Legal Briefs | Breach of promise to marry doesn’t amount to cheating: Telangana HC

Hyderabad: Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of Telangana High Court upheld a ruling that a breach of a promise to marry does not automatically amount to cheating, unless there was clear intent to deceive from the start. The judge quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused of cheating and breach of trust after he allegedly backed out of a marriage promise. The judge was dealing with a criminal petition filed by Chinnam Kanakaraju. The allegations stemmed from a complaint by a woman who claimed that the petitioner, her paternal aunt’s son, promised to marry her but later refused. The petitioner, who had been chatting with the complainant since 2018, allegedly proposed marriage and convinced her to reject other proposals. However, upon returning to India in April 2021, he informed her that his parents were against their union. The situation escalated when the complainant discovered that the petitioner was preparing to marry another woman. Following her complaint, a case was registered at Jubilee Hills police station. The trial was set to proceed before the criminal court at Nampally, Hyderabad. However, the judge ruled that the allegations did not constitute an offence of cheating, as there was no evidence that the petitioner had fraudulent or dishonest intention from the beginning. The judge also noted that the complaint did not mention any financial or material loss suffered by the complainant.

HC seeks response on PIL against LRS

The Telangana High Court on Thursday directed the state government to respond within three weeks to a public interest litigation challenging the validity of a government memo concerning the layout regularisation scheme. A panel comprising acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara was dealing with a PIL filed by Juvvadi Sagar Rao questioning the legality of the memo issued on July 30, 2024. The memo mandates the processing and disposal of LRS applications across urban local vodies (ULBs), urban development authorities (UDAs), and gram panchayats, along with the collection of regularisation charges based on prevailing land values for granting instant construction approvals. The petitioner contended that the memo was illegal and amounted to a colourable exercise of power and was in violation of the Telangana Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975, and the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019. The petitioner sought to cancel any regularisations already approved under it.

School allowed at same location

The Telangana High Court will continue hearing a writ plea challenging an order passed by the district educational officer to relocate a school on the grounds that two schools cannot operate at the same location. Justice K. Lakshman admitted a writ plea filed by Sri Ramkumar Jakotiya Thara Educational Society. The petitioner argued that the institution obtained all approvals to function from its premises but was being asked to relocate without prior notice. The state authorities contended that Sri Raga School, which previously occupied the premises, had been granted permission earlier and that two schools could not function at the same location. The judge found that Sri Raga School had already vacated the premises and was operating from a different address without authorisation, rendering the relocation directive unjustified. Granting interim relief, the judge allowed the society to continue operating at its premises in Medarbasti, Kothagudem, while posting the matter for further hearing, pending responses from the relevant authorities.

Appointment of person in-charge stayed

Justice T. Madhavi Devi of Telangana High Court suspended the appointment of an official person-in-charge (PIC) committee for Gattududdenapalli Large Sized Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by A. Radha Kishan Rao and others, challenging the orders passed by the state agriculture and cooperation department and other authorities in appointing the committee in violation of GO dated February 14, 2025. The petitioners contended that despite clear directions in the government order, the respondents arbitrarily appointed the committee instead of reappointing the erstwhile board of directors, including the petitioners, as the interim committee until elections were held. The petitioners cited similar cases where the High Court had ruled in favour of continuing existing committees as per government directions. Considering these factors, the judge suspended the proceedings issued by the respondent authorities and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioners as the persons-in-charge of the society forthwith. The judge ordered notice to unofficial respondents and posted the matter for hearing.