Judgment : 1. This Contempt Case arises out of the order dated 15-6-2009 in W.P.No.9225/2009. 2. The petitioners herein filed the said Writ Petition for a mandamus to declare the action of the police including respondent No.1 herein, who was impleaded as respondent No.6, in interfering with the day-to-day affairs of petitioner No.1-Society and the schools which are being run by it at the instance of a person by name U.Gregory Reddy (respondent No.7 in the Writ Petition) as illegal and arbitrary. In that Writ Petition, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions from the respondent herein, stated before the Court that the Police are not interfering in the civil disputes between the petitioners and respondent No.7 in the Writ Petition. The said statement of the learned Assistant Government Pleader was placed on record and the Writ Petition was disposed of. It was however observed by this Court that the order in the Writ Petition does not preclude the Police from initiating appropriate action on the complaint filed by either party if it discloses commission of any offence. Alleging wilful disobedience of the said order, the petitioners in the Writ Petition filed the present Contempt Case. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the Contempt Case it is inter alia stated that there is a serious dispute concerning the management of petitioner No.1-Society between petitioner Nos.2 to 6 on the one side and the said U.Gregory Reddy who is no other than the father of petitioner Nos.2 to 4 on the other, that there is civil and criminal litigation pending in this regard, that when the Police under the influence of Sri U.Gregory Reddy, was interfering in the civil disputes and registering false criminal cases, the petitioners have filed W.P.No.9225/2009. It is further averred that Sri U.Gregory Reddy called for a General Body Meeting to be held on 20-3-2010 at 2.30 p.m. at St.Joseph’s Public School, King Koti, that petitioner Nos.2 to 4 who are Members of the Society went to the Meeting venue to attend the meeting and that the Police force which was already present with about 20 Constables headed by Sub-Inspector Sri N.Janardhan Rao of Narayanaguda Police Station, tried to stop the petitioners from entering the school premises, that when the petitioners had somehow managed to enter the Meeting Hall, the Police have even come to the Meeting Hall and threatened them to leave the Hall in order to prevent them from participating in the General Body Meeting, at the instance of Sri U.Gregory Reddy. The petitioners have thus alleged that the respondent, in collusion with U.Gregory Reddy, has deliberately and intentionally violated the undertaking given to this Court not to interfere in civil disputes, by deploying Police force and prevented the petitioners from participating in the General Body Meeting. In support of the petitioners’ allegations, they have filed copies of photographs showing the presence of Sub-Inspector of Police and some Constables in a Hall. 4. The respondent filed a counter affidavit wherein he has inter alia stated that on 20-3-2010 he received a letter from Sri U.Gregory Reddy, Secretary of St.Joseph School wherein he has stated that a General Body Meeting will be held at 14.30 Hours on that day in the School premises and that to avoid any untoward incidents arising on account of the disputes between the Secretary and the Members of the Society, Police protection is requested. He has further averred that acting on the said request, he has deputed Sri M.Janardhana Rao, S.I. of Police and some police personnel of Narayanaguda Police Station to maintain law and order and for the smooth and peaceful conduct of the Meeting. He has denied the allegation that the Police have stopped the petitioners to enter the premises or the Meeting Hall. He has denied the allegation that the Police have stopped the petitioners to enter the premises or the Meeting Hall. The respondent alleged that “the petitioner” came to the School along with his team in a procession and in a heated condition and started creating tension by shouting at the Police personnel who were deployed at the School premises and that he came to the School with premeditated plan with clear intentions to create trouble at the School premises and rubbed the Police for sparking “galata”. The respondent further stated that anticipating the evil intentions and the plans of “the petitioner” and upon the complaint given by the Secretary of the Society he has deployed Police personnel at the School premises and that though the petitioners along with his supporters started arguing with Police upon entering the School premises, the Police personnel have kept themselves in a calm and cool condition and controlled the situation by not giving any opportunity to them to disturb peace and order. The respondent has given the details of the criminal cases registered against “the petitioner” for creating trouble in the premises. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel representing the respondent. 6. As noted hereinbefore, in the Writ Petition filed by the petitioners alleging Police interference in civil disputes over the management of petitioner No.1-Society between the petitioners and the Secretary of the Society, the respondent has submitted to this Court through the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home that the Police are not interfering in the said disputes. The respondent herein has not disputed the fact of his instructing the learned Assistant Government Pleader to make a statement on his behalf, which was placed on record by this Court while disposing of the Writ Petition. Thus, for all purposes the statement of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, recorded by this Court, shall be treated as the undertaking given by the respondent and violation of such an undertaking constitutes contempt of Court as held by the Supreme Court in Balram Singh Vs. Bhikam Chand Jain and others ((1985) 4 Supreme Court Casers 246) and Bank of Baroda Vs. Sadruddin Hasan Daya and another ((2004) 1 Supreme Court Cases 360) and judgment dated 30-7-2010 of this Court in Contempt Case No.542 of 2010. 