- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 18-07-2019 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati in Contempt Appeal No. 45/2018 by which the order passed by the Single Judge in Contempt Case No.1907/2016 was set aside and the appeal preferred by respondent No.1 was allowed. Taking cognizance of the assertions and allegations made in Contempt Case No.1907 of 2016, the Single Judge of the High Court vide order dated 09.12.2016 had passed following directions: "The issue raised in this Contempt Case is whether in spite of an order dt. 19.08.2016 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 27778 of 2016, the 1st petitioner was forcibly taken away by the 2nd respondent herein at 10.30 pm on 29.08.2016. While the petitioners allege that it is the 2nd respondent who was responsible for violating the order passed by this Court, in the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, this allegation is denied. Therefore, the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, City Criminal Court, Nampally, Hyderabad shall inquire into the matter after recording the evidence adduced on behalf of petitioners as well as 2nd respondent within a period of eight (08) weeks from today and submit a report to this Court as to the allegations leveled by petitioners. Post after eight (08) weeks. "
(3.) Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, inquired into the matter and in his report dated 18.04.2017 it was stated as under: "Thus, the Inspector of Police, Bhimavaram Rural PS in his enquiry report submitted to the Superintendent of Police, West Godavari District dt. 5.1.2017 admitted the petitioner no. 1 being the Akiveedu PS on 30.08.2016 and on 31.08.2016 and the petitioner no. 1 and his wife entered into a settlement deed and the petitioner no. 1 agreed to pay Rs. 9 lakhs to his wife. But, the respondent no. 2 denied the same and stated that there was no necessity for him to bring PW1 to the PS, when the case was withdrawn by Razia Sultana on 24.08.2016 itself. If the case was withdrawn by Razia Sultana on 24.08.2016 itself as contended by the respondent no. 2 there was no necessity for both the parties to settle the matter in the PS by executing Ex. P1. The documents exhibited by the petitioners would support the contention of the petitioners the PW1 was forcibly brought to Akiveedu PS and got signed on Ex. P1 against his will. The copy of the release deed given to PW1 would also prove that he was taken by the Akiveedu Police and released on 31.08.2016. The said document would disclose that he was called for counseling to the police station in relation to the complaint given by the wife of PW1. No notice was issued to the petitioner no. 1 under Section 41- A Cr.P.C asking him to attend the counseling by respondent no. 2. Without issuing any notice to the petitioner no. 1 taking him to Akiveedu Police Station in the name of counseling, detaining him on 30.08.2016 and on 31.08.2016 till 11.00 p.m. would prove the contention of the petitioners that the petitioner no. 1 was forcibly taken away by the second respondent in violation of the orders of the Hon 'ble High Court in writ petition no. 27778/2016 dt. 19.08.2016. The respondent no. 2 submitted that he was not available in the Police station and he was on bandobust duty from 12.08.2016 to 28.08.2016. The alleged dates of confinement of PW1 in the PS are on 30.08.2016 and 31.08.2016. The respondent no. 2 had not stated anything about his absence in the PS on the said dates. Hence, the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the petitioners would amply prove the contention of the petitioners that PW1 was forcibly taken away by the second respondent to Akiveedu Police on 29.08.2016 at 10.30 p.m. from Hyderabad and was illegally detained in the PS on 30.08.2016 and on 31.08.2016 till 11.00 p.m. " ;