Dismissed¶¶30

Rupani Linga Swamy v. Sharat Chandra

Telangana HC25 Jul 2025CC/1822/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt case against police officers for alleged willful disobedience of order to complete investigation dismissed. No statutory time limit for investigation under Cr.P.C./BNSS; court cannot impose time limit as it would affect investigation quality. Non-compliance with general direction to investigate per law not contempt.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case dismissed; no order as to costs ¶¶30

Rupani Linga Swamy Vs Sharat Chandra — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁶¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR T+IE STATE OF TELAI{GANA--" ATHYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWo rHousAND AND rwrrurvirve

¶4

PRES€NT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶6

coN TEIU PT CASE NO: 1822 oF m25

¶7

cont'empt case fired Under sections 10 to 12 0f contempt of courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondents herein for wiflfulry and wantonry viorating the orders of the High court dated 04 -M.2025 passed in r-A.No.1 0f 2018 in w.p.No..r0093 0f 2025.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Iyf1l_!:tgl^{Sw.9,lry, y9 qrrAi"n.Asedabour} 64^years. occ retired ernotovee cum agrrcufture, (Owe, R/o perepaily Vlttage. Chittati-r,lrrori rvrrio-,r;.-d"iiilf

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1, Sharat Chandra, The Superintendent of police. Nalgonda Distrlct.

¶13

' iLAir?X sfff*:'* Deputv superintendent or Potice, Natsonda Division,

¶14

' N:[:"*"i[Bl]f,lf^{rhe stationHouseorricer, chitvaraporicestation,}

¶15

...CONTEMNORS

¶16

Counsel for the petitioner : Sri. Rapolu ghaskar

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents :

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

THE HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICE T.VINOD HI IMAR} coNTEMPT No.1822ot^2O 2 !

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

This Contempt Case^{is filed alleging willful ci obedience by} the respondents^{to the order of this Court dt t 4'04'2025in} W.P.No.10093^{of 2025.}

¶22

Heard learned^{counsel for the petiUoner arl'I perusedthe} record.

¶23

Learned counsel^{for the petitionercontends t rat this Court'} while disposing of^{the subject WritPetition, while r oting that the} 5th respondent^{had registered a crime, directed ttx respondents-} authorities to^{completethe investigationand file ireport in the} aforesaidcrimebeforetheconcernedMagistrattlinaccordance wlth law, the 5th^{respondent has not completedtl^ : investigation} nor filed any report and^{thus, acted in willful disctedience to the} order of this Court.

¶24

¶25

However, on this Court^{querying with the I :arnedcounsel} for the petitioner as^{to whetherthere is any time mit prescribed} under Cr.P.C./BNSS^{for the investigating author iy to complete} the investigation and file a^{repoft,learnedcour;el after going}

¶26

¶27

through the provisinns of BNSS stated that there is no srch time limit prescribed either under Cr.p.C. or Btr,lSS.

¶28

It is to be noted that the Court canrult prescribe any time limit within which ttre respondents_authorities are to complete inlrestigation and fib a r€po{t, as prescription of any time limit would result in the authorities not coMucting investigation in proper manner, thereby, affecting tlre process of investigation.

¶29

Since, this Court had only directed the respondents_ authorities to complete the investigation and file a final report in accordance with hw, this court is of the view that noncompliance of the said direction cannot be considered as willful disobedience to the order of this Court.

¶30

7' In view of the aborc, no case is made out for initiating contempt against the respondents and the contempt Case is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶31