Naresh Kumar Yalla Vs State of Telangana on 21 Jul 2022

Posted on August 10, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Telangana High Court held as follows:

4. When there is a specific direction from this Court to dispose of the matter time bound, it is not known how the case is still pending. However, considering the request of the petitioner, the criminal petition is disposed of with the following directions:-
1) The Court of X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, is directed to take up the case in D.V.C.No.61 of 2019 on day-to-day basis and to dispose of the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
2) In case, the case is not disposed of within one month, the Court of X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, is directed to submit a report to the Registrar (Judicial) narrating the reasons as to why the case could not be disposed of.
3) The above direction is issued not only basing on the merits of the case, but also as Section 12(5) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, clearly mandates that the case has to be disposed of within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of its first hearing.

Connects to a PIL here.

V.Bharath Kumar Vs State of Telangana

Posted on March 5, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A single bench decision from Telangana High Court passed these guidelines.

Hence, this Court feels that an alternative mechanism shall be evolved to address the plight of these under-trial prisoners / accused:

Parties Advocates shall download the order copy from the High Court’s Website along with case details which are available in the case status information

While filing the memo on behalf of accused for furnishing sureties, the Advocate shall state in the Memo that he / she has downloaded the order copy from the High Court’s Website. The Administrative Officer Chief Ministerial Officer of the Court concerned shall verify the order from the High Court’s Website and make an endorsement to that effect and then shall place the same before the Court.

The Public Prosecutor shall also obtain necessary instructions in this regard and assist the Court.

The Presiding Officer, on the same day, shall dispose of the same and dispatch the release order to the jail authorities concerned forthwith through e-mail or any other electronic mode.

In cases of anticipatory bail, the burden to verify the authenticity of the copy is on the Station House Officer concerned and if necessary, he should obtain necessary instructions from the Public Prosecutor’s Office and complete the process on the same day expeditiously as per law.

The jail authorities on receipt of the release order shall release the accused forthwith.

Registrar (Judicial) shall communicate copy of this order to:

The Principal Secretary for Home Affairs, State of Telangana,

The Director General of Police, State of Telangana,

The Director of Prosecution, who, in turn, shall sensitize the police officers Station House Officers / Public Prosecutors and ensure implementation of this order

Registrar (Judicial) shall communicate copy of this order to all the Principal District Judges in the State, who, in turn, shall sensitize all the Presiding Officers and ensure implementation of this order.

Registrar (Judicial) is further directed to circulate the copy of this order to all the Bar Associations in the State through the Principal District Judges, so that they can effectively address their client’s cause.

Registrar (Judicial) shall also issue a separate notification in this regard and the same shall be displayed in the High Court’s Website.

These directions will apply to all bail application including bails in Criminal Revision as well as Criminal Appeals.
This order shall come into force from 22.11.2021.

V.Bharath Kumar Vs State of Telangana

Kade Kumar Swamy Vs Agam Pandu and 6 Ors on 02 Dec 2020

Posted on August 7, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

A Presiding officer in Telangana went into merits of a petition (which was seeking permanent injunction over a suit scheduled property) and rejected it, even before it was numbered!!! A single judge bench of the Telangana High Court sent the PO to training in Judicial Academy…

Kade Kumar Swamy Vs Agam Pandu and 6 Ors on 02 Dec 2020

An earlier instance, just about a month back!!!

Nanavath Raj Kumar Vs Agam Pandu and 6 Ors on 04 Nov 2020

Ibrahim Mohammad Vs State of Telangana on 21 Jun 2019

Posted on June 30, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Simple to follow procedure at Telangana High Court if you want to get a case quashed in which non-compoundable offences were registered.

Ibrahim Mohammad Vs State of Telangana on 21 Jun 2019

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/198455920/

Laxmi Meenakshi Vs Chetty Mahadevappa on 9 Apr 2021

Posted on May 27, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

An unscrupulous woman who was living in adultery, tried to get the divorce granted by a Family court but her earlier complaints came back to bite her.

From Para 29,

29. The contents of this complaint clearly indicate that the appellant had illegal connection with the 2nd respondent and had expressed her intention that she was not willing to lead marital life with the 1st respondent who is her lawfully wedded husband.

Laxmi Meenakshi Vs Chetty Mahadevappa on 9 Apr 2021

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/51469712/

Telangana HC | If one of spouses in a marital relationship is found to be guilty of infidelity, would it amount to causing mental cruelty to the other spouse? HC highlights concept of mental cruelty & desertion

Anil Kumar and 2 Ors Vs State of A.P. and Anr on 3 Apr 2019

Posted on March 9, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice B. Siva Sankar Rao trashed the falsely-laid proceedings of Dowry and 498A IPC against the family members as there were no specific allegations made up on them and no supporting evidence collected by the Police.

