THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CONTEMPT CASE No.1870 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“…to punish the respondent No.1 (V. Ramchander, Inspector of Police, market Police Station, Hyderabad Police) under Section 10-12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 (for continuing to call the petitioner to police station, through third notice under Section 35 (3) BNSS 2023 {without mentioning the purpose of the appearance) despite the Orders of this Hon’ble Court in Crl.P.No.7505 of 2025, Orders dt: 20.06.2025 under paragraph 5}, and also for adding conditions in the third 35 (3) Notice as that of a Judicial Officer contrary to 35 (1) of BNSS 2023 & willfully violating the Orders of this Hon’ble Court and vehemently disregarding and disrespecting the directions of this Hon’ble Court, as such, additionally impose a cost of 50,000/- (Fifty thousand rupees) to be submitted to Legal Services Authority of this Hon’ble Court and issue such other necessary directions or Orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to uphold Justice..”

2. Heard Mr.Vijay Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Shalini Saxena, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent.

3. This contempt petition has been instituted alleging that the respondent has willfully disobeyed and violated the directions issued by this Hon’ble Court in its order dated 20.06.2025 passed in Criminal Petition No. 7505 of 2025.

4. Submissions of the Petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, while disposing of the aforesaid Criminal Petition, this Court had specifically directed respondent No.1, the Investigating Officer, to issue a formal written notice in the event of any further requirement of the petitioner’s presence in connection with the ongoing investigation. Contrary to this explicit direction, the respondent proceeded to issue a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), calling upon the petitioner to appear on certain dates, namely

19.07.2024 and 22.07.2025 at 10:00 A.M.

The learned counsel submits that, since the notice issued does not conform to the form and tenor directed by this Court, the petitioner refrained from responding to it. It is urged that the issuance of such a notice, in defiance of the Court’s order, constitutes civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, being a willful disobedience of a lawful order of this Court. It is further pointed out that the impugned notice was served by the respondent upon the Station House Officer (S.H.O.) rather than by the Investigating Officer himself in the pending crime, which further demonstrates non-compliance.

5. Submissions of the Respondent In reply, learned counsel for the respondent submits that a detailed counter affidavit has been filed, wherein it is categorically admitted that the notice dated 19.07.2025 was issued inadvertently in the default format, instead of in the formal written form as mandated by this Court. It is asserted that the lapse was neither willful nor deliberate, but a bona fide administrative error. The respondent has tendered an unconditional apology to this Court and assured that such an omission will not recur. Accordingly, it is prayed that the contempt proceedings be dropped.

6. I have perused the material on record and carefully considered the submissions of both parties.

7. Findings Upon examination of the record, it is evident that in Criminal Petition No. 7505 of 2025, this Court had clearly directed the Investigating Officer to issue a formal written notice specifying the schedule, purpose, and necessity of the petitioner’s appearance in connection with the investigation. The issuance of the notice dated 19.07.2025 under Section 35(3) BNSS, 2023, albeit subsequent to the said order, indicates that the directions of this Court were not properly implemented.

However, a close reading of the record does not discloses any