensation of Rs.SO,OOO/_ to the petitioner.

19. The contemnor is sentenced to one week imprisonment and also shall pay fine of Rs.2,o0o/-. In addition, the contemnor shail pay compensation of Rs.So,ooo/- to the petitioner in his personal capacity.

20. Accordingly, Contempt Case is ordered. The Contemnor is absent at the time of pronouncing the Judgment and there is no representation by the Government pleader on behalf of the Contemnor, who appeared earlier. The Registry is directed to take steps to see that the Contemnor shall serve out the sentence of one week as ordered.

Sd/- K. SAILESHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, SECTION OFFICER The Golasu Narsaiah @ Golusu Narsaiah, S/o. G, Komaraiah, Occ. Business, C/o. M/s. UK Aqri Seeds lndia Pvt Ltd., Flat No. 1004, 'lOth Floor, Babukhan Estate, Basheeibagh, Hyderabad The Registrar Judicial-|, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad l

-7

3. The section officer, os section, High court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad

4. The section officer, Accounts section, High court for the state of Telangana at HYderabad

5. Two CCs to the GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana' \ Hyderabad [OUT]

6. One CC to Sri T Surya Satish, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD CoPies % I t

as, \ s^ ++"'-lEr) ':,'f'

II HIGH COURT DATED:2711212024 ier () I i) 1r 1,"; 1$l\ I ii ,b t_ -_) JUDGEMENT ,:- o CC.No.2S1 of 2024 ORDERING THE CONTEMPT CASE Ar{

[3251 l

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENry SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CONTEMPT CASE NO: 251 OF 2024 Contempt Case filed under Sections 10 lo 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondents herein for their willful and deliberate disobedience of the Orders of the High Court daled 11-12-2023 made in Crl.P.No. 12012 of 2023. Between:

Golasu Narsaiah @ Golusu Narsaiah, S/o. G. Komaraiqh, Aged 55 years, Occ. Business, C/o. M/s. UK Agri Seeds lndia Pvt Ltd., Flat No. 1004, '1Oth Floor, Babukhan Estate, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad

...Petitioner / Accused No 2

AND

1. M. Sairamana, Circle-lnspector of Police, Narmetta Circle, Narmetta, Jangaon District, Telang ana 506224

2. Naresh Yadav, Sub-lnspector of Police, Tharigoppula Police Station, Warangal, Telangana 506224

3. Vithal Nayak, Police Constable, Tharigoppula Police Station, Warangal, Telangana 506224

4. Venkateshwarlu, Police Constable, Tharigoppula Police Station, Warangal, Telangana 506224 Leave granted to file the Present Contempt Case against RR 1 to 4 as per Court Order dt 04logl24 in lA No 1124 in CC No.251124 (Respondent Nos. 1,3 and 4 are not necessary parties to this contempt case) ..Contemnors Counsel for the Petitioner Sri T Surya Satish GP for Home (Not Present) Counsel for the RespondenG The Court made the following Order :

Ir.4 r. I\/ahesh Raje, learned Government Pleader for Home was not present in the morning session (i 0:30 A.iVl.) when the orders were pronounced. However, he appeared before this court at 2:15 PM and requested to suspend the sentence so as to enable the contemnor to file an appeal. Contemnor is not present. However, keeping in view the representation made b)' the learned Government Pleader, sentence of imprisonment of one (0'l) week is suspended for a period of ten (10) days to enable the contemnor to prefer an appeal. Sd/- K, SAILESHI DEPUTY REGIS/RAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,'1. Naresh Yadav, Sub-lnspector of Police, Tharigoppula Police Slation, Warangal, Telangana 506224

2. The Section Officerr, OS Section, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad

3. Two CCs to the GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad [OLJT]

4. One CC to Sri 'I Surya Satish, Advocate [OPUC]

5. Two CD Copies ?

/ / HIGH COURT DATED:2711212024 '=:

-.--'--= -.r- slr \,,: .'\ ,?. ., )[ '-l :i-{l :/ .., ,/ \: 4_ \ 1,i\> d-:.,.,r', r''

CC.No.251 of 2024 - ,- ..ii La r-r I t /lr -r .r -i i\L'r L"

c Lr-.

')

ORDER

a?

ORDERING THE CONTEMPT CASE