Telangana HC Refuses to Quash Notice in ₹20-Cr Land Scam

Hyderabad: Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy of the Telangana High Court refused to quash a notice issued to a woman in connection with an alleged ₹20 crore land transaction fraud, observing that investigating agencies were entitled to seek documents relevant to a criminal probe, provided the investigation was conducted in accordance with law and without unnecessary harassment. The writ petition is filed by Bommavaram Sushma challenging a notice issued under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in a case registered by the economic offences wing of the Cyberabad police. She contended that she played no role in the alleged fraud and claimed that police officials coerced her into signing statements and blank papers while pressuring her to depose against one of the accused.

The state opposed the plea, submitting that the notice was issued to obtain the bank account records of the petitioner and other documents required to trace the flow of funds connected with the transaction. It was argued that the petitioner admitted to receiving funds from a real estate entity, making her a material witness in the investigation. The court observed that the investigation into the cognisable offence was underway and that a notice seeking production of relevant documents could not, by itself, be regarded as illegal or violative of fundamental rights. The judge noted that the police possessed the power to collect material relevant to a crime during the course of investigation. The court directed the investigating agency to proceed strictly in accordance with law and without causing unnecessary harassment. The petitioner was directed to cooperate with the investigation and furnish relevant information and documents lawfully sought by the investigating officer.

Court refuses to halt recovery proceedings

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court refused to intervene in recovery proceedings initiated against a secured asset, holding that parties could not bypass the statutory remedy available under the law governing enforcement of secured debts merely by alleging fraud. The panel comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar was hearing a writ petition filed by Tirupathi Sudha Madhuri and another, challenging a possession notice dated June 3, issued by a bank under the Sarfaesi Act for taking possession of the secured property. The petitioners contended that the proceedings were vitiated by fraud.

The court observed that no exceptional circumstances was demonstrated to justify intervention under its writ jurisdiction, particularly when an effective alternative statutory remedy was available under the Sarfaesi framework. The panel noted that a mere allegation of fraud, without proof, could not be a ground for invoking writ jurisdiction. Observing that the petitioners still had time to approach the competent statutory forum, the court dismissed the writ petition along with the connected applications, leaving the parties to pursue remedies available under law.

Conviction upheld in double murder case

The Telangana High Court upheld the conviction of two men in a double murder case, holding that DNA evidence and other incriminating circumstances conclusively established their involvement in the killings of a woman, wife of one of the convicts, and her minor daughter. The panel comprising Justice K. Lakshman and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao was hearing a criminal appeal filed by Begari Ravinder and another challenging the judgment of the Sessions court, Medak district, sentencing them to life imprisonment for the murders of the woman and her minor daughter and for destroying evidence of the crime.

The appellants challenged the judgment on the ground that the case was based solely on circumstantial evidence and that several prosecution witnesses had turned hostile. According to the prosecution, the first accused harboured animosity towards his wife following matrimonial disputes and criminal proceedings initiated by her. After persuading her to resume cohabitation, he, along with the second accused, strangled her to death, burnt the body to conceal the crime, and disposed of the remains. A few days later, the duo killed the minor daughter of the couple and burnt her body to eliminate a potential witness. The panel noted that although several panch and circumstantial witnesses turned hostile during trial, the testimony of the mother and brother of the woman and the recoveries made pursuant to the disclosures made by the accused and the forensic evidence formed a reliable chain pointing exclusively to the guilt of the accused.

Placing significant reliance on DNA profiling, the panel observed that skeletal remains recovered during the investigation matched the biological profile of the mother of the deceased woman thereby scientifically establishing the identity of the victim. The court found that the accused failed to offer any plausible explanation regarding the disappearance of the woman and child. Finding no illegality, perversity or misappreciation of evidence in the trial court judgment, the High Court confirmed the convictions and sentences. It also directed the second accused, who was on bail during the pendency of the appeal, to surrender before the Sessions Court within one month to undergo the remaining sentence.