Telangana HC to Decide on Recovery of Ex-Bank Staff Commuted Pension

Contempt case dismissed with costs

Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti dismissed with costs a contempt case against principal secretary Rajeev Trivedi, IAS; K. Ramakrishna Rao, IAS; Mahesh Bhagawath, IPS; and Ravirala, IPS. The judge was dealing with a contempt case arising out of a writ plea filed by Shaik Janimiya. The court through its earlier order had directed to consider payment of salary to the petitioner which was due to him, by taking into consideration the service certificate dated 01.08.2017, within a period of four weeks. The additional advocate general invited the attention of the Court to proceedings issued by the Superintendent of Police and submitted that pursuant to orders of the learned single judge, the concerned authority had taken a decision and communicated the same to the contempt petitioner. Hence, there cannot be any contempt, as canvassed by counsel. According to the official, though the proceedings were issued in August 2018 and were received by the writ petitioner, he held back the information and was thus guilty of approaching the court with unclean hands. The court recorded the finding that the authorities produced the document at the earliest point of time and that the petitioner had affixed signature on the said document. On further questioning, the petitioner contended it was an inadvertent mistake on the part of the petitioner to have filed the contempt case. “This court is inclined to hold that the contempt petitioner, by withholding the vital document and by filing the contempt case, tried to gain an advantage on the strength of the pleadings made in the contempt affidavit. The contempt petitioner successfully consumed the court’s valuable time by playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the firm view that the very filing of the contempt case amounts to gross abuse of process of law,” Justice Anil Kumar said. Accordingly, the judge imposed the cost of ₹5,000 on the petitioner to be paid to the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund.

Criminal case in family dispute quashed

Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court ruled that when the allegations fail to meet the threshold for a cognisable offence or are intrinsically rooted in a civil dispute, continuing criminal proceedings would constitute an abuse of process, and accordingly quashed the criminal proceedings against six family members accused of conspiracy, forgery, and cheating in connection with a property dispute involving close relatives. The criminal plea was filed by Lingala Venkatesh Goud and five others, seeking to quash proceedings pending before the XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri. The dispute originated from a complaint filed on July 1, 2020, by a woman who alleged that her brother, along with other family members, conspired to usurp a 200-square-yard property in Bahadurpalli that legally belonged to her children. She claimed the accused fabricated an agreement of sale by forging the signatures of her and her husband and used the forged document to obtain an injunction in a civil court. When the complainant confronted them, she alleged that the family members abused and assaulted her, prompting her to file the criminal complaint. Counsel for the petitioners argued that the case was a civil dispute between family members and did not warrant criminal prosecution. It was emphasised that the subject property was not in the name of the complainant or her husband, but in the names of their adult children, which made the legality of the sale agreement questionable. The petitioners contended that the FIR and charge sheet lacked specific allegations and failed to disclose the necessary ingredients of the alleged offences under the IPC. The judge, after examining the case record and arguments from both sides, found several lapses in the investigation, including the failure to record statements from witnesses to the disputed sale agreement. It was noted that out of the nine witnesses listed, four were the complainant and her family members, and the remaining five were either panch or official witnesses — none of whom were direct, independent witnesses to the alleged crimes. The judge also noted that no specific details were provided regarding the alleged abuse or assault, and there was no allegation of common intention among all the accused. It was observed that the complainant and the petitioner, being siblings with a history of family disputes, may have resorted to criminal litigation to settle personal scores.