MS.Anamika

1 of 7 DVC 13 of 2018

Date:31.05.2022

IN THE COURT OF THE XXVI ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD AT IBRAHIMPATNAM, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

(Tuesday, this the 31st day of May, 2022)

PRESENT: Ms.Anamika, XXVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District

D.V.C Number 13 OF 2018

Between:

1. Smt.M.Manjula Wife of Prabhakar, Age: 26 years, Occupation:Housewife.

2. M.Shiva Kumar Son of Prabhakar, Age:07 years,

3. M.Manasa Daughter of Prabhakar, Age:05 years, Occupation:Student. All are Resident of House number 3-98, Thurkayamjal Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Presently residing at Lingampally Village, Manchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.…Petitioners. A N D 1.M.Prabhakar Son of Shankaraiah, Age: 35 years, Occupation: Centering Maistry.

2. M.Suresh.

3. M.Basha

4. M.Nagamma

5. M.Shankaraiah All are Resident of House number 3-98, Thurkayamjal Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.… Respondents.

This petition came before this court for hearing on 27.05.2022 in the pres- ence Mr.P.Ramulu, Learned Legal Aid counsel and Mr.S.Chandraiah, Learned counsel for Respondent remained absent and having heard and considered the record till date, this court delivered the following:

O R D E R

1.District welfare officer of District woman, disabled child and senior citizen department Ranga Reddy District on receipt of complaint from the aggrieved person filed a Domestic incident report against respondents to grant relief in favour of the aggrieved person under section 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of

Woman from Domestic Violence Act 2005 (for brevity herein after referred as

Domestic Violence Act).

2 of 7 DVC 13 of 2018

Date:31.05.2022

2.Brief facts of the complaint are as follows:

Aggrieved person was married to Mr.Prabhaker on 12.03.2011. They led their conjugal life peacefully for a period of 2 months. As her in laws made complaint about the habit of consumption of alcohol of her husband hence he started living with her separately. Thereafter he continued consumption of liquor.

He used to work in centering. He used to waste his earnings for buying liquor.

Whenever she used to question him he used to reply that he can do anything according to his wish. He also denied the paternity of both the children. He used to beat her. Her husband along with his four brothers and parents beat her and asked her to go away. Their son is physically handicapped. He is six years old. He needs medical supervision. Her husband neglected their son. His parents used to support her husband. They also denied the paternity of her son. Unable to bear the harassment she filed a complaint in Woman police station. He was counseled four times in the woman police station but he did not changed his attitude. He used to abuse her parents whenever they used to visit her. He used to sell the domestic articles which she brought at the time of marriage to buy the liquor. He used to pass urine in the home in the intoxicated condition. He used to spit in the food of aggrieved person and her children. He used to spit in the drinking water.

3.Notice of the filing of Domestic Incident Report was served to the

Respondents. They made appearance through their counsel and Respondent number 1 filed counter. In the counter he denied the allegations except admitting of relationship with petitioners. He also admitted that petitioner number 2 is physically handicapped. Respondent number 1 further stated that aggrieved person voluntarily deserted him without any reason and did not joined his society even after his request.

4.During the course of enquiry aggrieved person examined herself as PW1 and got marked Exhibits P1 and P2. On the other hand, Respondents did not preferred to cross examine the aggrieved person, adducing of evidence and adducing the arguments. Heard learned counsel for aggrieved person. He argued 3 of 7 DVC 13 of 2018

Date:31.05.2022

that petitioner was harassed by respondents so, she is entitled for the relief provided under Section 18, 19, 20 and 22 of Domestic Violence Act.

5.Now the points for consideration are:

a)Whether there is domestic relationship in terms of 2 (f) of Domestic

Violence Act between the aggrieved person and the respondents?

b) Whether domestic violence as defined under Section 3 of Domestic

Violence Act was caused to the aggrieved person by the respondents?

c) Whether the aggrieved person is entitled for the protection order under

Section 18 of Domestic Violence Act as prayed for?

d) Whether the aggrieved person is entitled for residence under section 19 of Domestic Violence Act order as prayed for?

e)Whether the aggrieved person is entitled for monetary relief under

Section 20 of Domestic Violence Act from the respondents as prayed for?

f) Whether the aggrieved person is entitled for compensation under Section 22 of Domestic Violence Act from the respondents as prayed for?

5. (a) Whether there is domestic relationship in terms of 2 (f) of Domestic

Violence Act between the aggrieved person and the respondents?

