Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 438 (AP)

B. Jhansi Lakshmi v. K. srinivasa Rao

2021-07-16

BATTU DEVANAND

body2021
JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Perused the material available on record. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.36217 of 2016 seeking direction to the 2nd respondent therein to complete the investigation and file a charge sheet in Crime No.577 of 2015 on the file of the Krishnalanka Police Station, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3. The grievance raised by the petitioner in that writ petition is that the police are not investigating into the crime registered against the respondent Nos.4 and 5 therein, who used to harass the petitioner. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by its order, dated 26.10.2016 directing the 2nd respondent to complete the investigation and file a final report, in accordance with law, as early as possible. 4. Complaining that the respondent failed to implement the order passed by this Court, the petitioner filed Contempt Case No.1369 of 2017. During the hearing of the contempt case on behalf of the respondent, it was submitted that the matter was referred as “closed” due to lack of evidence. Recording the submission of the learned Government Pleader for Home, this Court closed the contempt case by its order, dated 13.09.2017. 5. The petitioner filed an application before the Court of II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Vijayawada seeking certified copy of final report filed by the respondent. On 17.11.2017 the said application was returned with endorsement “final report not filed”. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent herein violated to implement the order, dated 26.10.2016 in W.P.No.36217 of 2016 passed by this Court and also made false submission before this Court in C.C.No.1369 of 2017 that the matter was referred as “closed” due to lack of evidence and thereby the respondent committed serious intentional and deliberate action to play fraud on the face of the Court, which is punishable under the provisions of Contempt of Court Act. Accordingly, the present contempt case is filed to punish the respondent. 7. In the present Contempt Case, the respondent filed counter affidavit. On perusal of the averments made at paragraph No.4 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that he has completed the investigation and closed the matter as lack of evidence, as per the orders of the Joint Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada City, vide C.No.3051/C3/2015, dt. 7. In the present Contempt Case, the respondent filed counter affidavit. On perusal of the averments made at paragraph No.4 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that he has completed the investigation and closed the matter as lack of evidence, as per the orders of the Joint Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada City, vide C.No.3051/C3/2015, dt. 13.03.2018 and thereupon after service of complainant's notice dated 13.03.2018 on the petitioner, he filed the Final Report before the II Additional District Sessions Judge Court, Vijayawada vide PF No.1152/18, on 14.3.2018. 8. Upon careful examination of the averments made at paragraph No.4 of the counter affidavit in the present Contempt Case, the endorsement made while returning the application filed by the petitioner seeking Certified Copy of the Final Report from the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Vijayawada and the submission made on behalf of the respondent in C.C.No.1369 of 2017, this Court fully satisfied that the respondent willfully and intentionally misrepresented before this Court in Contempt Case No. 1369 of 2017 for the purpose of closing the Contempt Case. 9. The action of the respondent, in the considered opinion of this Court, is intentional and deliberate mischief played on the face of this Court, the respondent violated the order, dated 26.10.2016 in W.P.No.36217 of 2016 by not completing the investigation in Crime No.577 of 2015 and filing final report as directed by this Court. It proves from the averments in his counter in which it is stated that final report filed on 13.03.2018, which is punishable under the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act. 10. By order, dated 16.04.2021 this Court found that there is intentional and deliberate violation of the order of the Court, which is punishable under the provisions of Contempt of Court Act and the case is posted to today to confer the sentence to be imposed to the respondent. 11. Upon noticing all these facts, in the consider opinion of the Court, the respondent is found guilty of the offence committed for violation of the orders of this Court, which is liable for punishment under the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act. 12. 11. Upon noticing all these facts, in the consider opinion of the Court, the respondent is found guilty of the offence committed for violation of the orders of this Court, which is liable for punishment under the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act. 12. When the Court asked the respondent as to why he should not be punished for non-compliance of the order of this Court, dated 26.10.2016 in W.P.No.36217 of 2016 in true spirit and for playing mischief on the face of this Court in C.C.No.1369 of 2017, he prayed the Court to pardon him. 13. This Court noticed from the material available on record, the respondent made every attempt to defeat the order of this Court intentionally and deliberately without complying the same in true spirit. Under these circumstances, the apology tendered by the respondent is not acceptable and in the opinion of this Court, it is not bonafide. 14. Besides this, if any lenient view is taken against such type of officer, who is not implementing the orders of the Court for months together and implementing the Court orders only after filing of contempt cases or after issuance of notice in Form-I for his appearance before the Court or after knowing that the Court is came to a conclusion to punish him, in the opinion of this Court, it will send wrong message to such type of Government Officers. 15. A Four Judge bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mulkh Raj vs. State of Punjab, 1972(3) SCC 839 made the following observations which would throw considerable light on the question before us: “Apology is an act of contrition. Unless apology is offered at the earliest opportunity and in good grace apology is shorn of penitence. If apology is offered at a time when the contemnor finds that the Court is going to impose punishment it ceases to be an apology and it becomes an act of a cringing coward. The High Court was right in not taking any notice of the appellants expression of apology “without any further word”. The High Court correctly said that acceptance of apology in the case would amount to allow the offender to go way with impunity after having committed gross contempt.” 16. The High Court was right in not taking any notice of the appellants expression of apology “without any further word”. The High Court correctly said that acceptance of apology in the case would amount to allow the offender to go way with impunity after having committed gross contempt.” 16. After hearing the contemnor/respondent with regard to quantum of sentence and keeping the nature of the offence into mind, in exercise of the powers conferred under the provisions of Contempt of Court Act, 1971, the Court is passing the following Order: Accordingly, the Contempt Case is allowed and the Respondent is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for four (04) weeks and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one week. 17. At request of learned counsel for the respondent, the sentence of imprisonment is suspended for a period of one week from today. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Contempt Case shall stand closed.