THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CONTEMPT CASE No.402 of 2011 ORDER: This petition is filed stating that the respondent by name K.Vijay Dut had flouted the orders, dated 16.06.2010, passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.5053 of 2010. The brief facts are that on the basis of a report given by the petitioner herein by name M.Raja Manohar, Son of M.Sankara Rao, a case in Crime No.13 of 2009 on the file of Indrakaran Police Station, Medak District was registered. A final report was filed by the said Police before the Magistrate on 05.06.2009 stating that no cognizable offence has been made out due to “lack of evidence”. The petitioner herein filed a protest petition with regard to the said final report. In the light of the said protest petition, the Court below having considered the matter once again, took cognizance and numbered it as P.R.C.No.108 of 2009, as the said offence has to be tried exclusively by the Court of Sessions. At that juncture, the respondent herein-accused approached this Court and filed Criminal Petition No.5053 of 2010 seeking to quash the proceedings in the said P.R.C. This Court having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner therein granted interim stay including appearance of the petitioner therein for a period of four weeks, provided the matter was not yet committed to the Court of Sessions. Now, the grievance of the petitioner herein-complainant is that though the interim stay was granted for a limited period of four weeks and the same was not extended, the respondent herein-accused is not appearing before the Court below. As the said absence of the respondent-accused before the Court below is illegal, the present Contempt Case is filed stating that he committed contempt of the orders of this Court. Heard the petitioner-party-in-person and the learned counsel for the respondent. Having heard the petitioner, who is a party-in-person, and the learned counsel for the respondent, this Court is of the view that it cannot be said there is any contempt on the part of the respondent herein-accused. If at all it is a fact that the interim order granted by this Court is for a limited period and the same is not extended, the petitioner can as well bring the said fact to the notice of the trial Court, upon which, the learned Magistrate shall take appropriate action. Simply for the reason that the interim order, dated 16.06.2010, granted by this Court in Criminal Petition No.5053 of 2010, which was filed by the respondent herein, was not extended, it cannot be said that the respondent herein committed contempt of the Court and hence, this Contempt Case is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the Contempt Case is dismissed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 06th April 2011 DR