Hyderabad: Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the High Court of Telangana reiterated that the delay of the FIR was delayed without a satisfactory explanation, which created serious doubts about the credibility of the complaint and left room for fixed or fabricated while revoking the criminal proceedings in registered criminal cases. The judge is dealing with a criminal petition filed by MV Ramana. According to the prosecution, in fact, the complainant filed a complaint in April 2021, accusing her relatives of entering her home, allegedly attacking and threatening her and her family. In fact, the complainant claimed that the incident involved physical assault and misconduct. Five months later, in October 2021, FIR was proposed. The petitioner argued that the woman filed a complaint against her in-laws against her parents-in-law under the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and filed the complaint as a retaliation measure. The petitioner argued that the complainant’s father was an assistant deputy inspector of the police and may have affected the proceedings. The judge relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment, pointing out the lack of medical evidence and independent witnesses, and noting that most of the witnesses indicted are family members of the complainant. The judge concluded that the allegations lacked the essential elements to partially uphold the allegations under the Indian Penal Code alleged by the petitioner and that continuing the lawsuit would constitute a lawsuit for abuse of legal proceedings.
HC rejects PIL legal panel
The two-term judges panel of the Telangana Superior Court on Tuesday dismissed a PIL seeking instructions to direct the state law committee. A group composed of Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara are presenting a PIL filed by People’s Party member Chandra Sena Reddy Proddutur (retired civil servants and advocates). The petitioner seeks instructions from the state authorities to arrange for some reform measures to establish the legal committee of Telangana, as stated previously. The petitioner believes that it is necessary to study existing behaviors and rules in place of existing behaviors and rules to create new bills and rules to reduce litigation and promote transparency and accountability. The Panel observed that there was no statutory or constitutional provision and that a legal commission was required for the State. Without any statutory provisions, the panel was denied intervention and the PIL was rejected.
First supply report to the defendant: HC
Judge Nagesh Bheemapaka of the High Court of Telangana ruled that the disciplinary body of the Indian State Bank received an investigation report before it was provided to the defendant, which was contrary to the provisions of the Constitution and the established principles of fair hearings. The judge dealt with a written plea filed by V. Surendra Babu, who joined the former Hyderabad State Bank, now the State Bank of India in 1983 and was promoted to Middle Management II in 2007. The petitioner was suspended in March 2010 and was punished and lost for degradation and service losses due to several investigations of holdings. The petitioner believed that during the investigation, the critical documents, including the lease agreement and internal reports, were not provided, and that the main witnesses, including the landlord and the author of the report, did not conduct the inspection, and therefore refused his opportunity to cross-examination or provide a full defense. The petitioner also argued that the investigation report was not provided before the disciplinary agency accepted it. The defendant bank insisted that the inquiry was conducted according to the rules and that the petitioner abused the rent reimbursement policy, causing a loss of Rs 2.27 lakh. Some believe that there is no strict evidence procedure in departmental inquiries that allows the principle of relying on available documents and probabilistic advantages. However, the judge found worthy values ​​in the petitioner’s claim, noting that the disciplinary process was flawed due to the failure to provide key documents and the lack of review of key witnesses. The judge put aside the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner for suspected misconduct related to rent reimbursement and unauthorized borrowing, citing violations of the principles of natural justice and irregular procedures.
University challenged to limit government seat approval
Justice K. Lakshman admitted that Kothapet’s Spectrum Institute for Management and Computer Science has filed a writ despite the decision of the state government and affiliated universities to limit MBA intake to 60 seats, despite the 300 seats approved by the All India Council for Education (AICTE). The petitioner believes that this action is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. According to the petition, AICTE was approved for a 300 MBA seat, supported by the University’s Non-Objection Certificate and received advice from the Director of Technical Education. However, the state government has only 60 seats licensed, and the university grants affiliation within that scope alone. The petitioner believes that this action contradicts the decision of the Supreme Court and the High Court, which upheld the AICTE’s authority in terms of technical education and seat allocation. The petition seeks instructions from the state government to inform the full intake of 300 seats and include it in the central consultation process. It also seeks instructions to the University to grant affiliation to all 300 seats and to treat all admissions as valid and approved for all purposes. The judge released the case two weeks later for further ruling.
