APHC010413312023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4830 OF 2023 Contempt case U/s.10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act 1971 to Punish the Respondents herein for wilfully violating and disobeying the orders of the High Court dated 01/05/2023 in WP No.300 of 2023. Between: PARUMANCHALA NAIMUTHULLA, S/o. Basheeru, R/o Regadagudur Village, Velugodu Mandal, Nandyala District. ...PETITIONER AND G MARUTHI SANKAR, Sub-inspector of police, Midthur Police Midthur Post and Mandal, Nandyala District. Station, ...CONTEMNOR/RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI VARUN BYREDDY Counsel for the Respondent : SRI T M K CHAITANYA The Court made the following ORDER : APHC010413312023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Friday, the eighteenth day of July two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Contempt Case No: 4830 of 2023 [3311] Between: I.Parumanchala Naimuthulla, s/o. Basheeru, r/o Regadagudur village, Velugodu Mandal, Nandyala district. ...Petitioner and I.G.Maruthi Sankar, Sub-inspector of Police, Midthur Police Station, Midthur Post and Mandal, Nandyala District. ...Contemnor Counsel for the Petitioner: I.Varun Byreddy Counsel for the Contemnor: 1.T .M .K. Chaitanya The Court made the following 2 C.C.No.4830 of 2023 ORDER: The contempt case is filed under Sections 10 to 12, 14, 15 and 16 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the respondent for wilfully and wantonly violating the orders of this High Court in W.P No.300 of 2023 dated 01.05.2023 and pass such other order or orders. 02. The case of the petitioner in briefly as follows: a. The petitioner, along with Smt.Katha Bharathi, filed W.P.No.300 of 2023 seeking direction of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents, particularly the respondent No.2 therein, in not taking any action against the Sub-Inspector of Police of Midthur Police Station, wherein the said S.l. failed to register a complaint lodged by the writ petitioners in relation to damage caused to the standing crop in their land to an extent of Ac.4.21 cents in Sy.No.846 in Talamudipi village. Further, the said S.l. failed to issue a certificate for missing documents to the petitioner No.1 and he insulted and misbehaved with the petitioner No.1 in the writ petition when she visited the police station. Subsequent to filing of the writ petition, after duly hearing both the parties, this Court disposed of the writ petition by an order dated 01.05.2023, directing the respondent No.4 therein to consider the complaint of the petitioners and take step as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two weeks. b. Thereafter, the petitioner herein submitted a representation in the form of a legal notice dated 17.06.2023, to register the case against the person mentioned in the complaint dated 22.11.2022, c. 3 C.C.No.4830 of2023 The legal notice was received by the respondents therein on 19.06.2023. 03. The respondent filed counter affidavit stating briefly as follows: He has scrupulously complied with all the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.300 of 2023 dated 01.05.2023. The respondent maintains utmost respect for judicial orders and has not committed any willful disobedience. a. On receiving the legal notice dated 17.06.2023, the respondent immediately contacted the High Court liaison officer since the notice was not accompanied by a copy of the Court order. The order was subsequently obtained through WhatsApp and prompt action was initiated. b. The respondent's staff conducted multiple field visits to verify the writ petitioners' whereabouts. On 20.06.2023, HC 1040 and PC 3058 visited the given address at Talamudipi village and discovered that the writ petitioner No.1 had long back shifted to Regadagudur village. Statements were recorded from both Village Revenue Officers and detailed reports were submitted on 20.06.2023 and 24.06.2023. c. During the follow-up visits on 28.06.2023 by ASI 2438 and PC 3034, the unfortunate demise of the writ petitioner No.1 on that date was confirmed. The police staff verified the cremation details at Jammichettu Smashanavatika and obtained the death certificate from Talamudipi Gram Panchayat. d. The application of the writ petitioner No.1 regarding missing passbook was rejected on 14.12.2022 due to insufficient e. 4 C.C.No.4830of2023 particulars of auto in which it was said to be lost. The subsequent petition submitted to the Superintendent of Police in Spandana programme was closed after determining that it involved civil disputes over ownership of the land. Revenue records confirm that the land stands in the name of K. Lakshmidevamma, the mother- in-law of the writ petitioner No.1. f. The writ petitioner No.2 has neither cooperated with the investigation nor established any legal claim over the disputed property. No documentary evidence has been produced to substantiate the petitioners' ownership claims. In view of the demise of the writ petitioner No.1, the non cooperation of the writ petitioner No.2, the civil nature of the dispute, and absence of supporting documents, the respondent took ail possible steps to comply with the Court's directions. There has been complete compliance without any willful disregard of the The respondent prayed for dismissal of the g- Court's order, contempt proceedings. The petitioner filed additional affidavit with the averments briefly as follows: Instead of complying with the order in the writ petition, the respondent cooked up a false narrative that had been made attempts to reach out to the petitioner to save himself from the contempt case. None of the personnel from the Velugodu P.S. ever visited the house of the petitioner to inquire about the issues forming the subject matter of the writ petition. Photostat copies relating to the general dairy entries of dates 20.06.2023, 24.06.2023 and 28.06.2023 were placed on record. These documents clearly show that the narrative of the respondent 04. 