Aggrieved person mentioned in her complaint that after her marriage she joined the society of her husband and lived peacefully for a period of 2 months.

Thereafter, Respondent number 1 started living with aggrieved person apart from his parents as they made complaint about the habit of consumption of liquor of

Respondent number 1. She did not deposed anything in her evidence to show that she used to live with Respondents number 2 to 5. Hence this court is of the opinion that aggrieved person failed to prove domestic relationship between her and

Respondents number 2 to 5. Further, aggrieved person deposed that after her marriage she started living with Respondent number 1 and they were blessed with 2 children. Respondent number 1 admitted in his counter that Petitioner number 2 is his son. He also mentioned that he looked after petitioners with love and affection but aggrieved person left the marital house without any reasonable 4 of 7 DVC 13 of 2018

Date:31.05.2022

cause. Hence this court is of the opinion that there is domestic relationship between Petitioners and Respondent number 1. Pont is answered accordingly.

5. b) Whether domestic violence as defined under Section 3 of Domestic

Violence Act was caused to the aggrieved person by the respondents?

In her complaint, aggrieved person mentioned that Respondent number 1 used to beat her under the influence of alcohol. She filed a complaint against him in woman police station. It is her evidence that Respondent number 1 used to beat her in intoxicated condition. As she was not examined in cross by Respondent number 1. Hence nothing came to record to disbelieve her evidence. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that Act of Respondent number 1 towards the aggrieved person constitutes Domestic Violence. In other words Respondent number 1 caused domestic violence to the aggrieved person. Point is answered accordingly.

5. c) Whether the aggrieved person is entitled for the protection order under

Section 18 of Domestic Violence Act as prayed for?

Section 18 of the protection of woman from Domestic Violence Act 2005 provides that the magistrate may, after giving the aggrieved person and the respondent an opportunity of being heard and of being primafacie satisfied that the Domestic Violence has taken place or is likely to take place, pass protection order in favour of the aggrieved person and prohibit the respondent from (a)

Committing any act of Domestic Violence, (b) aiding or abetting in the commission of acts of Domestic Violence.

As decided under Paragraph number 5(b), domestic violence has taken place in the case before hand and opportunities of being heard has already been given to both the parties. So this court hereby passes the protection order in favour of the aggrieved person and prohibits Respondent number 1 from committing any act of Domestic Violence, aiding or abetting in the commission of acts of

Domestic Violence. Point is answered accordingly.

5 of 7 DVC 13 of 2018

Date:31.05.2022

5. d) Whether the aggrieved person is entitled for residence under section 19 of Domestic Violence Act order as prayed for?

As Domestic Violence has taken place in this case and Respondent number 1 used to beat the aggrieved person hence this court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to direct the Respondent number 1 to pay Rupees 2,000/- as the house rent to the aggrieved person for securing same level of alternate accommodation for the aggrieved person as enjoyed by her in the same household as provided under clause (f) of section 19 of Domestic Violence Act. Point is answered accordingly.

5. e)Whether the aggrieved person is entitled for monetary relief under

Section 20 of Domestic Violence Act from the respondents as prayed for?

As this court opined in Paragraph 5(b) that Domestic Violence was caused by Respondent number 1 to aggrieved person. Therefore, keeping the manner in which Respondent number 1 neglected his physically disabled son and school going daughter this court is of the opinion that aggrieved person is entitled for monetary relief.

PW1 deposed that Respondent number 1 is working as centering maistry and earning Rupees 50,000/- per month but no proof of income of Respondent number 1 is filed. In these circumstances only on the basis of statement of PW1 income of respondent number 1 cannot be held Rupees 50,000/- per month, but from the testimony of PW1 it can be safely concluded that Respondent number 1 is an able bodied man. Keeping the food, clothing and shelter as basic needs of human being Respondent number 1 is directed to pay Rupees 1500/- each per month to Petitioner 1 to 3 for their food and to pay Rupees 1000/- per month each to Petitioner number 1 to 3 for their clothing. As education is the backbone of society and son and daughter of aggrieved person are school going children hence

Respondent number 1 is directed to pay Rupees 1000/- per month to petitioner number 2 and 3 towards their educational expenses. Further Petitioner number 2 is a physically disabled child who needs regular medical supervision hence

Respondent number 1 is directed to pay Rupees 1000/- towards his medical 6 of 7 DVC 13 of 2018

Date:31.05.2022

expenses. In other words Respondent number 1 is directed to pay Rupees 2500/- to Petitioner number 1, Rupees 4,500/- to Petitioner number 2, Rupees 3500/- to

Petitioner number 3 (total Rupees 10,500/-) from the date of this Order as maintenance as provided under section 20(1) (a) of Domestic Violence Act. Point is answered accordingly.

