HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No. 915 of 2009 Date 26.07.2010 Between: Smt Madhu Agarwal. ..... PETITIONERS AND Sri P.Srinivas. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: None appeared Counsel for the Respondent: Assistant G.P. for Home The Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No. 915 of 2010 ORDER: This Contempt Case is filed alleging wilful disobedience of the order dated 26.03.2010 in W.P.No.5163 of 2010. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner both in the forenoon and in the afternoon. I have heard Sri P. Srinivas, the contemnor herein, who is the Sub-Inspector of the Madannapet Police Station, and the Investigation Officer is personally present. The petitioner filed W.P.No.5163 of 2010 for a mandamus to declare the inaction of the Station House Officer in investigating Crime No.160 of 2009 in pursuance of the directions given by the Court of the VII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, as illegal. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by order dated 26.03.2010, wherein the Station House Officer was directed to visit the petitioner’s place, collect the evidence made available by her by giving an advance notice, complete the investigation and file appropriate final report/chargesheet before the jurisdictional Magistrate within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Alleging that the respondent, who is the Investigating Officer (wrongly described as Station House Officer), has disobeyed this order, the petitioner filed the present contempt case. In support of the petitioner’s contention that the respondent has wilfully violated the order passed in W.P.No.5163 of 2010, she relied on notices dated 23.03.2010 and 17.04.2010, wherein the respondent has directed the petitioner to come to the police station for the purpose of investigation. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it is inter alia stated that a copy of the order dated 26.03.2010 passed in W.P.No.5163 of 2010 was received by him on 29.04.2010 and that in due obedience to the directions of this Court, he has visited the petitioner’s house and had recorded her detailed statement. He has further stated that the respondent failed to produce the cited witnesses for recording their statements and failed to evince any interest in producing documentary evidence to prove the allegations in the complaint. It is further stated that after completion of the investigation, the respondent has filed the final report dated 14.05.2010 in the Court of the VII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted that as the counsel for the petitioner was not available for service, counter affidavit could not be served on her. As the learned counsel for the petitioner has not controverted any of the averments contained in the counter affidavit, I am of the opinion that by issuing notices dated 23.03.2010 and 17.04.2010, the respondent has not violated the orders of this Court. As this Court has passed the order on 26.03.2010, notice dated 23.03.2010 cannot be said to be in violation of the said order. As regards notice dated 17.04.2010, in the light of the stand taken by the respondent that he has received the order of this Court only on 29.04.2010, he could not comply with the said order. For the above mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in this contempt case and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, C.A.No. 581 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:26.07.2010 usd