7. Bhikam Chand Jain and others ((1985) 4 Supreme Court Casers 246) and Bank of Baroda Vs. Sadruddin Hasan Daya and another ((2004) 1 Supreme Court Cases 360) and judgment dated 30-7-2010 of this Court in Contempt Case No.542 of 2010. 7. In the light of this legal position, it requires to be examined whether the respondent has violated the undertaking given by him to this Court and if so whether it constitutes wilful violation amounting to contempt of this Court’s order. 8. The defence putforth by the respondent to the charge of contempt, as noted above, was that he has acted on the letter addressed by the Secretary of the Society and that he had anticipated an attempt on the part of some of the Members to disturb the Meeting and create trouble. 9. Undoubtedly, it is a part of the duty of the Police to prevent commission of cognizable offences. Chapter-11 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, enjoins on the Police Officer receiving information of a design to commit any cognizable offence, a duty to prevent or take cognizance of the commission of such offence. As the respondent is seeking to take shelter under the letter of the Secretary, it is relevant to refer to the contents thereof, a copy of which is filed by the respondent along with the counter affidavit. The said letter dated 19-3-2010, reads as under : “The General Body meeting of St.Joseph’s Education Society, Hyderabad is scheduled for Saturday, the 20th of March, 2010 at 2.30 p.m. in the premises of St.Joseph’s Public School, King Koti Road, Hyderabad. 10. We have reliably learnt that some persons want to disturb the meeting and create problems to the Society Members. To avoid any untoward incident by any antisocial elements trying to enter the meeting hall and disturb the meeting, we request you kindly to depute sufficient number of police personnel and provide bandobust to the administrative staff and the Members of the Society, at St.Joseph’s Public School, King Koti, Hyderabad, on Saturday, the 20th March, 2010 from 2.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. and oblige.” (Emphasis added) 11. A close examination of the contents of the letter noted above would not reveal that the Secretary was anticipating violent behaviour and commission of offences of cognizable nature. A close examination of the contents of the letter noted above would not reveal that the Secretary was anticipating violent behaviour and commission of offences of cognizable nature. The tenor of the letter clearly states that the Secretary was apprehending attempts of some persons to disturb the proposed Meeting and create problems to the Society Members and he wanted to avoid any untoward incident by anti-social elements. The Secretary has requested the respondent to provide “Bandobust” to the administrative staff and to the Members of the Society. 12. At the hearing, this Court called upon the learned counsel for the respondent to specify whether it is a part of the duty of the Police to provide “Bandobust duty” on a request coming from private individuals. In response thereto, the learned counsel placed before this Court the relevant part of the Police Manual. Chapter-15 of the said Manual enumerates important duties of the Police. Para-301 of the said Chapter has indicated 11 duties of the Police, which are mentioned herein below: 1. festival bandobust; 2. duties in the event of out-break of fire; 3. inspections of places of public resort; 4. duties in relation to destitutes and mentally ill persons; 5. duties in relation to certain Acts; 6. assistance to civil court officials, and other departments; 7. assistance to defence authorities; 8. duties in the event of natural calamities; 9. V.I.P. security; 10. duties in regard to aircraft, road and other accidents and 11. election duties 13. The above mentioned duties do not include the duty of the Police to provide “Bandobust” on the request of private individuals in connection with their private affairs. Indeed, Para 322-1 of the Manual has clearly demarcated the area of Police interference in certain situations arising out of civil disputes while mandating the Police not to interfere in civil disputes. It is useful to extract this para herein below: “Many persons approach the police for protection on account of threats to their safety due to disputes relating to property. Several complaints are also presented in writing. A good number of complaints pertain to forcible dispossession or possession of properties by use of violence or by hired goondas, or relate to matters involving religious ramifications leading to communal disturbances or where habitual land grabbers or criminal syndicates are involved etc. Several complaints are also presented in writing. A good number of complaints pertain to forcible dispossession or possession of properties by use of violence or by hired goondas, or relate to matters involving religious ramifications leading to communal disturbances or where habitual land grabbers or criminal syndicates are involved etc. There are also cases wherein a group of people, when they face an immediate threat, approach the police for relief. While the police should not interfere into the disputes, which are purely of civil nature, they cannot shirk their responsibility of protecting persons against injury or trespass particularly when the people complained against are powerful or hired goondas. The following instructions are therefore issued for the guidance of the police officers. A. Orders of the civil court should be implemented and all assistance should be provided to the civil court officials as mentioned in order 321. B. If any civil dispute is likely to give rise to an imminent breach of peace or disturbance of public order, the police officer shall take recourse to sections 144 to 148 Cr.P.C. as the case may be (Chapter 38, Volume-II). C. As per Section 149 Cr.P.C. every Police Officer may interpose for the purpose of preventing, and shall, to the best of his ability, prevent, the commission of any cognizable offence. In application of this provision, police officers shall be guided by instructions given by superior officer of the rank of SP/DCP/CP/DGP. D. In dealing with these cases the SHO should make a contemporaneous record of every action that he takes in the general diary and in the connected file.” (Emphasis added) 14. The instructions contained in the above reproduced para of the Manual unequivocally restrains the Police from interfering in civil disputes otherwise than under the orders of competent courts and except in cases where there is imminent breach of peace or disturbance of public order. Even where the Police anticipate such imminent breach of peace or disturbance of public order, they shall take recourse to Sections 144 to 148 Cr.P.C. and be guided by instructions given by superior officer of the rank of SP/DCP/CP/DGP. 15. It is not the pleaded case of the respondent that he has followed the procedure laid down in the above reproduced paragraph. 