APHC010078742018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3207] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND CONTEMPT CASE NO: 407/2018 Between: 1. GADDE VENKATA SAMBASIVA RAO, OCC- BUSINESS, R/O H.NO. 31- 16-7, BULLEMMA STREET, MACHAVARAM, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, A.P. ...PETITIONER AND 1. U SUDHAKARA RAO, The Station House Officer, Thulluru Police Station, Thulluru Village and Mandal, Guntur District, A.P. ...CONTEMNOR Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to summon the respondent herein and punish him in accordance with law under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for his willful violation and deliberate disobedience towards the order dated 15-11-2017 in WP No. 38208 of 2017 of this Hon'ble Court to secure the ends of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PARTY IN PERSON Counsel for the Contemnor: 1. A JAYANTHI The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND Contempt Case No.407 of 2018 O R D E R:- This contempt case has been filed complaining willful disobedience of the order, dated 15.11.2017 in W.P.No.38208 of 2017. 2. Originally the petitioner filed the above writ petition against the action of the 3rd respondent therein (respondent in the contempt case) in keeping the investigation on the complaint, dated 10.05.2017 in abeyance on irrelevant and untenable grounds by his impugned letter, dated 16.10.2017 and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to register the above complaint, dated 10.05.2017 of the petitioner and investigate the same in accordance with law to secure the ends of justice. 3. The said writ petition was disposed of with the following order: “directing the 3rd respondent therein to make G.D. entry of complaint dated 10.05.2017 and proceed with the investigation as held in Lalitha Kumari Vs. Government of U.P. & Others (2014) 2 SCC 1). The 3rd respondent is given liberty to call for such information as in necessary from petitioner as well for comprehensive investigation before either a report or charge- sheet is filed in this behalf.” 3 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent herein violated to implement the said order. The petitioner submitted an application on 11.12.2017 along with the said order copy to the respondent requesting him to register his complaint, dated 10.05.2017. He also appraised in the said letter about his case and submitted all the information regarding fraud in creating fake sale deed and making wrong entries in the revenue records. On 07.01.2018 the petitioner was served a letter of the respondent through Head Constable. The petitioner understood from the contents of the letter that the respondent without looking into his complaint, dated 10.05.2017 directed the petitioner to approach the Civil Court and settle the problem as the matter is civil in nature. 5. In fact, the complaint of the petitioner is that one Sri Nimmagadda Narendrababu with collusion of Chandolu Harischandra Gupta with connivance of the then Sub-Registrar of Mangalagiri has brought into existence the sale deed, dated 25.06.1998 behind his back with the support of his father Late Narasimha Rao, who forfeited his rights in the subject property in his favour under compromise Court decree and used the said fake sale deed for getting loans from Nationalized Banks and claiming benefits under land pooling scheme by producing the said fake documents and as such it is necessary to 4 enquire the matter and to take appropriate action under criminal law to protect his interest. 6. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, it is averred that after receipt of the order of the Court along with report, dated 11.02.2017 of the petitioner, he has entered the same in the General Diary of the police station on 11.12.2017 and conducted enquiry thereon, wherein it is disclosed that the matter is purely civil in nature. Accordingly, he has intimated the result of the enquiry to the petitioner herein advising him to approach the civil Court. As such, he contends that he has complied with the orders of the High Court, dated 15.11.2017 in W.P.No.38208 of 2017. The respondent also filed additional counter-affidavit. 7. But, on perusal of the counter-affidavit and the additional counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, nowhere he stated with respect to conducting the enquiry on the complaint of the petitioner. Even in the intimation, dated 07.01.2018 served to the petitioner or in the averments of the counter-affidavits, the respondent did not explain the nature of enquiry he conducted. He did not explain so as to whom he has examined or the documents he perused to come to an opinion that the complaint of the petitioner discloses that it is purely civil in nature. Whether the procedure to be followed to conduct the investigation, as held in Lalitha Kumari’s case (supra), as 5 directed by this Court in its order, dated 15.12.2017, also not stated in the counter-affidavits filed by the respondent. There is no mention in the counter-affidavits that any notice issued to the petitioner or any witnesses examined before concluding the investigation. All these aspects clearly establish that the respondent did not implement the order of the Court in true letter and spirit. As such, the action of the respondent, in the considered opinion of this Court, amounts to contempt of Court which is punishable under the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act. 8. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is allowed and the Respondent/Contemnor is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for four (04) weeks and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one week. 9. At request of learned counsel for the respondent, the sentence of imprisonment is suspended for a period of two (02) weeks from today. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Contempt Case shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND Dt.23.01.2026 PGR 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND Contempt Case No.407 of 2018 Date: 23.01.2026 PGR