Dismissed¶¶46

Mr Manoj v. Naidu v Mr. Manjunath

Karnataka HC4 Dec 2025CCC/861/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CCC No. 861 of 2023, Karnataka HC (DB), decided 2025-12-04 — civil contempt alleging willful disobedience of Single Judge directions in W.P. No.15270/2021 (exclusive licensed hookah-smoking enclosure; no police harassment on inspection) — held: no material of willful disobedience by accused (Police Inspector, K.R. Puram PS; Commissioner of Police); complainant's own activities contrary to law and the directions; contempt proceedings closed, notice discharged.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the complaint averments, no material was found to come to the conclusion that the respondents willfully disobeyed the order of the learned Single Judge. ¶¶46

Mr Manoj v Naidu Vs Mr. Manjunath — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents/accused committed willful disobedience of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.06.2022 passed in W.P. No.15270/2021.

¶¶33

Court's answer

On perusal of the complaint averments, no material was found to come to the conclusion that the respondents willfully disobeyed the order of the learned Single Judge.

¶¶46

Ratio / Principle

The Station House Officer's affidavit indicated that the complainant carried out certain activities in violation of law and contrary to the directions of the learned Single Judge, and against the same the jurisdictional police initiated proceedings.

¶¶44

Key takeaways

Since no willful disobedience was established, contempt proceedings were closed and the notice issued to the accused stands discharged.ratio¶¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil contempt petition under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, alleging willful disobedience of the learned Single Judge's order dated 22.06.2022 in W.P. No.15270/2021, which had directed the petitioner to earmark exclusively a separate, enclosed area for hooka smoking in the hotel premises after obtaining licence, and restrained the jurisdictional police from harassing him under the guise of inspection while permitting periodical inspections with notice. The respondents/accused filed a compliance affidavit dated 06.06.2025 disclosing that on 20.10.2023 the Police Inspector, K.R. Puram police station, received information that the complainant's hookah bar was in violation of law, upon which cases were registered and investigation undertaken. Perusing the complaint averments, the Division Bench (judgment per Vijaykumar A. Patil J.; coram Anu Sivaraman and Vijaykumar A. Patil JJ.) found no material to conclude that the respondents willfully disobeyed the order, noting that the complainant himself had acted in violation of law and contrary to the directions; contempt proceedings were accordingly closed and the notice issued to the accused stood discharged.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:50731-DB CCC No. 861 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.861 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR. MANOJ V NAIDU AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, S/O VEERABHADRAN DONI, R/AT NO.39, REVANNA LAYOUT, T C PALYA MAIN ROAD, ANANDAPURA, BENGALURU-560036.

¶10

…COMPLAINANT

¶11

Digitally signed by CHANNEGOWDA PREMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

(BY SRI. SYED JAFFER MOHIYUDDIN, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

MR. MANJUNATH

¶15

POLICE INSPECTOR K R PURAM POLICE STATION REP. BY THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶16

MR. B. DAYANANDA (IPS) THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:50731-DB CCC No. 861 of 2023

HC-KAR

BENGALURU-560001.

…ACCUSED

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE CHAIRPERSON, MINISTRY OF HOME, DEPARTMENT OF KARNATAKA,

¶23

VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶24

…PROFORMA RESPONDENT

¶25

(BY SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR PROFORMA R3; A1 & A2)

¶26

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 R/W ARTICLES 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO KINDLY ISSUE NOTICE TO ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 THEY MAY BE BROUGHT BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT AND TRIED AND PUNISH FOR THE OFFENCES COMMITTED BY ACCUSED FOR THE DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER DATED 22.6.2022 IN WP NO.15270/2021 AS PER THE ANNEXURE-A.

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:50731-DB CCC No. 861 of 2023

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶32

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)

¶33

This Contempt Petition is filed alleging willful disobedience of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.06.2022 passed in W.P. No.15270/2021.

¶34

The directions of the learned Single Judge reads as

¶35

under;

¶36

(a) "Petitioner shall earmark exclusively a separate area/place(s) with appropriate enclosure in the hotel premise and necessarily after obtaining licence for the purpose of hooka smoking and no other area or portion of premise shall be used by the customers of the petitioner for smoking hooka.

¶37

(b) Under the guise of inspection, the respondentjurisdictional police shall not harass the petitioner. However, it does not deter them from inspecting the premise at periodical intervals with notice to the petitioner, if necessary."

¶38

The respondents/accused have filed an affidavit

¶39

dated 06.06.2025. The said affidavit indicates that on 20.10.2023, the Police Inspector, K.R. Puram police station, Bengaluru, received an information that the hookah bar run by

¶40

the complainant is in violation of law and based on such

¶41

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:50731-DB CCC No. 861 of 2023

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

information and other information, they have registered cases which are referred in the compliance affidavit at para No.6 and based on such registration of case, steps have been taken to investigate the matter.

¶44

We have perused the affidavit filed by the Station House Officer, which clearly indicates that the complainant, in violation of law and contrary to the directions of the learned Single Judge, carried out certain activities and against the same, the jurisdictional police have initiated proceedings.

¶45

On perusal of the complaint averments, we do not

¶46

find any material to come to the conclusion that the respondents have willfully disobeyed the order of the learned Single Judge. Hence, contempt proceedings are closed . Notice issued to the accused shall stand discharged.

¶47

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶48

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶49

PN List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1

Mr Manoj v. Naidu v Mr. Manjunath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Manoj v. Naidu v Mr. Manjunath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manjegowda Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer

M/S Royal Educational Trust, Vs the Deputy Director

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri v M Venkatesh

Dr. Richard Picardo Vs Smt Shilpa Nag C T IAS

C H Venkataraju Vs Ramana Reddy

Deepak Anand Vs the State of Karnataka