15. It is not the pleaded case of the respondent that he has followed the procedure laid down in the above reproduced paragraph. As discussed hereinabove, the contents of the letter addressed by the Secretary of the Society, do not disclose a likelihood of imminent breach of peace or disturbance of public order by ‘goondas’. At best, they disclose apprehension on the part of the Secretary of likelihood of disturbance of Meeting by some persons and “anti social elements”. 16. The respondent with his experience as a Police Officer for more than 20 years (He has joined service as Sub-Inspector in the year 1989 as seen from his service record), cannot be presumed to be naïve as not to understand the scope of the request made by the Secretary in his letter. The Secretary of the Society wanted a security cover for holding the Meeting. As if to justify his decision to deploy the Police, the respondent stated in paragraph-6 of his counter that “the petitioner”, which obviously is referable to petitioner No.2, came to the School with the premeditated plan, that his intentions to create disturbance were quite clear and that anticipating his evil intentions and plans and upon the complaint given by the Secretary, the respondent has deployed some Police personnel. This Court is at a loss to know how the respondent was able to anticipate the petitioner’s evil intentions and plans in advance. The respondent has also not pleaded on the existence of any material before him disclosing the premeditated plan or the intentions of the petitioner to create disturbance. It is not the pleaded case of the respondent that he had received any information other than the letter received from the Secretary. These pleadings of the respondent would clearly suggest that he has identified himself with the Secretary of the Society. Having undertaken before the Court that he will not interfere in civil disputes, it was not expected of the respondent to readily oblige the request of the Secretary by deploying Police force headed by a Sub-Inspector, obviously to ensure that the Meeting is held. In my considered view, this action of the respondent is not only in violation of his powers as a Police Officer, but also in utter disregard and disobedience of the undertaking given by him to this Court that he is not interfering in the internal disputes of the petitioner No.1-Society. In my considered view, this action of the respondent is not only in violation of his powers as a Police Officer, but also in utter disregard and disobedience of the undertaking given by him to this Court that he is not interfering in the internal disputes of the petitioner No.1-Society. I have no doubt in my mind that the respondent has, in order to help the Secretary of the Society to gain upper hand over some of the Members of the Society, deployed the Police force by violating the undertaking given to this Court. If the respondent has anticipated serious trouble leading to breach of peace or disturbance to public order, he should have taken recourse to the provisions of Section 144 to 148 Cr.P.C. or at least sought for instructions from the superior officer. He has not followed this mandatory procedure and acted in flagrant violation of his own undertaking given to this Court. 17. That the Police deputed by the respondent have even entered the Meeting Hall, is evident from the photographs filed by the petitioners, the authenticity of which is not disputed by the respondent. The denial by the respondent of the Police entering the Meeting Hall, thus stands falsified. The whole conduct of the respondent discloses total lack of respect for the undertaking he has given to this Court and the order passed by this Court based on the undertaking. The respondent has, thus committed a serious contempt by interfering in the internal disputes between the Secretary and the Members of the petitioner No.1-Society, contrary to the solemn undertaking given by him to this Court through the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. In the light of the above findings, I have no hesitation to convict the respondent for contempt of Court. 18. Finally, the aspect which remains to be considered is, the sentence to be imposed on the respondent. Having clearly violated the undertaking given by him and interfered in civil dispute, the respondent has not purged his act of contempt. He has not even expressed his regrets and offered unconditional apology in his counter affidavit while stoutly defending himself by taking the stand that he has never violated the orders of this Court at any point of time. In order to consider whether any mitigating circumstances exist to take a lenient view, I have summoned the service record of the respondent. In order to consider whether any mitigating circumstances exist to take a lenient view, I have summoned the service record of the respondent. It is astounding to note from the respondent’s service record that he was trapped in an A.C.B. case and was kept under suspension for the period from 1-8-1991 to 5-3-1997 and was dismissed from service on 6-3-1997. The respondent was out of employment upto 19-11-2002 when he was reinstated, of course with full backwages and attendant benefits. 19. It is manifest that the respondent does not enjoy a clean record of his service. Though the respondent deserves stringent sentence, taking a lenient view, he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) within a period of four weeks. 20. The competent authority is directed to make an entry of the respondent’s conviction and sentence in his service record. The Contempt Case is accordingly disposed of.