1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

C.C.C. No.1830/2019 (CIVIL)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI.MUNIKRISHNA S/O VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

2. SRI.VENKATESH S/O VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

3. SRI.DODDA HANUMA S/O VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

4. SMT.LAKSHMAMMA W/O DODDA HANUMA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

ALL ARE PRESENTLY LODGED AT CENTRAL PRISON, PARAPPANA AGRAHARA, CONVICTED ENCLOSURE, BENGALURU. ... COMPLAINANTS (BY SRI.MURTHY.K, ADV.)

AND:

SRI.VENKAT @ C.VENKATESH S/O A.CHINNASWAMY, HINDU AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 2

R/AT No.57, GOVINDAREDDY LAYOUT, NEAR GANESHA TEMPLE, AEKERE, MICO LAYOUT, BANNERUGHATTA ROAD, SOUTH – 562 157.

ALSO AT KARNATAKA FILM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, No.28, 1 ST MAIN, CRESCENT ROAD, NEAR SHIVANANDA CIRCLE, HIGH GROUND, BENGALURU – 560 001. ... ACCUSED

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF AND SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AND TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCE COMMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED IN VIOLATING THE ORDER AT ANNEXURE – A PASSED IN M.F.A No.4648/2016 DATED 30.01.2017 AND TO PUNISH THE ACCUSED FOR HAVING COMMITTING CLEAR CONTEMPT OF THIS HON’BLE COURT.

THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ARAVIND KUMAR J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Heard Sri.K.Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the complainant. Perused the records.

2. Registry has raised objections with regard to limitation on the ground that order passed which is alleged to have been willfully disobeyed is dated 3

30.01.2017 and the present contempt proceedings has been initiated on 14.11.2019 i.e., after period of one year and as such, it is not maintainable.

However, learned counsel appearing for complainant states that complainants were in judicial custody and were not aware as to when the movie “Dandupalya 3” was released and it came to their knowledge about the violation of the order only after release of film

Dandupalya. Hence, it is contended that proceedings initiated is within time. According to complainants, complainants are undergoing imprisonment by virtue of order of sentence and conviction and as such they have sought for delay being condoned. However, contention with regard to there being no delay cannot be accepted since reason assigned is not susceptible to acceptance as it is not within proximity of truth, inasmuch as complainants have not stated as to how violation of order dated 30.01.2017 of learned Single

Judge was brought to their knowledge.

4

3. Even otherwise when complaint is examined on merits it deserves to be rejected at the threshold for the reason that against the order of rejection dated 17.06.2016 their application filed for temporary injunction sought for by them in

O.S.No.3223/2016 to restrain the respondents/ defendants therein from producing, directing, screening and releasing the movie ‘Dandupalya-2’ in

Kannada and , appeal came to be filed in MFA No.4684/2016 and in said appeal respondent No.1 therein namely sole respondent in this proceedings filed an affidavit declaring that he has only produced movie titled ‘2’ TWO and not ‘Dandupalya-2’ as claimed by the appellants. He has also further stated that he would not use the names of the under- trials of Dandupalya who are the appellants in MFA 4684/2016 in the movie titled as

‘2’ TWO and it is this undertaking which is alleged to have been willfully disobeyed by relying upon the paper publication Annexure – E in which it is stated that a press release has been issued by the producers 5

of the movie titled ‘Dandupalyam-4’. Thus, the undertaking which was furnished by the respondent was relating to movie titled as ‘Dandupalya-2’ and not

‘Dandupalyam-4’. As such, there cannot be disobedience of the undertaking much less willful disobedience. Though, learned counsel Sri.K.Murthy has vehemently contended that words ‘Dandupalya’ itself ought not to have been used by the respondent, we are not inclined to accept the same for the simple reason that there was no such undertaking given by the respondent undertaking that he would not use the words ‘Dandupalya’ in his movies. Thus, even on merits, the petition lacks and as such contempt proceedings stands rejected.

SD/- JUDGE

SD/- JUDGE

UN