Cheque Fully Paid Before First Hearing, No Case: HC
The petitioner contended that he paid had the amount after receipt of the statutory notice and before the first date of hearing.
Hyderabad: Justice Tirumala Devi of the Telangana High Court ruled that a person who pays up the cheque amount before the first date of hearing is entitled for the criminal case to be closed under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The judge was dealing with a criminal petition relating to the issuance cheques valued at around ₹98 lakh. The petitioner contended that he paid had the amount after receipt of the statutory notice and before the first date of hearing.
He pointed out that in spite of paying the amount the respondent who was the recipient of the cheque, and the recipient of the amount after the issuance of the statutory notice, prolonged the matter by proceeding with the criminal case. Justice Tirumala Devi allowed the quash proceedings and ruled that the moment the cheque amount was paid at the beginning, and at the threshold of the criminal prosecution, no cause survived and the case warranted to be quashed. Deepak Misra, counsel for the petitioner, argued that the Supreme Court in catena of judgments had laid down guideline regarding compounding of offences under Section 138 of Act and the petitioner/ accused was entitled for benefit of the same. He said continuation of proceedings is abuse of the process of law. Pasham Mohit, counsel for the respondent, pointed out that the moment the cheque had bounced, his client had a vested interest in prosecuting the accused. Disagreeing with the view, the criminal case was closed.
PG medical aspirant loses case
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court refused to permit provisional participation for a PG medical seat aspirant in the ongoing counselling process. The panel comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin was dealing with a plea filed by the aspirant who moved court alleging that certain PG medical seats remained unfilled and that the issue of further reduction of the qualifying percentile was currently pending before the Supreme Court of India. Apprehending that the imminent closure of the counselling window would irreversibly prejudice his prospects, he contended that a failure to permit provisional participation at this stage would render any favourable order of the apex court wholly nugatory.
The additional advocate-general contended that the matter was not an isolated grievance and that several similarly placed candidates could seek identical relief, and granting interim protection in one case could lead to a spate of similar petitions. After hearing the arguments, the panel noted that as of date, even after an earlier reduction in percentile, the petitioner belonging to the open category did not meet the qualifying cut-off. The panel observed that relief could be founded on a speculative future outcome. The panel adjourned the matter for two weeks, observing that leaving seats unfilled would serve no useful purpose, particularly when the issue was pending consideration before the apex court.
Order to include road set aside
Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty of the Telangana High Court set aside a 2018 communication issued by the District Town and Country Planning Officer, Mancherial, directing landowners to halt development works and revise their layout proposal to accommodate a proposed 200-foot-wide master plan road. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by Gone Satish Rao and others challenging the letter issued by officer which instructed the Vempally gram panchayat to insist that the petitioners stop development at the property and submit a revised layout showing the proposed master plan road passing through their land.
Shyam S. Agarwal, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the issue was covered by an earlier order of the High Court, which held that if land was required for road widening, it must be acquired strictly in accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. If the land was not acquired, authorities could not withhold permissions merely on the basis of a proposed master plan road. The judge was informed that a division bench affirmed the earlier order and directed the authorities to grant building permission while reserving liberty to initiate acquisition proceedings in accordance with law, whenever required. Justice Alishetty accordingly set aside the 2018 letter issued by the DTCP, Mancherial, and directed the respondent authorities to issue final layout approval for the subject property pursuant to the tentative layout approval, without insisting on submission of a revised proposal showing the proposed 200-foot-wide road.