Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 16197
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J
Mr. N. Peddi Raju – Appellant
Versus
Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2025 – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4162 of 2020
Important Points
Subject
Contempt of Court - Civil Contempt
Headnote
(B) Hearing - The court emphasized that the substance of decision-making involves proper hearing of all parties, reflecting respect for the judicial process. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
This Court reopened a Criminal Petition for considering apologies from alleged Contemnors in light of a Supreme Court judgment addressing claims of partiality and procedural issues during prior hearings.
Findings of Court:
The court accepted the apologies tendered by the alleged Contemnors after recognizing the importance of remorse in matters of contempt.
Issues: The essential question was whether the alleged Contemnors demonstrated sufficient remorse for their actions that led to contempt proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that sincere apologies could cleanse past acts of contempt, emphasizing the responsibility of legal representatives to uphold the dignity of the judiciary.
Result: Apologies accepted, matter directed to the Supreme Court.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Ritesh Patil, Mr. Nitin Meshram
For the Respondents: None
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. reopening of the petition for apology consideration. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. responses and apologies from alleged contemnors. (Para 3 , 5) |
| 3. respect and judicial processes highlighted. (Para 6 , 9) |
| 4. consequences of contempt and importance of apologies. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. acceptance of apologies and direction to supreme court. (Para 14 , 15) |
ORDER:
1. The Criminal Petition which was disposed of by this Court by an order dated 17.07.2025 is now been reopened pursuant to the judgment dated 11.08.2025 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court presided over by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India. The judgment was passed in Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2025. The judgment was placed before this Court on 18.08.2025. The matter was listed before this Court at 10.30 a.m., on 19.08.2025 pursuant to the permission for listing given by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of this Court.
2. The matter is now reopened only for the limited purpose of considering the Affidavits of Apology tendered by the three alleged Contemnors.
3. On 19.08.2025, the alleged Contemnor No.1, Mr. N. Peddi Raju (the de facto complainant) was present in Court. The alleged Contemnor No.2, Mr. Ritesh Patil (Advocate-on-Record, Supreme Court of India) and the alleged Contemnor No.3, Mr. Nitin Meshram (the Advocate who drafted the Transfer Petition), appeared online. The alleged Contemnors were directed to file their respective Affidavits for Apology on 21.08.2025 and were also given liberty to appear online on the next date of hearing i.e., 22.08.2025.
4. The Affidavits of Apology were placed before me on 21.08.2025. The affidavits were sent by mail to the Registrar General/Registrar (Judicial) of this High Court.
5. I have perused the Affidavits of Apology filed by the alleged Contemnors. The gist of the affidavits is as follows:
i. The alleged Contemnor No.1, Mr. N. Peddi Raju, states that he had tendered his apology to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2025 and is tendering his apology to this Court pursuant to the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
ii. The alleged Contemnor No.2, Mr.Ritesh Patil, states that he regrets the use of language in the Transfer Petition and further states that the Transfer Petition was drafted by Mr.Nitin Meshram. The Affidavit further states that the alleged Contemnor No.2 failed to notice that it contained remarks against this Court, although he had the occasion to go through the same before signing and filing.
iii. The alleged Contemnor No.3, Mr.Nitin Meshram, states that he appeared as counsel in the Transfer Petition and sought withdrawal of the same which was not permitted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. While dismissing the Transfer Petition, the Hon’ble Supreme Court took exception to the pleadings and initiated Suo Motu Contempt Proceedings against the alleged Contemnors. The alleged Contemnor No.3 further states that he tenders his unconditional apology to this Court, accepts responsibility for drafting the Transfer Petition and expresses regrets for the error of judgment on his part on the use of language employed in the drafting of the said petition.
6. First and foremost, this Court wishes to record its utmost respect for the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. This Court wishes to express a few thoughts, with the leave of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
7. Paragraph No.2 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court mentions the grounds on which the Criminal Petition was sought to be transferred from this Court. The grounds stated are of a serious apprehension of partiality and procedural discrimination since the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner before the Hon’ble Supreme Court (respondent No.2 in the Criminal Petition) was summarily curtailed. The petitioner/respondent No.2 complained that he was given only five minutes to argue the matter. Paragraph No.3 of the judgment states that the petitioner/alleged Contemnor No.1 believed that there existed a likel
