Telangana High Court
Arumalla Venugopala Reddy, Guntur Dist … vs Prl Secy, Home, Law And Legal Affairs, … on 2 April, 2026
Author: N.Tukaramji
Bench: N.Tukaramji
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION No. 23320 OF 2016
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 2nd 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
NTR,J
W.P. No. 23320 of 2016
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
3
NTR,J
W.P. No. 23320 of 2016
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
4
NTR,J
W.P. No. 23320 of 2016
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 his jurisdiction. It is argued that a subordinate Court, under
Section 15(2) of the Act, is only empowered to initiate proceedings and
make a reference to the High Court upon being satisfied that a prima
facie case of contempt exists, but it has no authority to adjudicate upon or
conclusively determine the guilt of contempt.
4.4. It is also urged that the entire procedure adopted is in violation of
the principles of natural justice, particularly the rule of audi alteram
partem, as no prior notice or hearing was afforded before recording a
finding of contempt. Such action gives rise to a reasonable apprehension
of bias and lack of procedural fairness.
4.5. Additionally, the petitioners dispute the factual basis of the
allegations, asserting that they never made any false statement on
5
NTR,J
W.P. No. 23320 of 2016
25.08.2014 nor undertook to produce PW-1 on 02.09.2014, and that
summons were not duly served on PW-1 as per the Court record. On
these grounds, the petitioners seek quashing of the impugned order
dated 20.01.2016 and the consequential show cause notice
dated 04.02.2016.
Submissions on behalf of Respondents
5.1. Learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 contends that the
present writ petition is not maintainable, as it is directed against a mere
show cause notice, which is procedural in nature and does not give rise to
a cause of action warranting interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
5.2. It is submitted that it is a well-settled principle that a writ petition
ordinarily does not lie against a show cause notice, particularly when no
final adjudication has been made and the proceedings are still at a
preliminary stage. The show cause notice dated 04.02.2016 was issued
only upon the learned Magistrate arriving at a prima facie satisfaction
regarding the alleged facts and cannot be construed as a final
determination of contempt.
6
NTR,J
W.P. No. 23320 of 2016
5.3. The respondents further contend that the petitioners have an
effective opportunity to submit their explanation before the learned
Magistrate and that premature invocation of writ jurisdiction is
unwarranted. It is also submitted that the procedure adopted is in
compliance with Section 15(2) of the Act read with Rule 9(4) of the
Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules governing contempt proceedings.
5.4. It is specifically pointed out that the show cause notice itself
indicates that it was issued to enable the petitioners to respond to the
preliminary findings, thereby demonstrating that an opportunity of hearing
has been afforded. In such circumstances, it is contended that
interference by this Court at this stage would be contrary to settled legal
principles. Accordingly, dismissal of the writ petition is sought.
Rejoinder by Petitioners
6.1. In rejoinder, the petitioners reiterate that the impugned proceedings
are vitiated by patent illegality and procedural impropriety. It is contended
that the order dated 20.01.2016, forming the basis of the proceedings,
was passed without prior notice and without conducting any preliminary
inquiry, thereby violating mandatory procedural safeguards.
7
NTR,J
W.P. No. 23320 of 2016
6.2. It is further submitted that the said order was neither referred to nor
enclosed with the show cause notice, amounting to suppression of
material facts and depriving the petitioners of a fair opportunity of hearing.
The petitioners contend that the learned Magistrate had already formed
an opinion holding them guilty of contempt, rendering the subsequent
proceedings a mere formality and thereby exceeding his jurisdiction under
the Act.
7. I have carefully perused the material on record and considered the
submissions made by the learned counsels.
Consideration by the Court
8. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it is apposite to note the
observations made by the learned Magistrate in the impugned order
dated 20.01.2016. The Magistrate observed that PW-2 had deliberately
misrepresented facts regarding the availability of PW-1 and her alleged
travel abroad, and recorded a finding that such conduct was intentional
and had the effect of misleading the Court and obstructing the due course
of judicial proceedings.
9. In arriving at this conclusion, reliance was placed on Brahma
Prakash Sharma v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 10, wherein it
8
NTR,J
W.P. No. 23320 of 2016
was held that deliberate false statements having a tendency to interfere
with or obstruct the administration of justice may amount to contempt of
Court. Based on this reasoning, the learned Magistrate held that the acts
alleged prima facie fall within Sections 2(b) and 2(c) of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971, and directed issuance of a show cause notice.
10. At the outset, it is well settled that ordinarily a writ petition does not
lie against a mere show cause notice. However, an exception is
recognized where the notice is issued without jurisdiction, in violation of
statutory provisions, or in breach of principles of natural justice.
11. In the present case, a perusal of the impugned order reveals that
the learned Magistrate had already recorded a prima facie finding that the
petitioners committed contempt by making deliberate false
representations, and such finding was arrived at without issuing prior
notice or affording an opportunity of hearing. The subsequent show cause
notice dated 04.02.2016 appears to be merely consequential. This
sequence raises a serious concern that the formation of opinion preceded
the opportunity of explanation, thereby rendering the notice a mere
formality.
9
NTR,J
W.P. No. 23320 of 2016
12. Under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, a
subordinate Court is required to make a reference to the High Court upon
being satisfied that a case of contempt is made out. It does not possess
jurisdiction to adjudicate or conclusively determine contempt. The law is
clear that the power to punish for contempt of subordinate Courts vests
exclusively in the High Court. Further, adherence to principles of natural
justice, particularly audi alteram partem is a foundational requirement, as
emphasized in Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, 1978 INSC 16, wherein
it was held that any procedure affecting personal liberty must be just, fair,
and reasonable.
13. In the present case, the failure to furnish or even refer to the order
dated 20.01.2016 in the show cause notice, coupled with prior recording
of adverse findings, lends credence to the petitioners’ contention that they
were deprived of an effective opportunity to respond. The procedure
adopted thus fails the test that justice must not only be done but must
also appear to be done. While the respondents contend that the
proceedings are at a preliminary stage, such opportunity must be real and
meaningful, not illusory or preceded by a predetermined conclusion.
14. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that
although ordinarily interference at the stage of show cause notice is not
10
NTR,J
W.P. No. 23320 of 2016
warranted, the present case falls within the recognized exceptions, as the
impugned proceedings suffer from procedural irregularity, apparent
predetermination, and non compliance with the statutory scheme under
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
15. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 20.01.2016 and the
consequential show cause notice dated 04.02.2016 are liable to be set
aside and are hereby set aside. However, liberty is granted to the Court
concerned to proceed afresh in accordance with law, strictly adhering to
the prescribed procedure and the principles of natural justice.
16. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order
as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________
N.TUKARAMJI, J
Date: 02.04.2026
svl
[ad_1]
Source link