6. There is no record even shown from the police charge sheet by collecting from father of de facto complainant as to any so called additional amount of Rs.4,30,000/- given out of his retirement benefits or 15 tulas of gold. It is crucial if at all to believe as to what were the retirement benefits he received and when from his account he parted with. There is no date or time even mentioned either in the report or from the police investigation to believe, leave about the fact that the so-called marriage performed, from the police investigation out of love affair between A-1 and de facto complainant against the will of the parents of the de facto complainant and the parents of A-1, who are A-2 & A-3 from the beginning agreed for the love marriage with no objection. Once such is the case, even the stray allegation of the petitioners/A-2 to A-4 used to abuse her as not of their caste or religion and if they marry another girl, they could get more dowry itself is unbelievable, for the very marriage is love marriage. Even to say that there was any instigation to A-1 by A-2 to A-4 for additional dowry when it is a love marriage and no dowry shown paid originally and as discussed supra of no any payment of dowry by father of de facto complainant after his retirement from his benefits alleged, the question of any payment of additional dowry is unbelievable. It clearly shows the petitioners/A-2 to A-4 are roped without any basis for reasons better known by the de facto complainant and the police investigation in this regard is also perfunctory and baseless and the legal position is very clear that unless from the specific allegations in the complaint against the other relatives of the husband, no cognizance can be taken against the family members, particularly from the tendency of making baseless allegations in roping them and even a stray sentence as suffered harassment in the hands of in-laws, etc., is not sufficient to sustain any such accusation to rope the other family members of the husband of the de facto complainant, so-called victim.

Anil Kumar and 2 Ors Vs State of A.P. and Anr on 3 Apr 2019

M. Sudarshan Goud and Ors Vs The State of AP on 24 April 2020

Posted on July 17, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Nice judgment from Telangana High Court which held as follows:

38. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that by virtue of amendment vide Act No.63 of 1984 w.e.f. 02.10.1985, the words “in connection with the marriage of the said parties” are added and, therefore, the alleged demand of dowry should be in connection with the marriage of the said parties. Section 4 of the Act, 1961 also deals with “penalty for demanding dowry’. Admittedly, in the present case, there is no demand of dowry in connection with the marriage of the parties viz., deceased and accused No.1.
39. As discussed supra, the entire complaint lodged by PW.1 against the accused is that the accused have demanded additional dowry, more particularly, the dowry, which was given to the second daughter of PW.1 at the time of her marriage in the year 1998 i.e., six years after the marriage of the deceased. Even the said alleged demand of additional dowry at the time of marriage of second daughter of PW.1 is also not proved with cogent evidence.
40. It is relevant to note that the definition of ‘dowry’ under Section 2 of the Act, 1961 mere demand thereof would not be an offence under Section 4 of the Act, 1961. It should either be given or agreed to be given at or before or after the marriage in connection with the marriage. Although in common parlance one very often uses the term “dowry demand” in the cases where the husband or his relations demand valuable security from the parents and other relations of the wife after the marriage, yet this will not amount to demand for dowry under the Act, 1961 in view of the definition of dowry contained in Section 2 of the Act, 1961.

M. Sudarshan Goud and Ors Vs The State of AP on 24 April 2020

Citations: [2

Lavanya Vs Ragavendra Goud on 9 January 2020

Posted on April 21, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Telangana High Court did not interfere with the divorce decree granted by lower Court and held so in the following Paras.

31. Therefore it appears that without any valid reason, the appellant deserted the respondent and denied him conjugal life. She also leveled false allegations that he and his family members demanded dowry. It appears that the appellant was left at her parents’ house by the respondent after she insisted on staying with her parents and threatened to commit suicide otherwise.
32. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Court below was right in holding that not only had the appellant deserted the respondent and avoided leading a marital life since February, 2014, but also her threat to commit suicide put the respondent at risk.
33. Also, the filing of the criminal complaint under Section 498A IPC by the appellant against the respondent would make it difficult for the parties to lead a happy marital life.
34. We are also of the view that when it is the very case of the appellant that the respondent and his family members had allegedly harassed her for dowry, why she is opposing the grant of divorce is inexplicable because if her contention were to be correct, she would herself be subjecting herself to further cruelty at the instance of the respondent.
35. In these circumstances, we do not deem it appropriate to interfere with the order passed by the Court below dissolving the marriage between the parties.

Lavanya Vs Ragavendra Goud on 9 January 2020

Citations: [

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/65011903/

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Category: High Court of Telangana Judgment or Order or Notification

Naresh Kumar Yalla Vs State of Telangana on 21 Jul 2022

V.Bharath Kumar Vs State of Telangana

Kade Kumar Swamy Vs Agam Pandu and 6 Ors on 02 Dec 2020

Ibrahim Mohammad Vs State of Telangana on 21 Jun 2019

Laxmi Meenakshi Vs Chetty Mahadevappa on 9 Apr 2021

Anil Kumar and 2 Ors Vs State of A.P. and Anr on 3 Apr 2019

M. Sudarshan Goud and Ors Vs The State of AP on 24 April 2020

Lavanya Vs Ragavendra Goud on 9 January 2020