Hyderabad: Justice K. Surender of the Telangana High Court spelled out the methodology to be followed by the Magistrate Court when the police do not find any evidence against some of the accused.
The judge was dealing with a case of matrimonial disputes. According to the complainer, the second wife was subjected to repeated demands for dowry and was physically harassed and abused by members of her husband’s family.
The Nizamabad police after an investigation found that no offence was made against the family members and filed a chargesheet only against the husband.
The magistrate used a format stamp which was affixed in the chargesheet to take cognisance against the petitioners and directed the police to register a CC. The superintendent had put up a note at the end of the chargesheet stating, “The chargesheet was checked and found in order.
As per the report and statement of the de facto complainant, A2 to A5 have also harassed the de facto complainant”. Faulting the procedure, Justice Surender allowed the quashed petition filed by the other accused.
The judge observed: “The note of the superintendent on the chargesheet will not suffice to take cognisance of the offence against whom the police did not find any evidence during the investigation. In the event of dropping proceedings by the police during the investigation, it is incumbent on the magistrate to issue notice to the complainant regarding the dropping of proceedings against the accused.
If the complainant files a protest petition or a private complaint against the accused against whom proceedings have dropped, (they) have to be tried. The magistrate has to follow the procedure under Section 200 of the CrPC. The magistrate shall record the evidence of witnesses and thereafter record his satisfaction as to why the accused against whom police have found no evidence has to be summoned, to be tried in the case.
No such procedure was followed in the present case. The act of the learned magistrate in directing issuing of summons against the petitioners (A2 to A5), based on a note put up by the superintendent is found fault with.” The judge accordingly set aside the order of Special Mobile Court Junior First Class Magistrate, Nizamabad.
HC seeks status of tourism corp director
A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court wanted the state government to explain its stance on the suspension of V. Manohar Rao, director of Telangana Tourism Corporation.
The bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Anil Kumar was dealing with a writ petition filed by Manohar Rao, who was placed under suspension at the instance of the Election Commission of India on November 17.
He was seen alongside the then tourism minister at Tirupati when the former was addressing the press conference after the Assembly elections had been notified. Manohar Rao was placed under suspension and the state government was directed to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him. ECI counsel informed the court that the disciplinary proceedings initiated would require to be communicated to the commission.
He pointed out that the ECI is awaiting such information. The court granted time till January 5 to the state government to update the court on the latest situation of Manohar Rao’s suspension and inquiry.
HC closes plea on Singareni polls
The long-drawn writ petition and appeal relating to the election of the Singareni Collieries recognised union came to a tame end on Friday.
The bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Anil Kumar recorded as infructuous the writ appeal pending before it after it was brought to the notice of the court that the election had since been held. The bench accordingly closed the appeal and effectively gave closure to the entire litigation.
HC notice on input tax claim
A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court on Friday ordered notice to Christina Chongthu, commissioner of commercial tax, and other officials of the department for non-compliance with court orders.
The bench comprising Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Lakshmi Narayana Alishetty was hearing a contempt case filed by PH Jewels. The petitioner pointed out that it was involved in a case of input tax. It was the case of the petitioner that it was entitled to input tax credit and a sum of about Rs 3.54 crore was due. By an order made in October, the court directed the commissioner and other authorities to make the payment within 30 days.
The petitioner also impleaded Lavanya, joint commissioner, and Prasanna Lakshmi, assistant commissioner, and alleged that though the relevant forms were filed the respondents failed to pay the amount. The failing, the petitioner said, amounted to a wilful and wanton violation of orders.
