1. 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. 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 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 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 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.

               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.

               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 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.

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 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.