Hyderabad: Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court reiterated that criminal proceedings should not be pursued in cases where allegations are vague, baseless, or driven by personal vendettas. The judge while quashing the criminal proceedings against an accused in a case filed under various sections of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Indian Penal Code emphasised that generalised allegations in matrimonial disputes should be scrutinized carefully to avoid misuse of the legal process. The criminal plea is filed by a man, wherein a case was initially lodged by his wife, the de facto complainant, alleging physical and mental harassment related to dowry demands and threats. The marriage between the petitioner and the complainant took place in March 2019, with dowry exchanged at the time. After a brief period of marital happiness, tensions arose, and the complainant accused her husband and his family of demanding additional dowry. She alleged that she was physically and mentally tortured, with threats of death and the possibility of her husband marrying again. However, the petitioner argued that the allegations were vague and lacked specific details to constitute criminal offences. He further contended that the complaint was retaliatory, filed after he sought a divorce and sent a legal notice to his wife. The petitioner maintained that the complaint failed to provide concrete evidence or specify instances of harassment, and the allegations appeared to be aimed at settling personal scores. The state prosecutor insisted that the matter should be examined in a full trial, contending that the allegations warranted investigation. Despite this, the court considered the nature of the case and highlighted that the complaint lacked specific instances or details, such as dates or locations of alleged harassment, which would typically be expected in such accusations.
IAS official spared of contempt
The Telangana High Court closed a contempt case against principal secretary N. Sridhar and senior officials of the school education department for their alleged prolonged failure to comply with a court order directing the appointment of D. Sudarshana Bai as a Hindi Pandit Grade-II under the DSC-2002 notification. The panel comprising Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili and Justice Pulla Karthik was dealing with a contempt case filed by D. Sudarshana Bai. The matter relates to the claim of petitioner for appointment as a Hindi Pandit Grade-II under the DSC-2002 notification. The controversy centred around the validity of the petitioner’s Hindi qualification certificate issued by Hindi Prachar Sabha, Biloli Centre, Maharashtra, which the authorities had declined to recognise. Despite multiple rounds of litigation since 2003 — culminating in a favourable order from the AP Administrative Tribunal, subsequently upheld by the High Court, the petitioner alleged that the government failed to implement the directive. The panel noted that the order of the tribunal, which was not challenged, attained finality and clearly directed the petitioner’s appointment. However, the school education department’s failure to act on it led to the initiation of contempt proceedings. During the hearing, the state authorities submitted that the court’s orders had since been complied with and that the petitioner had been appointed. Recording this submission, the bench closed the contempt case.
Bailiff’s pension to be processed
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court directed the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mahbubnagar, to make appropriate entries in the service register/record of a retired bailiff and directed the authorities to process the pension papers of the petitioner. The petitioner, K.G. Prakasa Charya, who was working as a bailiff when he was issued a showcause notice for alleged irregularities in executing a warrant of attachment. He was subsequently placed under suspension, leading to disciplinary proceedings. In April 1995, Charya was terminated from service. The High Court later set aside the termination order. In its earlier ruling, the High Court noted that “We make it clear that the petitioner will be reinstated in service with continuity of service only. The petitioner shall be reinstated into service within two weeks from today. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part.” Despite the petitioner retiring in 2011, his pension papers were not processed, and his representations to the Junior Civil Judge were rejected. The panel comprising Justice Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda noted that despite the specific direction of the High Court, the authorities failed to process the petitioner’s pension papers. The panel remarked that this inaction amounted to a “gross violation of the order passed by this court.” Referring to Rule 25 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, Justice Sam Koshy, speaking for the bench, emphasized that the relevant rule regarding continuity of service and reinstatement states that the period in question shall not count as qualifying service unless it is regularized as duty or leave by a specific order from the authority that issued the reinstatement. “When the order of this Court is very specific on this aspect,” the bench observed, “the return of the pension papers by the Accountant General appears, on the face of it, to be illegal. Consequently, the order of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mahbubnagar in not treating the petitioner’s service as ‘in service’ can also be termed illegal.”
Writ against job for Seetha Dayakar Reddy
Justice Pulla Karthik of the Telangana High Court ordered notice in a writ plea challenging the appointment of K. Seetha Dayakar Reddy as the chairperson of the Telangana State Commission for Protection of Child Rights (TSCPCR). The judge is dealing with a writ petition filed by Chinta Krishna, chairperson of the Child Welfare Committee. The petitioner sought a writ of quo warranto, questioning the authority under which Seetha Dayakar Reddy is holding the post. The petition also prayed for setting aside GO Rt. No. 45 dated 03.04.2025, issued by the department for women, children, disabled and senior citizens, insofar as it related to the appointment, citing violations of the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 and principles of constitutional governance. Krishna contended that the appointment was made without due compliance with statutory norms, including transparency, eligibility criteria, and the proper selection procedure mandated by law. Taking cognisance of the matter, the court issued notice before admission to the government and Seetha Dayakar Reddy, directing them to file their counters. The matter is posted for further adjudication.