5 C.C.No.4830of2023 4' regarding visits to the house of the petitioner is fabricated. The petitioner applied for copies of the G.D. entries under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, the R.I.Act), but till date of filing the additional affidavit, he has not received any reply. The petitioner submitted another application under the R.I.Act seeking information relating to the travel allowance bills of the police personnel who were said to have visited the house of the petitioner for the purpose of inquiry. The information sought under the R.I.Act was declined on the ground that such information is classified as confidential in terms of Section 8(1 )(g) of the R.I.Act but, it is not classified as confidential information. The respondent is deliberately not furnishing the required information. The respondent falsely alleged that the petitioner had been to Guntur to eke out his livelihood and was not staying in Regadagudur village as stated in his counter, but he did not state as to the persons whom he had enquired about the whereabouts of the petitioner. The respondent had not called the petitioner on his mobile phone bearing SIM No.9618879960 with regard to investigation. The family of the petitioner owns Ac.5.00 cents of land in Parumanchala village of Jupadu Bungalow village of Nandyal District. They migrated to Regadagudur village 42 years ago. The petitioner has been cultivating around Ac.30.00 cents of land in Regadaguduru village on lease for the past 12 years. Prior to that, the petitioner used to cultivate 10 to12 acers of land per agri season. Every one in the village has acquaintance with the petitioner. The petitioner filed a few G.S.T. invoices evidencing purchase of pesticides and fertilizers by the petitioner, undertook works under M.G.N.R.E.G.S.Scheme during dry months and during months when cultivation is not possible due to non supply of water in Kurnool - Kadapa canal and Srisailam right He 6 C.C.No.4830of2023 branch canal. The petitioner filed documents in relation to work done under the M.G.N.R.E.G.S. Scheme. The son of the petitioner is studying in the Zilla Parishad High School, Regadagudur since 2022-23 till the date of filing of the affidavit. The study certificate issued by the School is filed in proof of the same. The enquiry by the petitioner with the Mandal Revenue Officer, Velugodu Mandal revealed that the Village Revenue Officer had not been directed to prepare any report regarding availability of the petitioner in Regadaguduru village. Thus, the certificate issued by the V.R.O. was created to suit the case of the respondent and support him. Further, the respondent has been trying to persuade the petitioner through various means to withdraw the contempt petition after hearing of the case on 02.01.2025 in the contempt case, several people have been calling the petitioner and threatening him to withdraw the contempt case. On 06.01.2025, Mr. Mallu Shivanagi Reddy, the husband of the present M.P.P., Miduthur Mandal, had come to the village of the petitioner and tried to coerce him to withdraw the contempt petition and warned him with dire consequences, if the petition is not withdrawn. Subsequently, S.l. of Police, Veligodu P.S. called the petitioner on 04.02.2025 from a mobile phone with SIM No.9381936373 asking the petitioner to visit the police station without any basis or need. However, the petitioner visited the said The Sub- Police Station on 04.02.2025 at about 3:15 P.M. Inspector was not present in the station. 05. Perused the record. The petitioner filed a memo before this Court on 21.11.2024, stating that to escape from the punishment for the contempt of the order passed, the police personnel of Miduturu Police Station filed 06. 7 C.C.No.4830 of2023 1^ a false report before this Court by obtaining a false report from the village revenue officer that the contempt petitioner was not in Regadaguduru village and migrated to live somewhere. He submitted that he had given representation to the Tahsildar to take action against the Village Revenue Officer, Ugranarsimhulu who gave a false report of his absence, even when he was in the village, for the purpose of enquiry. 07. As per the direction in the W.P.No.300 of 2023, the Station House Officer, Midthur Police Station shall consider the complaint of the petitioner and take appropriate steps as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two weeks from the date of the order i.e. 01.05.2023. The learned counsel representing the respondent submitted that after receipt of copy of the order, sincere efforts were made by the police to trace the writ petitioners for the purpose of investigation as the details given in the counter-affidavit, but could not secure the presence of the writ petitioner No.2 as he had left the village and the writ petitioner No.1 died on 28.06.2023 and further efforts made as stated in the counter affidavit also led to closing the petition submitted in Spandana programme and the complaint regarding missing pass book could only be rejected as no particulars were given regarding the date in which it was said to be lost and more over the dispute is purely civil and no record was placed by the present petitioner to show his title over the property in dispute. 