1. Contempt case for willful disobedience of stay order in criminal proceedings — Filing of charge sheet despite subsisting stay. (Para 1 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Telangana) 293
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J.
Syed Arshed Ahmed @ Arshad Hashmi - Petitioner
Versus
V.Srinivasa Rao - Respondent
CONTEMPT CASE No.826 of 2025
Decided On : 13-03-2026
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Petitioner Counsel: Yemmiganur Soma Srinath
Respondent Counsel: Md. Abdul Mateen Qureshi
Advocate Appeared:
Petitioner Counsel: Yemmiganur Soma Srinath
Respondent Counsel: Md. Abdul Mateen Qureshi
Contempt of court requires proof of willful and deliberate disobedience with full knowledge of the order. The burden lies on the petitioner to prove effective communication of the order to the respondent; absence of such proof precludes a finding of contempt.
Headnote:(A) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Sections 10 and 12 - Willful disobedience of Court order - To establish contempt, the disobedience of a Court’s order must be willful, deliberate and with full knowledge of the order - Mere non-compliance, in the absence of knowledge or proper communication of the order, would not attract contempt jurisdiction - The burden lies upon the petitioner to establish, by cogent and reliable material, that the respondent had due notice or knowledge of the order and yet consciously chose to violate the same (Para 12).
(B) Communication of Court Orders - Responsibility - The burden of ensuring effective communication of a stay order to the concerned Investigating Officer does not rest solely upon the Office of the Public Prosecutor; it is equally incumbent upon the petitioner to take diligent and proactive steps in that regard (Para 14) - Communication of a judicial order, particularly one granting stay of all further proceedings, is not a mere procedural formality but an essential component of the administration of justice (Para 14).
Facts of the case:
An interim stay was granted against further proceedings in a criminal case. Despite the subsistence of the stay, the respondent proceeded to file a charge sheet, and the trial court subsequently took cognizance of the offences. The petitioner filed a contempt case alleging willful disobedience. The respondent contended that the interim order was not communicated to him by the petitioner or the office of the public prosecutor, and therefore he had no knowledge of the order.
Findings of Court:
No material was placed before the Court to demonstrate that the interim order was effectively communicated to the respondent or that the respondent had actual knowledge of the same prior to filing the charge sheet. There was no proof of service, acknowledgment, or contemporaneous record evidencing that the respondent was made aware of the stay.
Issues: Whether the act of the respondent in filing the charge sheet, notwithstanding the subsistence of the interim stay granted by the Court, amounts to willful and deliberate disobedience so as to constitute contempt.
Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of evidence establishing that the respondent had knowledge of the interim order, the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proving willful and deliberate violation. Since the stay order was not effectively communicated to the Investigating Officer, the filing of the charge sheet cannot be construed as contumacious conduct.
Result: Contempt case closed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- contempt of court
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner alleges deliberate violation of stay order; respondent claims lack of knowledge due to non-communication of order. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Willful disobedience requires knowledge of order; burden on petitioner to prove effective communication to respondent. (Para 10 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 17 )
4. To establish contempt, disobedience must be willful, deliberate and with knowledge of order; effective communication essential. (Para 12 , 13 )
5. Contempt case closed as no willful disobedience established; directions issued for future communication of court orders. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 )
6. What constitutes willful disobedience in contempt proceedings?
Disobedience must be willful, deliberate and with full knowledge of the court order. Mere non-compliance without knowledge does not attract contempt. (Para 12 , 13 )
7. On whom does the burden of proof lie in contempt cases?
The burden lies on the petitioner to establish by cogent material that the respondent had due notice or knowledge of the order and consciously violated it. (Para 12 , 13 )
8. Is effective communication of a court order necessary for contempt?
Yes, effective communication of a judicial order to the authority obligated to act upon it is essential; it is not a mere procedural formality. (Para 14 )
9. What duties do the petitioner and Public Prosecutor have regarding communication of stay orders?
Both must ensure the Investigating Officer is duly apprised of the stay order through appropriate and verifiable modes of communication promptly. (Para 15 , 16 )
ORDER :
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J.
This Contempt Case has been filed by the petitioner to punish the respondent herein for willful disobedience of order, dated 23.01.2025 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in Crl.P.No.247 of 2025 under sections 10 and 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and pass such other order or orders as this Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.
2. Heard Sri N.Gopi Krishna, learned counsel representing Sri Y.Soma Srinath Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Md.Abdul Mateen Qureshi, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record.
3. This Court on 23.01.2025 granted stay order in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in Crl.P.No.247 of 2025, arising out of Crime No.398 of 2024 of Chandrayangutta Police Station, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the criminal petition. Notwithstanding the subsistence of the said stay, the respondent, without adverting to the same, proceeded to file the charge sheet, and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance thereof.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in clear disregard of the order, dated 23.01.2025 passed by this Court, the respondent proceeded to file charge sheet on 29.01.2025 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. Despite having sufficient opportunity, the respondent failed to inform the Trial Court of the subsisting stay order and continued the investigation. Consequently, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 69 , 318(2), and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita on 24.02.2025. It is further submitted that the learned Special Public Prosecutor was present when the stay order was passed and was fully aware of the same. The respondent’s conduct amounts to deliberate and willful disobedience of the order of this Court. Hence, it is prayed that appropriate contempt proceedings be initiated against the respondent.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent had not received any communication pertaining to the interim order dated 23.01.2025 from the office of the Public Prosecutor, as such the respondent was not aware and has no knowledge of the order passed by this Court. He further submits that after passing the interim order by this Court, the petitioner herein had failed to communicate the interim order passed by the Court to the respondent or to the concerned police station, as such the alleged allegation that the respondent has deliberately violated the interim order passed by this Court is inappropriate. He contends that since the order passed by this Court was not effectively communicated to the respondent neither by the petitioner nor by the office of the public prosecutor, he filed the charge sheet.
6. He further submits that burden lies on the petitioner for effective communication of the order and placed reliance on-
1. R.Mallikarjuna V. K.Sanjeeva Reddy , 2025 Supreme (Online) (Tel) 16194, wherein, the Division Bench of this Court held that ‘The burden of proof lies on the petitioner to demonstrate willful disobedience of Court orders; absence of concrete evidence results in dismissal of contempt claims.
2. Ram Chand Verma v. Delhi Development Authority , 1997 0 Supreme (Del) 389, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that ‘BEFORE a proceeding for contempt can succeed, it is of paramount importance to establish first, the service of the order of the Court said to have been disobeyed upon the person alleged to have committed contempt thereof’. ‘It is only when a clear case of contumacious conduct, not explainable otherwise, arises that the contemner must be punished.’ For the said reasons, the contempt proceedings are dropped and notices issued against the respondents are discharged.
3. Mrs.Padmini Sivasubramanian v. Mr.Pankaj Kumar Bansal and 2 others , 2000 0 Supreme (Mad) 802, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in para 13, 14 that
13. I have found that the petitioner has not obtained any acknowledgement for having served the copy of the
