Cheque Fully Paid Before First Hearing, No Case: HC
Hyderabad: Justice Tirumala Devi of the Telangana High Court held that a person who pays the check amount before the date of first hearing is entitled to have the criminal case closed under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The judge was dealing with a criminal petition related to the issuance of checks worth around Rs 98 lakh. The plaintiff argued that the amount he paid was paid after the legal notice was received and before the date of the first hearing.
He stated that the defendant, who was the recipient of the check and the party who received the amount after the legal notice was issued, continued the criminal case and prolonged the issue despite paying the amount. Justice Tirumala Devi allowed the suit for quashing and held that once the check amount was paid initially and on the verge of criminal prosecution, no cause was extinguished and the suit had to be quashed. Deepak Misra, counsel for the petitioner, argued that the Supreme Court in its judgment floor had laid down the guideline for compounding of offenses under Section 138 of the Act and the petitioner/accused was entitled to benefit from it. He said the continuation of the trial was an abuse of the legal process. Pasham Mohit, the defendant’s lawyer, pointed out that his client had an interest in prosecuting the defendant once the check bounced. Those who did not agree with the opinion, the criminal case was closed.
PG medical candidate loses case
A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court refused to allow temporary participation of the PG medical seat candidate in the ongoing counseling process. The panel, comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G M Mohiuddin, was dealing with a plea filed by the candidate who had moved the court alleging that some PG medical seats remain vacant and the issue of further reduction in the qualified percentile is currently pending before the Supreme Court of India. Aware that the imminent closure of the consultancy window would irreversibly damage its prospects, it argued that not allowing provisional participation at this stage would completely nullify any positive decision of the superior court.
The additional solicitor general submitted that the matter was not an isolated complaint and several similarly situated candidates could seek the same relief and granting interim protection to one case could lead to a barrage of similar petitions. After hearing the arguments, the panel noted that, as of date, despite an earlier reduction in the percentile, the applicant belonging to the open category did not meet the qualification threshold. The panel observed that relief could be based on a speculative future outcome. The bench adjourned the matter for two weeks, observing that leaving the seats vacant would not serve any useful purpose, especially while the matter was awaiting hearing in the apex court.
Order to include reserved path
Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty of the Telangana High Court set aside a notification issued by District Town and Country Planning Officer Mancherial in 2018 directing land owners to stop development works and revise layout proposals to accommodate the proposed 60-metre-wide master plan road. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by Gone Satish Rao and others challenging the letter issued by the officer directing the Vempally gram panchayat to insist that the petitioners stop development on the property and submit a revised layout showing the proposed master plan road passing through their land.
Shyam S. Agarwal, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, argued that the matter fell under an earlier decision of the Supreme Court; This decision held that if land is required for widening the road, it should be acquired in strict accordance with the Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. If land is not acquired, authorities cannot withhold permits based solely on a proposed road master plan. The judge was informed that a division bench had upheld the earlier decision and directed the authorities to grant construction permission while retaining the freedom to initiate procurement proceedings in accordance with the law if necessary. Justice Alishetty accordingly set aside the 2018 letter issued by DTCP, Mancherial, and directed the respondent authorities to grant final settlement approval for the property in question pursuant to interim settlement approval, without insisting on the submission of a revised proposal showing the proposed 60 meters wide road.
