Judgment P.V. Hardas, J. This Contempt Petition has been filed against the respondent-contemnor, alleging therein that the contemnor has committed an offence of Contempt of Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, inasmuch as the contemnor had filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate First Class [Court No.7] and a Special Court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, on 21st August, 2009 seeking issuance of a non-bailable warrant against the accused named in the said complaint case which included present petitioners. As per the Contempt Petition, the order issuing process against the present petitioners was quashed by learned Single Judge of this Court by Judgment dated 12th August, 2009 in Criminal Application No. 3768 of 2008, and consequently, the action of the contemnor in applying to the Court for issuance of a non-bailable warrant against the petitioners was in breach of the order of this Court. 2. An Affidavit-in-Reply has been filed by the contemnor who is present in Court before us, contending therein that the aforesaid order dated 12th August, 2009 was not communicated to him and, therefore, the contemnor was unaware about the judgment of this Court dated 12th August, 2009. According to the contemnor, during the period when this Criminal Application was pending before learned Single Judge of this Court, the contemnor had gone abroad and the letter issued by his counsel intimating the contemnor about the judgment of this Court was received subsequent to the contemnor filing an application before the Trial Court. It is the further contention of contemnor that subsequently on the next day, he brought it to the notice of the Court, and requested the Court not to take any coercive action in the light of the Judgment of this Court quashing the process against the present petitioners. It is, therefore, the contention of the contemnor that he had not committed any willful breach of the order of this Court and consequently, he has not committed any contempt. 3. At the outset, the contemnor has tendered an unconditional apology, and has stated that he had no intention, whatsoever, to show disrespect to the judgment and order of this Court. 4. The contemnor is present in person, has also personally tendered his unconditional apology to this Court and has reiterated that he had no intention, whatsoever, to show any willful disregard to the order of this Court. 5. 4. The contemnor is present in person, has also personally tendered his unconditional apology to this Court and has reiterated that he had no intention, whatsoever, to show any willful disregard to the order of this Court. 5. Upon perusal of the facts, we also find that prima facie, the contemnor did not have any intention to show any disrespect to the order of this Court. We, therefore, unhesitatingly accept the apology tendered by the contemnor and caution him to be careful in future, so that by his conduct and action, he does not show any disrespect to the proceedings or the orders passed by any Court. 6. In the light of the fact that we have accepted the apology, we do not wish to proceed further in this Contempt Petition and according the Rule issued in this Contempt Petition stands discharged. The contempt proceedings are accordingly dropped with no order as to costs.