Telangana HC frees student in sex case, but must pay maintenance

 Hyderabad: Justice N. Rajeshwar Rao of the Telangana High Court set aside the conviction of a student in a case of cheating for sex. The prosecution had stated that the student, the petitioner in this case, used to invite the girl to watch TV in his house. In June 2007, when there was no one else in the house, the student made a promise to marry her and had sexual intercourse with the girl. This was repeated a few times. Later, it was foubd that the girl was six months pregnant. The girl named the student and said he had cheated her by refusing to marry her. Based on the girl’s complaint, the Judicial First-Class Magistrate of Adilabad and the Additional Sessions Judge convicted the student and sentenced him to simple imprisonment of two years and a fine of Rs 2,000. The petitioner, the student, said there was no promise of marriage and the lower courts despite observing that the prosecution did not prove the same, erroneously convicted him. Allowing the petition, Justice Rajeshwar Rao said that the very ingredient necessary for punishment is that there must be a promise or deceit made to the victim by the accused. In the present case, despite a finding that there was no specific promise of marriage, the Sessions Judge had upheld the conviction “based on assumptions and presumptions as to his subsequent mindset and attitude.” Justice Rajeshwar Rao allowed the student’s petition but made it clear if the complainant/victim needed maintenance from the student, he shall provide the same without taking advantage of the judgment. If he fails to do so, the victim is at liberty to take necessary steps against the student.

HC sets aside order on dispute:

A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court set aside an order of the commercial court for having made an order for extraneous considerations. The bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar was hearing a batch of appeals arising out of a common order under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 1996. Dakshin Shelters, the appellant, and others had entered into a development agreement in respect of over 10 acres of land in Vattinagulapalli, Rajendranagar mandal, Rangareddy district. Following a dispute, the parties went before an arbitral tribunal. There it was found that the agreement was not registered. The parties withdrew and filed suits seeking cancellation of the agreement and forfeiture of the deposit amount. Dakshin Shelters filed an application seeking referral of the dispute to arbitration and cited a Supreme Court decision. The commercial court rejected the application on the ground that the appellant did not take steps to resolve the dispute. The bench heard two senior advocates and found that the arbitral proceedings were withdrawn in view of the law laid down by a division bench of the AP High Court. Subsequently, there was a change in the law in the Deccan Paper Mills Company Limited case. The bench said the doctrine of estoppel has no application to the case. The appellant was entitled to take a stand due to a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in the Deccan Paper Mills Company Limited.