Hyderabad: Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of Telangana High Court reiterated that delay in lodging an FIR without satisfactory explanation casts serious doubt on the credibility of the complaint and leaves room for embellishment or fabrication while quashing criminal proceedings against three accused in a case registered for assault. The judge was dealing with a criminal petition filed by M.V. Ramana. According to the prosecution, the de facto complainant lodged a complaint in April 2021 alleging that her relatives entered her home and allegedly assaulted and threatened her and her family members. The de facto complainant claimed that the incident involved physical assault and misbehaviour. The FIR was lodged more than five months later, in October 2021. The petitioner contended that the complaint was filed as a retaliatory measure, following a complaint filed by the woman against her in-laws under provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner argued that the complainant’s father, being an assistant sub-inspector of police, may have influenced the proceedings. Relying on Supreme Court judgments, the judge noted the absence of medical evidence and independent witnesses, pointing out that most of the prosecution witnesses were family members of the complainant. The judge concluded that the allegations lacked the essential ingredients to sustain charges under the sections of the Indian Penal Code the petitioner was charged with, and that continuing the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the legal process.
HC dismisses PIL on law panel
A two-judge panel of Telangana High Court on Tuesday dismissed a PIL seeking a direction to the state to appoint State Law Commission. The panel comprising acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara was dealing with a PIL filed by party-in-person Chandra Sena Reddy Proddutur, a retired public servant and advocate. The petitioner sought direction to state authorities to arrange for taking some reformative steps to create a Law Commission of Telangana, as it existed earlier. The petitioner argued that it was necessary to study on the existing Acts and Rules for necessary amendments and preparation of new Acts and rules, in place of existing Acts and Rules, on simplified procedure to reduce litigation and promote transparency and accountability. The panel observed that there was no statutory or constitutional provision which requires establishment of Law Commission for the state. In absence of any statutory provision, panel was declined to interfere and dismissed the PIL.
Supply report to accused first: HC
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of Telangana High Court held that acceptance of inquiry report by the disciplinary authority of the State Bank of India before it was supplied to an accused was a violation of the provisions of the Constitution and the established principles of fair hearing. The judge dealt with a writ plea filed by V. Surendra Babu, who joined the erstwhile State Bank of Hyderabad, now State Bank of India in 1983 and was promoted to Middle Management Grade Scale-II in 2007. The petitioner was suspended in March 2010, and penalised with demotion and loss of service benefits following an inquiry that held several charges as proved. The petitioner argued that crucial documents, including the lease agreement and internal reports, were not supplied during the inquiry, and key witnesses, including the landlord and the report author, were not examined, thereby denying him the opportunity to cross-examine or present a complete defense. The petitioner also contended that inquiry report was not supplied before it was accepted by the disciplinary authority. The respondent bank maintained that the inquiry was conducted in accordance with the rules and that the petitioner misused the rent reimbursement policy, causing a loss of `2.27 lakh to the bank. It was contended that the absence of strict evidentiary procedures in departmental inquiries permitted reliance on available documentation and the principle of preponderance of probabilities. However, the judge found merit in the petitioner’s claims, noting that the disciplinary process was flawed due to the failure to provide key documents and the non-examination of crucial witnesses. The judge set aside the disciplinary actions taken against the petitioner for alleged misconduct relating to rent reimbursement and unauthorised borrowings, citing violations of the principles of natural justice and procedural irregularities.
College challenges restricted approval of seats by government
Justice K. Lakshman admitted a writ plea filed by Spectrum Institute of Management and Computer Sciences at Kothapet challenging the decision of the state government and the affiliating University to limit the MBA course intake to only 60 seats, despite a sanctioned strength of 300 seats approved by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). The petitioners contend that this action is arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional. According to the petition, the AICTE granted approval for 300 MBA seats, which was supported by a no objection certificate from the University and a recommendation from the director of technical education. However, the state government granted permission for only 60 seats, and the University granted affiliation only to that extent. The petitioner argues that this action contradicts the decisions of both the Supreme Court and the High Court, which upheld the authority of AICTE in matters of technical education and seat allocation. The petition sought a direction to the state government to notify the entire intake of 300 seats and to include them in the central counselling process. It also sought directions to the University to grant affiliation for all 300 seats and to treat all admissions accordingly as valid and approved for all purposes. The judge posted the case after two weeks for further adjudication.
