Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 22207 (AP)

Yadlapalli Sunitha v. M. Madhusudana Rao

CC/1333/2020 · 2026-01-04

D Ramesh

Criminal Appealbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010345642020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] MONDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1333/2020 Between: 1. YADLAPALLI SUNITHA,, W/O. YADLAPALLI SRINIVASARAO, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, HINDU, D.NO. 3-41, CHAMALLAMUDI VILLAGE, VATTICHERUKURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. M MADHUSUDANA RAO, S/O. NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHEBROLU CIRCLE, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. MEESALA VENKATESWARLU, S/O. NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VATTICHERUKURU POLICE STATION, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...CONTEMNOR(S): 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 pleased to take cognizance of the contempt committed by the contemnors/ respondents herein and punish them by way of imprisonment under Section 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 r/w Article 215 of the Constitution of India for utter disobedience and disregard shown to the Orders of this Honble Supreme Court Case in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State Of Bihar and Another passed in Criminal Appel No. 1277 of 2014 and direct the appropriate disciplinary action against the respondent by the superior officer concerned to initiate departmental proceedings and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S SATYANARAYANA MOORTHY Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. GP FOR HOME (AP) The Court made the following: 1. None appeared on either side. 2. On perusal of the averments made in this Contempt Case, it is seen that the contempt is alleged on the ground of violation of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Another in Criminal Appeal No.1277 of 2014. This Court is not satisfied that the averments made constitute wilful disobedience warranting initiation of contempt proceedings. 3. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date : 05.01.2026 RMD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH C.C. No.1333 of 2020 Date : 05.01.2026 RMD