Justice J. Sreenivas of the Telangana High Court directed the HYDRAA to maintain status quo in respect of the property located in Sy. No.s 124 and 125 of Gachibowli, Rangareddy district, following allegations of illegal demolition on May 6.
Hyderabad:Justice J. Sreenivas of the Telangana High Court directed the HYDRAA to maintain status quo in respect of the property located in Sy. No.s 124 and 125 of Gachibowli, Rangareddy district, following allegations of illegal demolition on May 6. The judge took on file a writ petition filed by Sandhya Hotels Private Limited, alleging that the demolition was carried out in violation of the Constitution and in disregard of interim orders in force. The petitioner also sought an injunction restraining any further interference or demolition unless a competent civil court declared that there was encroachment or removal of roads within the FCI Layout in said survey numbers. The petitioner further sought compensation for the damage caused and disciplinary action against officials allegedly responsible for the high-handed and unlawful demolition. The judge issued notices to the respondent authorities and directed HYDRAA to consider the petitioner’s reply and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.
Man files habeas corpus for ‘wife’
A two-judge vacation panel of the Telangana High Court took on file a habeas corpus plea seeking production of a woman alleged to be in illegal custody. The panel comprising Justice Pulla Karthik and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda was hearing a writ petition filed by Bhukya Srikumar of Suryapet district, who claimed that a 26-year-old woman was unlawfully confined and sought a direction to produce her before the court and set her at liberty. The petitioner claimed to have married the woman and that she was staying away for three years. The state opposed the writ petition and on instructions submitted that the woman denied any such relationship or marriage and contended that the petitioner was harassing her. The woman also contended that the petitioner was circulating old photographs and interfering in her marital prospects. It was alleged that the petitioner threatened her fiancé following which the engagement was called off. The panel, observing that if the petitioner contended to be the woman’s husband, the appropriate remedy was to file a case for restitution of conjugal rights. The panel declined to pass interim directions and directed the local police to record the statement of the woman. The matter is posted for further hearing after vacation.
HC sets free man accused of bigamy
Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court reiterated that cognisance of a bigamy offence cannot be taken based on a police report, but only through a complaint filed by the aggrieved party before a magistrate. Accordingly, the judge quashed the criminal proceedings pending against a man and seven others before the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Excise Court) at Mancherial. The petition was filed under Section 482 of the CrPC. The petitioners, including the petitioner’s mother, sisters, in-laws, and other relatives, contended that they had been falsely implicated in a matrimonial dispute. The de facto complainant, the wife, had alleged physical and mental harassment for dowry and accused the petitioner of contracting a second marriage. The judge observed that although the complainant had lodged a complaint alleging bigamy under Section 494 of the IPC, no complaint had been filed before a magistrate as mandated under Section 198(1) CrPC. It was pointed out that Section 494, being an offence under the IPC, required the court to take cognisance only upon a complaint filed by the aggrieved person before the magistrate, and not on the basis of a police report. The judge noted that no concrete material had been submitted to substantiate the allegation of a second marriage. The petitioners had previously been tried on similar allegations, which had resulted in their acquittal. The judge held that prosecution under Section 498-A IPC in the present case, based on the same set of facts, was not maintainable. The judge relied on precedents emphasising that vague and omnibus allegations, especially against distant family members, are not sufficient grounds for prosecution. Stating that the case appeared to be a misuse of the legal process and an act of vengeance arising from matrimonial discord, the judge concluded that allowing the proceedings to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
