Dismissed

Vankudoth Kista and 14 Others v. Mr.Anand Reddy and Another

Telangana HC6 Jul 2022CC/266/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition alleging violation of an undertaking prohibiting police interference in a civil dispute, the High Court observed that pending criminal investigations against some petitioners justified police action and found no violation, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition dismissed; no costs; other pending miscellaneous petitions in this case closed.

Vankudoth Kista and 14 Others Vs Mr.Anand Reddy and… — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2022)

I ! I

)

,IV IHEHIGH COURTFO orr-frft.^tltrE oF TELANGANA

¶5

Tt Ji;Bilhl[.^.^[,il,tr JU, y ?F

¶6

THE HONOURABL ESRIJPRESENT USTICE K.LAKSHTI4AN coNTElvtPT cAS E No:266 F 202 1 (Contempt Case U/s.10 Respo to 12 of Contempt of Co ndents herein for wjlfullv urts Act to punish the / respondents and the orders of tand wantonly violating the submission made by the 2021) he High Cowl dated 02/02 /2021 in Wp No.2289 of

¶7

0 {

¶8

C,.1 @	BETWEEN i,JT#j;[['lii.y;&i#;11i,^[xffi:,;x:,:;fri;::,',,, i;,xTffiyq';l(l;xifl,;x;i'-s"itff;il"'"""	,. ,-	I ) 1
	l;'ill'=** Hads/o.Krishna,Aqed:s2years,occ: Asricutture, ryovlnlamooruvillage,Chintapatti -Manaal, N;lgonda district	-
	4 ,Vankudoth^{JampaS/o.Ksa,Aqed:45years,Occ:Agticullue,} rvovrnramooru vlllage,qtlntapalliMandal, Nalgondadistrict	^.-'
+	5.VankudothNarendarS/o.Devisinqh,Aged:23yea6,Occ: Agnculture,Ryd.Vinjammruvillaqe,chintapalllMandal,Nalgonda dlstrid
	6. Vankudoth Pa$ya S/o.Sankadal, Aqed:60years, Occ: Agriculture ,^{R/o.Vinjamooru}vlllage, Chlntapalli Mandal, Nalgondadisklct 7.VankudothlanuS1o, Redya,Aged:30yeaG,Occ:Aqriculture, R/o.Vinjamooru village, Chiotapalli Mandal, Nalgondadistrict
	8.VankudoftChanderS/0,Eankatlal,Aged:57years,Oc Agriculture,R/o.Vinjarnooru village, ChintapalliMandal, Nalgonda district	c: "- .--	I i
	9. VankudothJumana^{S/o.Bankatlal; Aged:51years,Occ:Agriculture} ,^{R/o.Viniamooru village,ChintipalliMandal, Nalgondadistrict}		: I
	10.vankudoth^{lampa5/o.Bankatlal,Agcd:36years,occ: Agrlcu[ure} ,^{R/o.vinjamooruvillage,ChintaFlliMaodal, Nalgondadistrid}
	L.Vankudoth^{RarneshS/0.Pathya, Aqed:32years,Occ:Agricuttur} ,^{n7o.Mnlamooruvltlage, Chlntapalll Mandal, Nalgondadistrict}	^e./
	lzvankudothShakru^{S/o.Maoya, Aged:60ycars,Occ:Aqri(ulture,} Uo.^{Vinjamooru village,chintapalliMandal, Nalgondadrstri(t}	--
	t1vrnkudothGovindu^{S/o.Manya, Aged:51yea6,Occ:Agficulture} :"R);.^{;i;j;.oot,,iiluse,chlntapalliMandal' Nalgondddislrict}	-
	l1;';lliiSl}"liftili;Illlfu^{f',i,1,1i-',,iirs'{cc:rqsrrcuttu'e'}

¶9

¶10

I
1
{i<(F
9/
I I
()
l',v:: J[",i:ff lil]l31hi,x:ilii,Hll;'l'-'6"'ii:?::i]',**"
Petitiooersi Petltiorer ;
I IID
1)u .Anand Reddy'The DeputY commi5sioner of Police' Devarakonda' lff
Nal londa district
2)l k.Venkateswarlu' Thc Stdtron Hourc Offi(er' p S Chinta gAtl, " W
Ni gonda Drstrict
For the Petition( rs : SRI PULLA RAO YELLANKI, Advocate
For the Responr lents : Gp FOR HOME & LAW
The Court made .he following: ORDER

I
I
I

trf ,l .r

,/,

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CONTEMPT CASE No.266 of 2O2t

¶15

ORDER:

¶16

Heard Sri Pulla Rao yelanki, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Manoj Kumar, learned Asst. Government Pleader for Home for respondents.

