logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 1132 print Preview print Next print
Court : Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Case No : CONT. P. (MD) No. 1663 of 2025 In CRL. O.P. (MD)No. 18009 of 2024
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. MURALI SHANKAR
Parties : Savithiri Versus Paulraj & Another
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: K. Prabhu, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, A. Balaji, R2, S. Viljoen Ajit, Advocates.
Date of Judgment : 08-01-2026
Head Note :-
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 11 -
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

2. Catch Words:
- contempt
- willful disobedience
- apology
- investigation
- protest petition

3. Summary:
The petition under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act seeks to punish respondents for allegedly flouting the Court’s order dated 21‑10‑2024 directing the police to complete investigation and file a final report within one month. The respondents filed counter‑affidavits, tendered an unconditional apology for the delay, and argued that the complaint was false. The Court noted that the final report was filed only on 19‑09‑2025, well beyond the stipulated period. Despite the petitioner's protest petition pending before the jurisdictional Court, the Court accepted the respondents’ apology. Consequently, the contempt petition was closed, leaving the protest petition to proceed independently.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the contemnors / respondents for the willful disobedience of the order dated 21.10.2024 passed in Crl.O.P.(MD)No. 18009 of 2024 by this Court.)

1. The Contempt Petition has been filed to punish the respondents for their wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P. (MD)No.18009 of 2024 dated 21.10.2024.

2. When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the respondents are present. Counter affidavits of the respondents filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

4. It is seen from the records that this Court vide order dated 21.10.2024, taking note of the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) that it was a job racketing case and that they have examined 5 witnesses and investigation was pending, directed the respondent police to complete the investigation and file a final report before the jurisdictional Court within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Since the said direction was not complied with, the petitioner, after sending contempt notice, filed the present contempt petition.

5. The learned counsels appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that since the petitioner has not produced any evidence and after investigation, they have come to a decision that it is a false complaint and filed a negative final report.

6. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, though FIR was registered as early as on 01.03.2022, since the respondent police has not taken any action, she was constrained to approach this Court and even after this Court passed order on 21.10.2024, they remained silent and filed the final report only on 19.09.2025.

7. It is not in dispute that after filing of the negative final report before the concerned Court, the petitioner entered into appearance and filed a protest petition and is pending for enquiry before the jurisdictional Court.

8. The respondents, in their counter affidavits, tendered unconditional apology for not filing the final report as stipulated by this Court.

9. Recording the unconditional apology tendered by the respondents, this Court is inclined to close the contempt petition. Accordingly, this Contempt Petition stands closed. The petitioner is at liberty to proceed with the protest petition pending before the jurisdictional Court.
 
  CDJLawJournal