According to the prosecution, the de facto complainant, a postgraduate student, alleged that the petitioner, under the promise of marriage after divorcing his wife, induced her into a sexual relationship while they lived together.
Hyderabad: Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court quashed proceedings against an assistant professor in a criminal case alleging rape, cheating and criminal intimidation, holding that the relationship between the complainant and the accused appeared to be consensual and that the allegations did not warrant continuation of trial. The judge was hearing a criminal petition filed by T. Ranjith Thankappan. According to the prosecution, the de facto complainant, a postgraduate student, alleged that the petitioner, under the promise of marriage after divorcing his wife, induced her into a sexual relationship while they lived together. She alleged that the petitioner later reneged on his promise and forced her out of the house. The petitioner contended that the relationship was consensual and that there was an unexplained delay in filing the complaint. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the complainant had a pattern of making similar allegations, pointing to an earlier case she had filed against another individual, which was quashed by the Supreme Court. Relying on the apex court’s judgment, counsel for the petitioner contended that even if the allegations were accepted in their entirety, they would not amount to rape. Taking note of the prior live-in relationship, the unexplained delay in filing the FIR, and the absence of specific material indicating that the promise of marriage was made with mala fide intent, the judge concluded that continuation of trial would amount to abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the judge quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
It’s forest land: HC spikes farmers plea
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ plea filed by a group of landless farmers challenging the cancellation of their land assignments as the land belonged to the forest department and was wrongly assigned by the revenue department. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Kokerakalla Amrutha and 13 others challenging the proceedings issued by the revenue divisional officer (RDO) cancelling the assignment of 15 acres and two guntas of agricultural land in of Bhuttapur. The petitioners, belonging to backward and scheduled communities, contended they were assigned the land in 1999 after being found eligible by the tahsildar, Kadam mandal, Adilabad district, and since then brought it under cultivation. They claimed they were issued passbooks and title deeds and were under the bona fide belief that the earlier cancellation proceedings initiated in 2000 were dropped. The forest department earlier informed the revenue authorities that the assigned land was part of notified forest land under Section 4 of the AP Forest Act, 1967. A joint inspection in 2000 confirmed this, leading to the recommendation for cancellation in 2001. Notices were issued to the petitioners in 2002 and again in 2009 before the RDO passed the cancellation order on November 13, 2009. The petitioners argued that the cancellation violated principles of natural justice as they were not given a fair hearing. The judge found no merit in this contention. The judge observed that due notice was served and the joint collector, Adilabad district, explained that petitioners even refused to accept notices, necessitating their affixation on residences. While upholding the legality of the cancellation, the judge noted that the respondent failed to consider the socio-economic impact of the cancellation on the petitioners, who were eligible assignees. The judge observed that although the cancellation rectified the earlier illegality by the revenue department, the authorities had a duty to ensure the livelihood of the affected assignees. The judge directed the respondent to consider the petitioners’ eligibility for fresh assignment of similar extents of land in Bhuttapur or nearby villages and pass appropriate orders.
HC to hear case on PwD quota
Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea filed by a government employee challenging the non-enhancement of reservation in promotions for persons with disabilities from three to four per cent and the non-interchangeability of unfilled posts among disability categories. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by G. Malla Reddy, senior assistant working in the District TB Control Office, Hanamkonda, who contended that despite clear directions in office memorandas issued by the Centre’s department of personnel and training (DoPT), the respondent authorities failed to implement the enhanced 4 per cent reservation in promotions for persons with disabilities. He alleged that unfilled vacancies among the four categories of disabilities were not being interchanged as mandated by the OMs and judgments of the Supreme Court. The petitioner contended that such non-implementation was arbitrary, violative of the Constitution, and sought directions to extend the reservation with retrospective effect, along with consideration for his promotion to the post of office superintendent or equivalent under the disability quota. The judge directed the respondents to file their response and posted the case for further hearing.
CBSE school using non-NCERT texts: Plea
Justice K. Lakshman of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea challenging the use of private textbooks in violation of CBSE bylaws and seeking enforcement of provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009. The judge was hearing a writ petition filed by Bolleddu Joshua, a government employee and parent of a student at Don Bosco High School, Erragadda, who contended that the school, despite being affiliated to the CBSE, was not following NCERT textbooks as mandated. The petitioner would allege that the school was prescribing private publications, in violation of the Constitution. The petitioner inter alia sought a direction to enforce the exclusive use of NCERT materials in CBSE schools and urged the judge to direct CBSE to initiate penal action against the school under its bylaws, including levy of `5 lakh to be deposited with the High Court Legal Services Authority. The judge directed the respondents to get instructions.
