IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CONTEMPT CASE No.36 of 2010 Between: Shazia Khan .. Petitioner AND Sirajuddin Q utubuddin & 4 others .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CONTEMPT CASE No.36 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Smt. K. Sesharajyam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mohd. Ghulam Hussain, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3. Respondents 4 and 5 are stated to be not necessary parties to the contempt and the first respondent did not enter appearance as the attempts to serve notices on him in this petition were not successful so far. 2. Crl.P.No.7909 of 2008, pending on the file of this Court, is to quash all further proceedings against the accused in C.C.No.1010 of 2007, on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad. In that Criminal Petition, the present petitioner filed Crl.P.M.P.No.7760 of 2009 in which an order was passed on 25.09.2009 in the presence of the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents 1 to 3 recording the statement of the then learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 that they were not proposing to leave Hyderabad to any other country at present and that respondents 1 to 3 instructed the counsel that they will stay at Hyderabad till the next date of hearing. Accordingly, the Court passed an order directing the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 to instruct respondents 1 to 3 not to leave Hyderabad until further orders of this Court in this miscellaneous petition. 3. The complaint in the contempt case is that subsequently, the petitioner came to know that respondents 1 to 3 left India in violation of the orders of this Court, dated 25.09.2009, after taking back their passports from the Court of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad, on the same day on 25.09.2009. 4. Respondents 2 and 3, in their counter affidavit filed through the third respondent narrating the background of the litigation, claimed that they have no knowledge about Crl.P.M.P.No.7760 of 2009 or the representation made by their counsel on 25.09.2009. They admitted that they had been on a visit to United Kingdom between 02.04.2010 and 23.06.2010. While reiterating their respect for the orders of the Court, the third respondent also stated that they are tendering their unconditional apology for any unintended violation of the orders of the Court about which they have no knowledge. 5. When respondents 1 to 3 were represented by a counsel before this Court and that counsel had stated with all responsibility and on instructions about what respondents 1 to 3 had undertaken, it does not lie in the mouth of respondents 2 and 3 to contend that they were unaware of the Crl.P.M.P.No.7760 of 2009 or the proceedings therein or the orders passed therein. Be that as it may, the trip to the United Kingdom by respondents 2 and 3, stated in the counter affidavit of the third respondent, appeared to be subsequent to the filing of the contempt petition and there is also no definite material to show the violation of the orders before the filing of the contempt petition by respondents 2 and 3. While the unconditional apology offered by respondents 2 and 3 in this regard can be considered for acceptance, to avoid the complications or difficulties apprehended by the petitioner, respondents 2 and 3 can be directed to surrender their passports again before the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad, before whom C.C.No.1010 of 2007 is pending subject to any further direction that may be passed in Crl.P.No.7909 of 2008 or C.C.No.1010 of 2007. If there is any necessity, in the meanwhile, for having return of the passports, respondents 2 and 3 can always approach the High Court during the pendency of Crl.P.No.7909 of 2008 and thereafter the trial Court for return of the passports. 6. As the whereabouts of the first respondent are also not known and do not appear to be capable of being traced, this petition for taking action for contempt against the first respondent can also be closed for the present with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to any appropriate remedy available to her under law in the event of her being able to trace him. 7. Accordingly, the unconditional apology offered by respondents 2 and 3 is accepted and respondents 2 and 3 are directed to surrender their passports before the Court of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad, before whom C.C.No.1010 of 2007 is pending subject to any further direction that may be passed in Crl.P.No.7909 of 2008, pending on the file of this Court. The contempt petition against the first respondent also is closed with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to any appropriate remedies available to her against the first respondent under law in the event of her being able to trace his whereabouts. Respondents 2 and 3 are at liberty to apply to the High Court during the pendency of Crl.P.No.7909 of 2008 or to the trial Court thereafter for any return of the passports in the event of any necessity which requests require to be decided on their own merits. Respondents 2 and 3 are granted 15 days time to surrender their passports before the trial Court. 8. In the result, the Contempt Case is closed. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 7th April, 2011 Note: Issue C.C. by two days. (B/o.) KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CONTEMPT CASE No.36 of 2010 Date: 7th April, 2011 KL