Dudekula Kasimbhi Vs G. Ramakrishna — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2025)

Dudekula Kasimbhi Vs G. Ramakrishna — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Contempt Case closed without punishing the contemnor; respondent-contemnor directed to strictly comply with the directions in W.P. No. 33243 of 2023; miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent-contemnor (SHO, Hayathnagar Police Station) wilfully and deliberately disobeyed this Court's order dated 09.02.2024 passed in W.P. No. 33242 of 2023, so as to attract punishment under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Court's answer

The sine qua non for invoking jurisdiction under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is the establishment of a willful and deliberate disobedience of a court's order.

Ratio / Principle

On the submissions made by both parties, there has been no willful or deliberate disobedience of this Court's order dated 09.02.2024; consequently, the foundational requirement to sustain a contempt action is absent.

Key takeaways

To ensure continued adherence to the earlier order, the respondent-contemnor is directed to strictly comply with the directions issued by this Court in W.P. No. 33243 of 2023.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Sections 10 to 12 — willful and deliberate disobedience is the sine qua non for invoking Section 12 jurisdiction. The petitioner sought punishment of the respondent SHO, Hayathnagar Police Station, for alleged willful disobedience of the High Court's order dated 09.02.2024 in W.P. No. 33242 of 2023 (printed elsewhere as W.P. No. 33243 of 2023), directing the SHO not to interfere in the civil disputes between the petitioners and respondent Nos. 3 to 6 in O.S. No. 479 of 2021 pending before the Junior Civil Judge, Hayathnagar. Petitioner's counsel fairly submitted there had been no interference after filing of the contempt case; the Assistant Government Pleader contended the respondent had substantially complied and no willful defiance was attributable. Holding that the submissions of both sides showed no willful or deliberate disobedience and the foundational requirement for contempt was absent, the Court nonetheless directed the respondent-contemnor to strictly comply with the earlier directions and closed the Contempt Case, with pending miscellaneous petitions likewise closed (N. Tukaramji, J., 12.11.2025).

13217 1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

WEDNESDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 636 OF 2 024

Contempt Case under Section 10 lo 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1g7.1 to punish the Respondents herein for their willful violation and deliberate disobedrence of the orders of this Court dated 09-2-2024 passed in W.p.No.33242 of 2023.

Between:

Dudekula Kasimbhi, Wo. Kareem, aged 45 years, Occ Housewrfe, R/o. plot No. 301, Kuntloor Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

... Petitioner/Petitioner No..l

AND

G. Ramakrishna, S H 0 Hayathnagar Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Hayathnagar.

...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI THADIKONDA KOTESHWARA pRASAD

Counsel for the Respondents: ASSISTANT GP FOR HOME

The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKA] AMJI

CONTEMPT CASE No.636 OF 2024

ORDER:

This Contempt Case has been filed seeking^pu r shment of the respondenUcontemnor under Sections 10 lo 12 of t e Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 lor the alleged willful and deliberate lisobedience of the order dated 09.02.2024 passed by this Court in^{\Ar r.} No. 33242 of 2023.

Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits hat subsequent to the filing of the present Contempt Case, there has been no interference by the respondenUcontemnor in the )etitioner's civil dispute- ln view of this subsequent development, he ;,rbmits that an appropriate direction may be issued, and the matter m€r\ be closed.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader, on t re other hand, submits that the respondenUSHO, Hayathnagar Policr, Station, has not interfered in the petitioner's civil disputes. He cc r tends that the respondent has substantially complied with the directic r s issued by this Court and that no element of willful or deliberate c..fiance can be attributed to the contemnor. Accordingly, he prays for lismissal of the Contempt Case.

I have considered the submissions advanced on e ther side.

&.

2

By order dated 09.02.2024 passed in W.P. No. 33243 of 2023, this Court directed the respondenUsHo, Hayathnagar Police Station, not to interfere in the civil disputes between the^petitioners and respondent Nos. 3 to 6 in O.S. No. 479 of 2O21,^pending on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District.

ln contempt^{jurisprudence,} the sine^qua non for^invoking jurisdiction under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is the establishment of a willful and deliberate disobedience of a court's order. _ln^{the present case, the submissionsmade by both parties} unequivocally indicate that there has been no willful or^deliberate disobedience, of this Court's order dated 09.02.2024.^Thus,the foundational requirement to sustain a contempt action is absent. Nonetheless, to ensure continued adherence to the earlier order, the respondenUcontemnor is directed to strictly comply with the^directions issued by this Court in W.P. No. 33243 of 2023.

ln view of the above, the Contempt Case stands closed.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any; shall stand closed.

SD/- V.KAVITHA EPUTY REGISTRA

//TRUE COPY//

ECTION OFFICER

To,

One CC to SRI THADIKONDA KOTESHWARA PRASAD Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to AGP FOR HOIvIE ,High Court for the State of Tetangana. [OUT] 3. Two CD Copies ffnc.

NVBiPSL

!t1. Iti

I i I I I I I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:12t1112025

ORDER

vtf
l ; 'iHE s,i:i
oo
1' , L l-,:ll 2fl z
,').. .+ sij ,.
+l'r,,/
.*\l r i DA-r:\ :<1--';. "

CC.No.636 of 2024

CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE

\11.>lt-s