5. f) Whether the aggrieved person is entitled for compensation under

Section 22 of Domestic Violence Act from the respondents as prayed for?

Considering the manner in which domestic violence caused by the

Respondent number 1 to aggrieved person, age of the aggrieved person and age of the children this court hereby directs the respondent to pay Rupees 1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental torture and emotional distress caused to the aggrieved person by the acts of domestic violence committed by respondent number 1. Point is answered accordingly.

6.In the result, petition is partly allowed: Prohibiting the Respondent number 1 from committing, aiding or abetting in the commission of act of Domestic

Violence Act against the aggrieved person, directing the Respondent number 1 to pay Rupees 2000/- per month as house rent and Rupees 10,500/- per month as maintenance to the petitioners (Total Rupees 12,500/-) from the date of this order.

Respondent number 1 is directed to pay the same on or before 10th of every succeeding month, directing the Respondent number 1 to pay Rupees 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to aggrieved person as compensation. Keeping the discussion of point 5(a) in view, the petition against Respondent number 2 to 5 is dismissed. Office is directed to send a copy of this order, free of cost, to the parties to the application, incharge of the police station within the local limits of which parties are residing and the Project officer cum Project Director, District Women and Child Development Authority, Ranga Reddy District.

Typed by the Stenographer, to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 31st day of May, 2022.

7 of 7 DVC 13 of 2018

Date:31.05.2022

XXVI ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD: IBRAHIMPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS FOR RESPONDENTS

PW1 : M.Manjula -Nil-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS:

Exhibit.P1:Wedding Card

Exhibit.P2:Two Photographs

FOR RESPONDENTS:

-Nil-

XXVI ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD: IBRAHIMPATNAM.

1 of 5 OS.No.479 of 2021

Date:27.04.2023

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CYBERABAD AT

IBRAHIMPATNAM, RANGAREDDY DISTRICT.

( Thursday, this the 27th day of April, 2023)

Present:-Ms.Anamika,

Additional Junior Civil Judge,

FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad at Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District

Original Suit number 479 of 2021

Between:

Godavarthi Murali Krishna Son of Godavarthi Bhaskar Naidu, Age: 41 years, Resident of Flat Number 305, Block Number D3, Sahabavana Apartments, Anand Nagar X Roads, Bandlaguda, Hyat Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. . . . . Plaintiff.

AND

1. Lake Villa Orchards Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director Mr.S.Madhusudan Reddy Son of Late S.V.Subba Reddy, Age: 63 years, Resident of Flat Number 503, Sri Ramachandra Nivas Apartments, Plot Number 55/A and 56/A, Vengal Rao Nagar, Hyderabad-38.

2. Mr.S.Madhusudan Reddy Son of Late S.V.Subba Reddy, Age: 63 years, Resident of Flat Number 503, Sri Ramachandra Nivas Apartments, Plot Number 55/A and 56/A, Vengal Rao Nagar, Hyderabad-

38.…. Defendants.

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Mr.G.Manoj Maharaj,

Learned Counsel for plaintiff and Defendants were set-exparte and upon hearing the counsel for plaintiff, this court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1. This is a suit filed for Specific performance of agreement of sale-cum allotment dated:09.11.2005 filed by the Plaintiff with regard to the Open plot number 203, Area 1111 square yards or 928.94 square meters, in survey numbers 1370, 1371 and 1372 situated at Charapatelguda Hamlet of Khalsa

Ibrahimpatnam Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District with the boundaries viz: North: Plot number 202, South:Plot number 204, East:Road and West: Plot number 218 (herein after referred to as suit schedule Property).

2.Plaint averments in brief:

Defendant number 1 is a Private Limited company dealing with promotion and sale of land units. Defendant number 2 is the Managing Director of Defendant number 1 company who deals with promotion and sale of land units in the company. Defendant number 2 is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property which is part of schedule land of registered sale deed number 5199/2003 2 of 5 OS.No.479 of 2021

Date:27.04.2023

dated:02.10.2003 which was executed by Mrs.Kambalapalli Andalamma And wife of late Narsimha in

favour of Defendant number 2. In the process of business promotion and sale of land units Defendant number 2 divided the property and intended to sell it Plot wise to the general public and advertised the same. Due to that plaintiff has shown interest in buying the suit schedule property which is a plot and approached Defendant number 2. Thereafter plaintiff has agreed to enter into agreement of sale cum allotment of suit schedule property in the process of installment.

