P.Tibucrcius Vs Esakki Muthu

PRAYER: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the contemnors for contempt for willfully disobeying the order of this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18317 of 2024 dated 24.10.2024.

¶15

1/6

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

CONT.P.(MD)No.729 of 2025

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramanathan

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The Contempt Petition has been filed to punish the respondents for

¶22

their wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P. (MD)No.18317 of 2024 dated 24.10.2024.

¶23

When the matter is taken up for hearing today, in pursuance of the direction of this Court, both the respondents are present before this Court.

¶24

It is not in dispute that subsequent to the order of this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18317 of 2024 dated 24.10.2024, the fourth respondent Sahaya Asin in the said petition filed a petition in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19947 of 2024 invoking Section 528 BNSS seeking direction to the Inspector of Police, Colachel Police Station, Kanniyakumari District not to interfere with the civil dispute which is the subject matter of the appeals in A.S. (MD)Nos.259 and 296 of 2023 on the file of this Court and this Court

¶25

2/6

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

CONT.P.(MD)No.729 of 2025

¶28

vide order dated 18.11.2024 by observing that the dispute is of civil in nature, directed the respondent police not to interfere with the civil dispute and also not to harass the petitioner therein.

¶29

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner filed a petition to recall the said order dated 18.11.2024 on the ground that he was not heard but the same was dismissed in SR stage itself.

¶30

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing

¶31

for the respondents filed an additional typed set stating that after enquiring both the parties, the Inspector of Police, Colachel Police Station closed the complaint and produced the closure report dated 13.11.2025.

¶32

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in the civil proceedings, decree was granted only with respect to rendering the accounts with regard to the ice factory and permanent injunction restraining interference was dismissed and appeals are pending before this Court.

¶33

3/6

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

CONT.P.(MD)No.729 of 2025

¶36

As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the

¶37

petitioner, the said factum was not brought to the notice of this Court by the respondents. Whatever it is, since in the subsequent order dated 18.11.2024 the learned Judge of this Court passed an order not to interfere with the civil dispute and not to harass the petitioner therein and the application to recall that order was already dismissed, nothing survives in the contempt petition and hence, this Contempt Petition stands closed.

¶38

02.12.2025

¶39

NCC:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No csm

¶40

To

¶41