¶17

This Contempt Case is filed alleging violation of undertaking given by Sri S. Ram Mohan, learned Asst. Government Pleader for Home on O2-O2-2O21 in W.P.No.2289 of 2021.

¶18

Perusal of the record would reveal that the petitioners herein have filed the above said writ petition questioning the illegal interference of the respondents therein in civil disputes. The said writ petition came up for hearing on O2-O2-2O21, on which date Sri S. Ram Mohan, learned Asst. Government Pleader for Home, on instructions,^had submitted that the Police are not interfering^{with any} dispute, much less, civil dispute^{as alleged by the}

¶19

-,/

¶20

)

¶21

Rernrdrng the^said petitioners i r^{the said writ petition'} submission,^{writ petitionwas closed'}

¶22

¶23

Now, lhe^{petitioners herein are complainingthat on} 77 -O2-2O21^{respondentNo' 1alcng with abouti 5} Constables came to^{the site arrd interfered r:r'ith their} possession over the^{subjectproperty and thel' have also} threatened the^{petitioners with dire consequencesby} creating pznic to vacate^{the petitionersfrom tlrr: possession} of the said land.

¶24

Acco:ding to them, both the respondeut-s^have violated t} e said undertaking given by them. Roth of them have filed counters in the present Contempt Case. In the counter fi ed by respondent No.2 there is a specihc mention that on l7-O2-2O21, respondent No.2 has received,a complain from Sri Konduru Rampullaiah and on receipt of the said :omplaint, respondent No.2 has registered a case in Crime No.21 of 202 1 against some of the petitioners for ttae offen:es under Sections +52, 504 and s06 rlw.34 of IpC. As p 1at of in vestli . j,tion, conshb/es of police Station

¶25

-t,

¶26

¶27

Chihthapally went to the spot for the purpose of conducting enquiry on lZ _02-2021 itself. Except that constables of chinthapally police station never interfered with the possession ol the petitioners as alleged in the present Contempt Case.

¶28

Respondent No.l herein is Deputy Superintendent of Police and he is not Deputy Commissioner of police as mentioned in the cause title and respondent No.2 is Station House Oflicer, Chinthapally police Station. Both of them never went to the spot as alleged in the affidavit.

¶29

( (

¶30

According to Sri A. Manoj Kumar, learned Asst. Government Pleader for Home, investigation in the said crime is pending and except conducting investigation, in accordance with law, Police, Chinthapally Police Station never interfered with the civil disputes between parties. In the counter, it is also mentioned that^{a case in Crime} No.104 of 2O2O was registered^{against some of the} petitioners herein for the offences under^{Sections447 and} 427 rlw.34 of IPC. The investigation^{in the said crimeis}

I (

) I

also pending in Chinthapally Police Station. The^pr:titioners herein have r rot produced any contra evidenct' irr s'.rpport of their allega tions.

¶35

¶36

in vie'v of the said specific contentions and considering the fact that there are two crimes pending against som: of the petitioners, this Court do not find any violation ol the statement made by responclent No.2 on O2-O2-2O2I in W.P.No.22 89 of 2021.

¶37

Therelore, this Contempt Case is liable to be

¶38

dismissed and accordingly dismissed. No costs.

¶39

Misce.laneous petitions, if any, pending in this Contempt^(lase, sha_ll stand closed.

¶40

Sd/-A-V.S.S.C.S.M.SARMA DEPIJTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// u.

SECTION OFFICER

One CC to liri Pulla Rao Yellanki, Advocate IOPUC] 2. Two CCs tc GP for Home & Law, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad .OUTI

¶45

Two CD Cc pies

¶46

One Spare 3opy Kj

I I I

<br>

HIGH COURT

DATED:0610712022

TAr F
1[ [tI ?B'lL

ORDER

CC.No.266 ot 20i 1

ors/t /ss/A/G THE cc.

¶56

,/
14
t
<br>

Vankudoth Kista and 14 Others v. Mr.Anand Reddy and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vankudoth Kista and 14 Others v. Mr.Anand Reddy and Another

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

N.Venkateswara Rao and 2 Others Vs The State of Telangana and another

M/s Suchir India Infratech Limited Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/s R3 Capital (Partnership Firm)

M/s. Raine Industries and Engineering Private Limited Vs M/s. National Ventures Private Limited and Another

Ananthula Laxmi and another Vs The State of Telengana and another

Kondra Chandraiah and 4 Others Vs R D Madhuri

Mohammed Jeelani Vs Sri. P. Venatrama Reddy, I.A.S