2.1On 09.11.20005 Defendant number 2 in the capacity of Managing director of Defendant number 1 entered into an agreement of sale cum agreement of allotment with plaintiff and agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a consideration of Rupees 1,19,990/-. According to the scheme, purchasers had to start the process of purchase by paying Rupees 20,000/- as advance towards the sale consideration. Later each year a sum of Rupees 6666/- was required to be paid as annual installment for a period of 15 years in 15 installments. In the said scheme, Defendant number 2 promised that the possession of said plot shall be given to the respective purchasers on the date of execution of agreement of sale cum agreement of allotment at the time of payment of Rupees 20,000/-. Accordingly the plaintiff entered into agreement of sale cum allotment on 09.11.2005 by paying Rupees 20,000/- for suit schedule property and Defendant number 2 has given the possession of suit schedule property on 09.11.2005. Time is the essence of said agreement of sale cum allotment. In case of default of payment,

Defendant number 2 kept himself at liberty to sell or transfer the suit schedule property to third parties.

Defendant number 2 also agreed to execute sale deed in favour of plaintiff or his nominee. It was also decided that if defendant number 2 would not execute the regular sale deed even after payment of money by plaintiff, plaintiff would have right to enforce the agreement of sale through process of law.

Plaintiff started paying annual installment of Rupees 6666 it was paid on 06.02.2006, 06.02.2007, 02.02.2008, 10.07.2009, 20.05.2010, 07.11.2011, 26.04.2012, 16.01.2013, 09.01.2014, 21.10.2015, 12.04.2016, 04.09.2017, 19.04.2018, 12.08.2019 and 14.12.2020 Defendant number 2 has issued receipt towards acknowledgment of the money. In this way on 14.12.2020 Defendant number 2 has received the total sale consideration . Therefore it was the duty of Defendant number 2 to execute registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff. Plaintiff requested the Defendant number 2 but he did not executed the registered sale deed.

3 of 5 OS.No.479 of 2021

Date:27.04.2023

2.2Plaintiff has issued a legal notice dated:02.09.2021 to Defendant number 1 and Defendant number 2 which was received by Defendant number 2. On 18.10.2021 Defendant number 2 replied the said notice and admitted about the execution of agreement of sale cum allotment, receiving of money, delivery of possession and fact of peaceful possession of plaintiff over suit schedule property.

Further Defendant number 2 mentioned that due to pandemic, Defendant number 2 has suffered loss.

So, he requested all his customers to wait for 12 more months for the purpose of re-organization. To the contrary, Defendant number 2 did not reorganized the business. Hence this suit is filed.

3.After registering the plaint summons were ordered to be issued to the Defendants but they did not appear before the court and none represented on their behalf. Hence they were set aside exparte.

During enquiry Plaintiff was examined as PW1 and Exhibits A1 to A21 were marked on behalf of

Plaintiff. Heard learned counsel for Plaintiff. He argued that Defendant did not perform his part of contract and Plaintiff had performed his part of contract. Further defendant did not prefer to contest the matter and remained exparte. So he requested to decree the suit basing on the documents filed by the

Plaintiff. Perused the record.

4. Now the point for determination are:(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of directing the Defendants to execute registered sale deed in favour of Plaintiff for the suit schedule property as agreed by him in agreement of sale-cum allotment dated:09.11.2005?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual Injunction as against the Defendant number 1 so far as suit schedule property is concerned?

4.1.The evidence of PW1 was nothing but reiteration of plaint contents in the form of an affidavit and it remained unchallenged. Perused the documentary evidence. Exhibit A1 is the Original agreement of sale-cum-Agreement of allotment dated 09.11.2005, Exhibit A2 is the Original receipt

dated:06.02.2006, Exhibit A3 is the Original receipt dated:06.02.2007, Exhibit A4 is the Original

receipt dated:02.02.2008, Exhibit A5 is the Original receipt dated:10.07.2009, Exhibit A6 is the

Original receipt dated:20.05.2010, Exhibit A7 is the Original receipt dated:07.11.2011, Exhibit A8 is the Original receipt dated:26.04.2012, Exhibit A9 is the Original receipt dated:16.01.2013, Exhibit

A10 is the Original receipt dated:09.09.2014, Exhibit A11 is the Original receipt dated:21.10.2015,

