HC Okays Cheating Case Even If Money Was Used for Illegal Purpose

 Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court declared that payment even for an illegal purpose would attract the vice of cheating. Justice K. Lakshman ruled that criminal proceedings alleging cheating are maintainable, even if the amount was paid for an illegal purpose.

The judge made the observation dealing with a writ petition seeking to quash a criminal complaint qua counsel demanding money for paying the judges of High Court to obtain a favourable judgment. The judge refused to quash an FIR filed against Vedula Venkataramana, senior advocate.

It is alleged in the complaint that the accused was engaged as a counsel to appear in a case and was paid a considerable amount of fee but thereafter after receiving the fee, the petitioner did not pursue the case and there was no progress in the pending cases.

It is further alleged that the petitioner stated to the complainant that he can manage the High Court judges and get a judgment in his favour, the complainant would also allege that Rs 7 crore was paid in cash to the petitioner for getting favourable orders.

It is the case of the complainant that he got to know from reliable sources that the petitioner colluded with the opposite side and obtained Rs 25 crore in cash, after receiving the said amount, the petitioner failed to appear on behalf of a complainant.

The complainant would contend that when he sought a refund of Rs 7 crores, the petitioner repaid only Rs 1 crore, thereafter with the help of Ahmed Bin Abdulla Balala, MLA Malakpet constituency, harassing and threatening him with his life.

The petitioner would contend that the allegations are baseless, the complaint is vague and no specific dates were given by the complainant as to the payment of rs 7 crore.

He would further contend that the alleged offence pertains to an undated incident of 2005 and the complaint is lodged after 19 years, which itself shows malafide nature of the complainant.

Justice Lakshman in his 29-page order ventured into various factual and legal aspects and said, “Not in all cases, an arrest is warranted. Arrest brings ignominy and has the tendency to ruin a person’s reputation forever. Therefore, an arrest is permissible only when it is extremely necessary.”

He further noted that “it is important to note that there may be cases where, looking at the allegations in the FIR, a view in relation to its prima facie veracity cannot be taken. Such cases require investigation. However, merely because investigation is pending, a person cannot be subjected to the threat of arrest. Therefore, a remedy of anticipatory bail was incorporated under Section 438 CrPC. In cases where the remedy under Section 438 CrPC is not available and where the allegations require to be investigated and where custodial interrogation is not required, this court has the power to protect an accused from arrest under Section 482 CrPC.”

The judge also took note of the fact that “the conduct of the complainant in participation of the illegal act alleged against the petitioner raises suspicions about his bona fides. Further, nothing in the counter-affidavit indicates that petitioner’s custodial interrogation is required. This court is also mindful of the fact that the petitioner is a senior advocate with long standing. The judge accordingly protected the petitioner from arrest till filing of final report and directed the petitioner to co-operate in the investigation as and when required. The judge also made it clear that the investigating officer will conduct investigation in the subject crime strictly in accordance with law.

HC appoints amicus on GHMC petition on building permits

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court appointed Additional Advocate General Imran Khan as amicus in a writ appeal filed by Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. GHMC complained that setting aside the revocation order by a single judge was arbitrary.

The panel comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Anil Kumar is dealing with a writ appeal filed by Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Serilingampally Zone.

Earlier a writ petition was filed by Puvvadi Anasuya, wherein it was contended by the petitioner that she obtained permission to construct a residential building on a plot of 1,500 square yards at Serilingampally.

The petitioner contended that respondent authorities did not cause any post-verification within 21 days after the petitioner generated the online building permit order, and that on account of the non-causing of verification and issuing work commencement letter, the building permission obtained by the petitioner through TS-bPASS online process would have to be considered as receiving deemed approval under provisions of Telangana State Building Permission Approval and Self Certification System Act, 2020.

The respondents claimed the subject property is forming part of Sy. No.26 and not in Sy. No.88 of Serilingampally. However, it was pointed out to the court that the survey conducted in the presence of Municipal Authorities on the subject property was identified to be falling in Sy. No.88 of Serilingampally. The judge accordingly allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned revocation order.

In the present appeal, it is alleged that the permission by the writ petitioner obtained was by misrepresentation of facts. The panel repeatedly questioned the counsel representing GHMC whether there is any alternative remedy for the writ petitioners to question such a revocation order. What is the procedure and law if the respondent authorities do not cause any post-verification within 21 days after the petitioner generates an online building permit order? The panel accordingly directed Amicus to respond to said queries and posted the matter to June 27.

Necklace Road exhibition organisers challenge denial of permission

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court deferred the hearing of a writ appeal qua an event of Colours Utsav Mela at HMDA Ground beside I-Max Theatre, Necklace Road.

The panel comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Anil Kumar is dealing with a writ appeal filed by Colours Utsav Mela Handloom.

Earlier, a writ petition was filed by the appellant challenging refusing to grant an extension for holding an exhibition near the Necklace rotary. The rejection order reflected that Necklace rotary, which is a busy four-arm junction from the traffic point of view with significant public and VIP movement and the proposed place of the exhibition, hinder hassle free traffic movement due to significant footfall on and irregular parking of vehicles on the main road by the visitors.

It was argued by the authorities that It will become difficult for the general public and tourists visiting the NTR Marg and recreation centres around the road if the petitioner is granted extension for holding exhibition, will result in parking of vehicles on the NTR Marg leading to traffic congestion and also lead to law and order problems.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned memo lacks reasons for the rejection. The judge however disapproved of the arguments of the petitioner and dismissed the petition.

In the present appeal, it is argued that appellants obtained permission from HMDA to run the exhibition which is valid up to July 8.

Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant Vedula Venkatarama would contend that, appellant submitted an application seeking renewal of the licence from the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, who by memo issued on June 18 refused to grant the licence on the ground that the running of exhibition results in traffic congestion.

It was contended that the order of commissioner is per se without jurisdiction as the same suffers from the vires of non-application of mind and the discretion vested under the Rules has been exercised on the basis of the report submitted by the Additional Commissioner of Police Traffic, Hyderabad. The panel recorded the said submissions and deferred the hearing by June 27 for the Government Pleader to respond.

HC orders FRO to probe illegal transport of sandalwood logs

Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court directed the forest range officer, Dulapally, district forest officer, Medchal-Malkajgiri, and other respondents to continue with their investigation in the case of unauthorised transportation of sandalwood logs.

The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by Sri Satyabhanu, an owner of a seized Tata Motors Goods Carrier DCM, carrying 101 sandalwood logs without a permit. The petitioner stated that his vehicle had a permit for the carriage of coconuts and sought for its release.

The petitioner complained that his vehicle was seized by the respondent authorities without following the due process of law.

The counsel for the respondent authorities stated that the vehicle did not have any such permit. On investigation, it was found that 101 red sandalwood logs weighing over 2,000 kgs were being transported.

The counsel for the respondents further argued that such activities were allegedly being carried out by mafias, who indulge in transporting these sandalwood internationally. The respondent authorities contended that the matter was still under investigation and therefore, the vehicle ought not to be released. After hearing the parties, the judge directed the respondent authorities to file their reply and posted the matter for further adjudication.