Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Deena Manju Mandro vs B Venkata Ramaiah on 17 September, 2021
Author: M. Venkata Ramana
Bench: M. Venkata Ramana
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. VENKATA RAMANA
CONTEMPT CASE No.996 OF 2019
ORDER:
Heard Sri K.Rama Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dushyanth Reddy, learned counsel, for Sri K.Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. Pursuant to the notice issued in Form-I, the respondent is in attendance physically in this Court now.
3. The complaint of the petitioner is that the respondent flouted the orders of this Court in Criminal Petition No.5984 of 2019, dated 27.9.2019.
4. Crime No.69 of 2018 was registered on 08.11.2018 in Women Police Station, Kurnool, for offences under Sections 498-A, 494, 323, 506 read with Section 34 IPC as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner is Accused No.5 in this case. She moved Criminal Petition No.5984 of 2019 under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings therein against her and the order referred to above was passed therein. In paragraph No.3 of this order, it is stated:
3. Having regard to the offences alleged in this case that include under Section 498-A, 494, 323, 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC as well as under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, bearing in mind the situation of the petitioner, there shall be a direction to the Station House Officer, Women Police Station, Kurnool, not to insist for appearance of the petitioner for the purpose of investigation in this case unless it is imminent and absolutely necessary.
Whenever her appearance is warranted for the purpose of investigation by the Investigating Officer in Crime No.69 of 2 2018 of Women Police Station, Kurnool, specific notice/ summons shall be issued to her clearly indicating the purpose and specifying the date on which she shall appear. The petitioner is entitled to have legal assistance in such circumstances whenever she is called upon to appear before the Investigating Officer in the above case in Women Police Station, Kurnool, or to any other place, where the Investigating Officer intends to examine her.
5. The respondent being the Investigating Officer issued notice purportedly under Section 41-A Cr.P.C., dated 18.11.2019 directing the petitioner to appear on 22.11.2019 at 10.00 a.m., in the Women Police Station, Kurnool and stated to be for the purpose of investigation. This notice referred to the fact that the petitioner appeared pursuant to earlier notice under the same provision of law on 20.9.2019 and that the petitioner requested nine (9) days time to comply the notice. This notice further states that the investigation should be proceeded further as per procedure and that the petitioner should comply with this notice.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner now clarifies that pursuant to the above notice, the petitioner did not appear before the Investigating Officer on 22.11.2019. Instead, she chose to file this Contempt Case against the respondent on 21.11.2019.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this notice did not meet the requirements of the orders of this Court making out special reasons indicating need for her appearance nor this notice is setting out the purpose. This 3 omission in this notice is the cause of Contempt now raised by the petitioner against the respondent.
8. The manner in which this notice is issued almost two months after the orders of this Court gives an indication that the Investigating Officer waited for sufficient time to enable the petitioner to respond particularly having regard to her earlier undertaking/response to notice issued earlier under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. The special reason, if any as can be culled out from the notice, is further investigation and that this notice specifies that it is as per the procedure.
9. In these circumstances, when the Investigating Officer is proceeding on with the requirements of the investigation in this case, this instance of issuing notice on 18.11.2019 cannot be stated being in contempt of the order of this Court, nor can cause gross violation of the directions of this Court. Discharging his duty lawfully cannot be deemed contempt.
10. At the same time, it should also borne in mind at times the Investigating Officers are given to such behaviour to unnecessarily harass the parties, whenever approached this Court for various reasons. It is a common experience which one comes across. But this instance appears to be not similar to such illegal exercise by an Investigating Officer.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner is a married woman and calling her to Police 4 Station would affect her family life and also as a source of physical and mental harassment. It should also be noted that if the investigation ultimately makes out that the petitioner is innocent, it would benefit her. She should necessarily cooperate with the process of investigation.
12. Finding that there is no reason to proceed further in this matter nor the instance pointed out by the petitioner amounts to attracting any of the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act much less the criminal contempt, this Contempt Case has to be dismissed.
13. In the result, this Contempt Case is dismissed. At the same time, the respondent is directed to exercise the power to call the petitioner for the purpose of investigation strictly in terms of the earlier order passed by this Court and which shall not be the cause for further complaint of this nature. Further action in this contempt case is purged. No costs. The respondent, who is now in attendance, stands discharged. All pending petitions stand closed.
__________________________ M. VENKATA RAMANA, J September 17, 2021 vasu