Dismissed

Yedlapati Vasundhara Devi v. Sri. Vishal Gunni, (I.P.S)

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Apr 2021CC/140/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, the petitioner alleged that police violated a court order to not interfere in a civil dispute, thereby preventing crop harvesting. The court found the allegation denied by respondents and unproven by evidence.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case against respondents 1 to 3 dismissed; miscellaneous petitions in the case stood closed.

Yedlapati Vasundhara Devi Vs Sri… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CONTEMPT CASE No.140 OF 2021

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This contempt case has been filed by the petitioner to punish respondents 1 to 3 under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, for willfully and deliberately violating the order dated 19-01-2021 passed by this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.1295 of 2021.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home representing the respondents.

¶5

This Court in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.1295 of 2021 passed the following order:-

¶6

“There shall be a direction to the respondents-police officials not to interfere with the civil dispute between the petitioners and unofficial respondents 6 and 7 till the next date of herein”.

¶7

The aforesaid order was passed by this Court on 19-01-2021.

¶8

Now, it is the case of the petitioners that on 21-01-2021, the police have prevented the petitioner from harvesting the crop that is ripe for harvest and thereby deliberately violated the aforesaid order of this Court and as such, they are liable for contempt for violating the order of this Court.

¶9

The 3^rd respondent filed his counter-affidavit denying the allegations that the police have prevented the petitioner from

¶10

¶11

harvesting the crop in the disputed land as alleged by the petitioner. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that on 21-01-2021, the 3^rd respondent received information that Mr.Dandamudi Rambabu i.e. the 6^th respondent and Thokala Sarath Babu and three others gathered on the road at Kopalle village and both parties quarreled with each other and created law and order problem and committed breach of peace in the village due to previous disputes between them. Therefore, it is stated that a case under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was registered on 21-01-2021 against both the parties in Tenali Rural Police Station of Guntur District and filed a requisition before the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Tenali, requesting him to bind over both the parties to maintain law and order problem in Kopalle village.

¶12

Therefore, as it is stoutly denied by the respondent-police officials that they have prevented the petitioner from harvesting the crop in the land and that they have violated the order passed by this Court, the initial burden is on the petitioner to substantiate the said fact that the respondents have prevented her from harvesting the crop and thereby violated the order of this Court and committed an act of contempt of Court. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to substantiate the said material fact. Except stating that the petitioner has sent a complaint to the Superintendent of Police in this regard, no other legal evidence is available on record to prove that the police have prevented the petitioner from harvesting the crop and thereby violated the order of this court. Therefore, in the absence of any

¶13

¶14

such evidence to substantiate the said allegation and more particularly when the said fact is stoutly denied by the respondents in the counter, it is difficult to hold that the petitioner has violated the order of this Court and committed contempt of Court as alleged by the petitioner.

¶15

Therefore, this Contempt Case is dismissed.

¶16

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, in this Contempt Case, shall stand closed.

¶17

_____________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

Date: 06-04-2021

ARR

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶22

CONTEMPT CASE No.140 OF 2021

¶23

DATED : 06-04-2021

¶24

ARR

Yedlapati Vasundhara Devi v. Sri. Vishal Gunni, (I.P.S)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yedlapati Vasundhara Devi v. Sri. Vishal Gunni, (I.P.S)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Revella Udaya Bhaskara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kota Sithamrna Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Kanuru Venkateswara Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Suddabattula Venkat Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.P.Praveen Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chokkam Ramesh Babu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh