Damegunta Srinivas Prasad Reddy v. S.Venkatesh And 2 Others

[ 3168 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD SATURDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN CONTEMPT CASE NO: 5'l4OF 2022 Contempt Case filed Under Sections 10 1o 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondent for his wilful and deliberate violation the Orders of the High Court dated 18.3.2021 passed in Crl.P.No.871 of 2021. Between:

Damegunta Srinivas Prasad Reddy, S/o.Late Sri. D.V.Ramana Reddy,-Aged about -62 years, Occ. Director, M/s Sankar Estates Pvt. Lt!, Re-g, off.6-2-953, 2O1 ,2nd Floor, Krishna Plaza, Khairatabad, Hyderabad - 500004.

...Petitioner

AND

1. S.Venkatesh, S/o-not known, Station House Officer, Miyapur, Ranga Reddy District.

2. P.Ravikiran, S/o.not known, Sub Inspector of Police, Miyapur, Cyberabad, Kukatpally Ranga Reddy District.

3. B.Bhavani, Wo. not known, Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum- Vlll Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, At Kukatpally, Hyderabad' (ln view of the memo vide USR No.2130112022 contempt against R3 is not pressed by the petitioners counsel vide C.O.Dt."1010312022)

...Respondents

: Sri Chennaboina Shravani Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri M.Naga Raghu, Counsel Representing Sri M.V.S.Sai Sharath Counsel for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following : ORDER

,7 THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CONTEMPT CASE No.514 of 2022 ORDER:

This Contempt Case is filed alleging willful and deliberate violation of the order dated 18.03.2021 in Crl.P.No.871 of 2021. 2.

Vide the aforesaid order, this Court granted liberty to the petitioners therein to file appropriate application seeking interim custody of the said container and the learned Magistrate shall consider the same and release the container as an interim custody to the petitioners on production of ownership documents and also imposing certain conditions as the Magistrate deems fit and proper. 3.

According to the petitioner herein, the said order was not complied and there is violation of the said order by respondent Nos.1 and2.

4.

Considering the subsequent developments, vide order dated 13.09.2024, this Courr directed the petitioner to approach the Station House Officer, Miyapur Police Station, on 14.09.2024 between 10.00 A.M. to 5.00 p.M., with a request to return the case property. The Station House Officer, Miyapur police Station, was also

i directed to retum the case property on production of Adhar Card by I !

I Ii the petitioner and upon receipt of the said property, the petitioner was !

I I :

to submit acknowledgment in proof of receipt of the same. Ii I 5.

According to Ms. Chennaboina Shravani, learned counsel t I for the petitioner, on 14.09.2024, the petitioner could not approach the I i i Station House Offrcer, Miyapur Police Station, since he was travelling to Nalgonda. However, he approached the Station House Officer, Miyapur Police Station, only on 16.09.2024 with a request to return the said property by way of submitting a representation. He has also produced proofoflD.

6. Sri M. Naga Raghu, learned counsel representing Sri M.V.S.Sai Sharath, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would submit that the petitioner is requesting the Station House Officer to place the container from where it was seized and the expenses will be met by him.

7.

lrarned counsel for the petitioner has also filed copy of the said representation dated 16.09.2024. On receipt of the said representation, the Station House Officer, Miyapur Police Station, issued Notice under Section 941179 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhitha (BNSS) informing the petitioner that the case property is at the Police Station. Therefore, the petitioner has to collect the'same from the Police Station upon producing ID proof.

8. It is relevant to note that to punish contemnor under Section 12 of Contempts of Courts Act, there should be willful and I I deliberate violation of the aforesaid order. As discussed supra, in the present case, vide order dated 13.09.2024, this Court directed the petitioner to approach the Station House Officer, Miyapur Police Station on 14.09.2024 between 10.00 A.M. to 5.00 P.M., with a request to return the case propefty by producing ID proof and upon returning the said property, he was to issue acknowledgment card. This Court also directed the Station House Officer, Miyapur Police Station to return the case property to the petitioner upon producing Adhar Card. Petitioner, instead of seeking return of the case property, asked the Station House Officer to place the same where it was seized. That is not the purpoft ofthe order dated 13.09.2024. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there is no violation, much less willful or deliberate violation of the order dated 18.03.2021 1n Crl.P.No.S71 of 2021.

i\ 9.

In the light of the above, the Contempt Case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous applications, ifany, shall stand closed.

Sd/- B. SATYAVATHI DEPUW REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to Sri Chennaboina Shravani, Advocate [OPUC]

2. One CC to Sri M.V.S.Sai Sharath, Advocate IOPUC]

3. Two CD Copies Svs/gh et4v

/ HIGH COURT DATED:21 10912024 .rc.9L4 1 4 li!l/ 2!2{ 'z o

ORDER

.r\ .t f * CC.No.514 ot 2022 CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE offi,rz,