Exhibit A12 is the Original receipt dated:12.04.2016, Exhibit A13 is the Original receipt

dated:04.09.2017, Exhibit A14 is the Original receipt dated:19.04.2018, Exhibit A15 is the Original

receipt dated:12.08.2019, Exhibit A16 is the Original receipt dated:14.12.2020, Exhibit A17 is the

Certified copy of registered sale deed number 5199/2003, dated:02.12.2003, Exhibit A18 is the office 4 of 5 OS.No.479 of 2021

Date:27.04.2023

copy of legal notice dated:29.9.2021, Exhibit A19 is the original postal receipt dated:30.09.2021,

Exhibit A20 is the acknowledgment card dated:04.10.2021 and Exhibit A21 is the reply notice

dated:19.10.2021.

4.2.Learned counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that Exhibits A1 to A21are in corroboration of evidence of PW1 and in clear support of plaintiffs contentions with regard to the suit schedule property.

Perusal of Exhibits A1 to A21 shows that documentary evidence is in support of plaintiff contentions and they remained unchallenged. Further Defendants did not appeared and opposed the claim of

Plaintiffs. As no evidence contrary to the case of plaintiff came to the record hence this court is of the opinion that Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of directing the Defendant number 2 to execute registered sale deed in favour of Plaintiff for the suit schedule property as agreed by him in agreement of sale- cum-agreement of allotment dated:09.11.2005. Consequently plaintiff is also entitled for the relief of restraining Defendant number 1 from causing interference in possession of plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

5.In the result, the suit is decreed in favour of the Plaintiff, however without costs as suit is in the interest of Plaintiff and it remained unchallenged as Defendants remained exparte till the end.

Accordingly, Defendants are directed to execute a registered sale deed in favour of Plaintiff for the suit schedule land as agreed by him in agreement of sale dated:09.11.2005 within 3 months from this day, failing which plaintiff is at liberty to get it done under due process of law. Consequently, the

Defendant number 1 and the persons claiming on his behalf or claiming through him are hereby perpetually restrained from causing interference in the possession and enjoyment of Plaintiff over the suit schedule property in any manner.

Typed by the Stenographer, to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 27th day of April, 2023.

FAC.PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

IBRAHIMPATNAM, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

FOR WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS: PW1 Godavarthi Murali Krishna 5 of 5 OS.No.479 of 2021

Date:27.04.2023

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS: Exhibit A1 is the Original agreement of sale-cum-Agreement of allotment dated 09.11.2005

Exhibit A2 is the Original receipt dated:06.02.2006

Exhibit A3 is the Original receipt dated:06.02.2007

Exhibit A4 is the Original receipt dated:02.02.2008

Exhibit A5 is the Original receipt dated:10.07.2009

Exhibit A6 is the Original receipt dated:20.05.2010

Exhibit A7 is the Original receipt dated:07.11.2011

Exhibit A8 is the Original receipt dated:26.04.2012

Exhibit A9 is the Original receipt dated:16.01.2013

Exhibit A10 is the Original receipt dated:09.09.2014

Exhibit A11 is the Original receipt dated:21.10.2015

Exhibit A12 is the Original receipt dated:12.04.2016

Exhibit A13 is the Original receipt dated:04.09.2017

Exhibit A14 is the Original receipt dated:19.04.2018

Exhibit A15 is the Original receipt dated:12.08.2019

Exhibit A16 is the Original receipt dated:14.12.2020

Exhibit A17 is the Certified copy of registered sale deed number 5199/2003, dated:02.12.2003

Exhibit A18 is the office copy of legal notice dated:29.9.2021

Exhibit A19 is the original postal receipt dated:30.09.2021

Exhibit A20 is the acknowledgment card dated:04.10.2021

Exhibit A21 is the reply notice dated:19.10.2021.

