Hyderabad: Refusing to quash a criminal case even before the trial had started, Justice K. Surender of the Telangana High Court said that the courts should not thwart investigation and power should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection, and that too in the rarest of rare cases in quashing criminal prosecution. The judge accordingly dismissed a petition filed by T. Shanker, and another, seeking to quash a criminal case of cheating under the provisions of the Telangana Pawn Brokers Act. Mohd Abdul Rehman, an agriculturist, filed a complaint stating that he initially took a loan of `seven lakh, which he had repaid and had again taken a fresh loan of Rs 35 lakh.
The complainant stated that he had registered his lands on the assurance given by the petitioners that the lands would be re-conveyed on repayment of the loan. Counsel for the petitioner argued that none of the ingredients of either Section 420 of IPC or Section 29 of the Act are made out. The allegation is that the petitioners failed to re-convey the registered land. Having registered the land, since the cost of land had gone up, the complainant resorted to filing a false complaint without any basis.
Dealing with what constitutes cheating, Justice Surender said that to attract an offence of cheating, deception must have been played by the accused, “to attract an offence of cheating, it is necessary that the intention to cheat was from the inception of the transaction. A document was executed by the petitioners stating that the land would be re-conveyed once the loan was repaid. In normal sale transactions, such a document will not be executed. Whether the accused entertained the idea of cheating the de-facto complainant at the time of giving the loan and asked the land to be registered so that he would refuse to re-register at a later date are all questions of fact that can be decided during an investigation. Prima facie it appears that the petitioners have made false promises and got the land registered in their name. There was no necessity to execute another document undertaking to re-register the land after payment of a loan. Apparently, the modus operandi adopted by the petitioners led to a wrongful loss to the second respondent. Believing the version that the land would be re-conveyed, once the loan amount is repaid, it appears that the complainant had registered the land in the name of the petitioners. There are other complaints against the petitioners for adopting a similar modus operandi.”
Since there appears to be a prima facie case of cheating, this court is not inclined to quash the proceedings at this stage of investigation, the judge concluded.
HC raises hopes of sweeper seeking regularisation
Justice J. Anil Kumar of the Telangana High Court came to the rescue of a sweeper seeking regularisation of her services in the office of the state advocate general. The judge allowed a writ plea filed by P. Sharadamma complaining of inaction on the part of the authorities in not regularizing/absorbing the service of the petitioner in the post of fulltime sweeper and also the inaction of the respondents in not paying the petitioner's salary in the time-scale as applicable to the post of whole time sweeper in the last grade service.
The petitioner was appointed on a part-time basis in 1986 and later a proposal was sent to the government in 1996 to regularise her services. The same was accepted by the finance and law departments. However, while accepting the proposal the government failed to add “…to absorb the existing incumbent in the upgraded post was omitted by the Law Department”. Meanwhile, the long communications between the office of the advocate general and the government had resulted in the case of the petitioner being rejected.
Justice Anil Kumar noted that all three chief law officers of the state have unequivocally reiterated the request for up-gradation of the post of part-time sweeper to whole-time sweeper and the name of the petitioner was requested and reiterated a number of times. It is trite to take note of the fact that the proposal for the up-gradation of the said post and regularization as a whole-time sweeper was accepted by the cabinet and the same was approved by the chief minister on a note being put up by the chief secretary. He also took note of the fact that the petitioner was employed from the year 1986 and continues to render service. The petitioner is being denied regularization, in spite of approval being granted by the chief minister and the cabinet had approved the said recommendation. After working for nearly 36 years, the sweeper finds solace in the light of the court’s direction.
The judge said “This court is of the view that this is a fit and deserving case, where directions can be issued to the respondents for the relief sought by the petitioner in the writ petition.”