08. 09. When the writ petition was filed, the allegation is that the Station House Officer failed to register the complaint relating to the 8 C.C.No.4830of2023 damage caused to the standing crop in Ac.4.21 cents of land in S.No.846 in Talamudipi village and that the S.H.O. failed to issue a certificate of missing documents to the writ petitioner No.1 and further that the S.H.O. insulted and misbehaved with the writ petitioner No.1 when she visited the police station and degraded her character. As such, the direction given, while disposing of the writ petition, is only in respect of the complaint given by the writ petitioner No.1, though the word petitioners was used as they pleaded a common case. It is the writ petitioner No.1 who gave complaint to the police. The writ petitioner No.2 did not state how he is interested in the complaint of the writ petitioner No.1. However, he filed the contempt case after the death of the petitioner No.1. The death of the writ petitioner No.1 is not in dispute. First of all, on the death of the writ petitioner No.1, she cannot be examined. Unless the petitioner No.1 is examined, investigation of the truth and veracity of her allegations cannot be brought about. The writ petitioner No.2 may be a witness, if she gives statement referring him in relation to the case in the complaint. Inspite of the contention that the parties failed to give the details necessary to investigate the missing passport, no such detail has been given at any time, including when the reply affidavit was filed. The petitioner bangs on the fact that the police had not visited the village, though he was resident of the village and that the police falsely claimed that the petitioner had left the village. Similarly, the petitioner had no answer to the conclusion that the dispute is civil in nature and the writ petitioner No.2 failed to supply any documents of his ownership over the property even to pursue the matter after the death of the writ petitioner No.1. 10. 9 C.C.No.4830of2023 11. The petitioner states that he filed copies of the G.D. entries, but no such record could be traced. Even if he files any such documents, when he stated that he was not given certified information under the R.I.Act, the genuineness of the documents of G.D. entries said to have been filed cannot be looked into. When the information sought by the petitioner under the R.I.Act is rejected on the ground of confidentiality, the remedy of the petitioner is to file an appeal under the said R.I.Act, if he is of the opinion that such information can be provided, but, no such step was taken. Of course, the respondent has not filed such documents along with the counter. But, the fact remains that the complaint regarding the missing of pass book was rejected and the petition submitted in Spandana programme was closed for the reasons stated in the counter. What is directed in the order in the writ petition is to consider the complaint of the petitioners and take appropriate steps. Such direction implies to make investigation per law. The statement was made on affidavit in the counter by specifying the particulars of the personnel deputed for investigation and the evidence collected. Irrespective of the fact whether the petitioner is a permanent resident of Regadagudur village, he said to be not available at the time of the visit by the police for the purpose of investigation. No enmity of the Village Revenue Officer with the petitioner was stated as to why such a report was given by him to the police against the petitioner. That apart, the petitioner also had not made any effort to participate in the investigation after the order was passed in the writ petition, visited another police station on a phone call made by the Station House Officer, Veligodu P.S., whereas the case relates to Midthuru P.S. as was He is stated to have 10 C.C.No.4830of2023 Ok 12. To grant the relief claimed in the petition, the petitioner has to establish that there is wilful disobedience to comply the order, but the petitioner could not establish the same under the above circumstances. Since the relief is in the nature of criminal action involving personal liberty of a person, like in a criminal case, higher degree of proof of wilful disobedience is required. In the present case, the petitioner could not establish the case as required under law against the respondent. 13. As such, the petition is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the contempt case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- K.TATARAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR 14. //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. G MARUTHI SANKAR, Sub-inspector of police, Midthur Police Station Midthur Post and Mandal, Nandyala District. 2. One CC to SRI. VARUN BYREDDY Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI. T M K CHAITANYA Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies TAC HIGH COURT DATED: 18/07/2025 ORDER CC NO. 4830 OF 2023 CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE