IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI DATE: 02.04.2026 Between :

Arumalla Venugopala Reddy and another.

… Petitioners AND The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary Home, Law and Legal Affairs, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and three others.

… Respondents.

O R D E R:

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

“…to issue a Writ or Order or direction, more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for records relating to CrI.M.P. No. 3699/2015 in SR No. 3031/2015 pending on the file of the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at LB Nagar, as well as the consequential show-cause notice No. 1/2016 dated 04.02.2016 issued by the 2^nd respondent under the Contempt of Courts Act, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violation of principles of natural justice and for a consequential order to set aside the same and pass such other order or orders…”

2. I have heard Mr. Srinivasa Rao Madiraju learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D. Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Mr. N. V. Anantha Krishna, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

Factual matrix:

3.1. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that Petitioner No. 2 initially lodged a complaint in Crime No. 364 of 2010 before Medipally Police Station against Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and the case was taken on file as C.C. No. 7 of 2011. Subsequently, the case was transferred and renumbered as C.C. No. 202 of 2014 on the file of the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar.

3.2. After a full-fledged trial, the learned Magistrate, by judgment dated 06.04.2015, dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused. Thereafter, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 initiated contempt proceedings under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging that the petitioners had made false statements before the Court regarding the presence of PW-1 (Petitioner No. 2). The learned Magistrate, by order dated 20.01.2016, recorded a finding that the acts complained of amounted to contempt and subsequently issued Show Cause Notice No. 1/2016 dated 04.02.2016 proposing further action under Section 10 of the Act.

3.3. The petitioners contend that they had no knowledge of the order dated 20.01.2016 at the time of issuance of the show cause notice and became aware of it only upon inspection of the Court record. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the initiation and continuation of the contempt proceedings.

Submissions on behalf of Petitioners

4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned proceedings are illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the statutory scheme of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is submitted that the learned Magistrate acted in clear violation of Section 15(2) of the Act by recording a finding of contempt even before issuance of the show cause notice and without affording the petitioners an opportunity to submit their explanation, thereby defeating the very purpose of the statutory procedure.

4.2. It is further contended that no preliminary inquiry was conducted prior to the formation of such opinion and that the issuance of the show cause notice was reduced to a mere empty formality, as the conclusion had already been predetermined. The petitioners assert that the impugned order dated 20.01.2016, which forms the very basis of the proceedings, was neither referred to nor furnished along with the show cause notice dated 04.02.2016, thereby depriving them of a meaningful opportunity to understand and respond to the allegations.

4.3. The petitioners further contend that the learned Magistrate exceeded