FAC. PRINCIPAL JUNIOR JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

IBRAHIMPATNAM, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Page 1 of 4 CC.NO.415 of 2022

Date: 31.05.2022

IN THE COURT OF THE XXVI ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD AT IBRAHIMPATNAM, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

(Tuesday, this the 31st day of May, 2022)

PRESENT: Ms.Anamika, XXVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District

Calendar Case Number 415 OF 2022

Between:

The State of Telangana, through Sub Inspector of Police, Yacharam, Police Station. …Complainant. A N D 1.Bemanamoni Shiva Son of Nagaiah, Age: 20 years, Occupation: Student, Resident of Nandiwanaparthy Village, Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Bemanamoni Nagaiah Son of Late Lingaiah, Age: 33 years, Occupation: Farmer, Resident of Nandiwanaparthy Village, Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

3. Bemanamoni Bajrau Son of Late Lingaiah, Age: 45 years, Occupation: Agriculture, Resident of Nandiwanaparthy Village, Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. …Accused. This case came before this court for hearing on 31.05.2022in the presence of Mrs.G.Aruna Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and accused, having heard and considered the record till date, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Yacharam, Police Station filed a charge sheet in Crime

Number 171 of 2022 against the Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 504 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 09.05.2022 at 09.15pm LW10:Mr.S.Gopal,

Sub Inspector of Police, Yacharam Police station received complaint from LW1:Mr.Barla Raju in which he stated that on 09.05.2022 at 07.30pm his family members were returning from the home from the agricultural land. At that time B.Srisailam, B.Shiva, B.Nagaia and B.Bajarj stopped their bolero and hurled wooden stick. When he questioned their acts they abused him and attacked on him by a wooden bar. Due to that he and his family members sustained injury.

Hence he requested to take necessary action.

3. Basing on the contents of complaint LW10:Mr:S.Gopal, Sub Inspector of Police,

Yacharam registered a case in Crime Number 171 of 2022 under Sections 326, 341, 504 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and entrusted the investigation to LW11:Mr.G.Prabhakar, Sub

Inspector of Police Yacharam. During the course of investigation LW11:Mr.G.Prabhakar, Sub

Inspector of Police Yacharam examined the material witnesses, conducted panchanama for scene of offence and drew a rough sketch. After collection of medical certificate and issuing notice under 41(A)of Code of Criminal Procedure to accused he filed charge sheet against the accused under sections 324, 341, 504 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.

Page 2 of 4 CC.NO.415 of 2022

Date: 31.05.2022

4. The case was taken on file for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 341, 504 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, against the accused and numbered as Calendar Case Number 415/2022.

5. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

6. Accused were examined under Sections 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure explaining the substance of accusation leveled against them. Charge was framed under the heads 324, 341, 504 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. During the trial proceedings PW1 to PW4 were examined and Exhibits P1 to P5 were marked for prosecution. As nothing came against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Hence examination of accused under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was dispensed with.

8.Heard both sides. Both requested the court to decide the case on merits. Perused the record.

9.Now the point for determination is whether prosecution proved the guilt of the Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 341, 504 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code?

9.1 To prove the allegations levelled against the accused complainant was called and examined as PW1. He deposed that on 09.05.2022 a dispute arose between them and accused.

During that they attacked and beat them. So he filed complaint in the police station. After coming to know about the concept of Lok Adalath they discussed the matter in presence of elders and the matter has been settled amicably. At present he has no grievance against the accused. At this stage, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor requested the Court to permit to ask the questions in form of cross examination. During his examination by Learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor PW1 denied the suggestion put forth by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor of deposing as mentioned in his statement recorded under section 161 of Code of Criminal

Procedure. He further admitted that the matter has been settled amicably.

9.2.Thereafter injured Mr.Barla Kumar was called by the prosecution and examined as

PW2.He deposed that on 09.05.2022 a dispute arose between them and accused. During that they attacked and beat them. After coming to know about the concept of Lok Adalath they discussed the matter in presence of elders and the matter has been settled amicably. At present he has no grievance against the accused. On that learned Assistant Public Prosecutor requested the Court to

Page 3 of 4 CC.NO.415 of 2022

Date: 31.05.2022

permit him to ask the questions in form of cross examination. During his examination by

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor PW2 denied the suggestion put forth by learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor of deposing as mentioned in his statement recorded under section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure. He further admitted that the matter has been settled amicably.

9.3 Another injured was called and examined as PW3. He deposed that on 09.05.2022 a dispute arose between them and accused. During that they attacked and beat them. After coming to know about the concept of Lok Adalath they discussed the matter in presence of elders and the matter has been settled amicably. At present he has no grievance against the accused. On that learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor requested the Court to permit him to ask the questions in form of cross examination. During his examination by Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor PW2 denied the suggestion put forth by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor of deposing as mentioned in his statement recorded under section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure. He further admitted that the matter has been settled amicably.

9.4Finally Mrs.Barla Padma was called by the prosecution and examined as PW4. She deposed that on 09.05.2022 a dispute arose between them and accused. During that they attacked and beat them. After coming to know about the concept of Lok Adalath they discussed the matter in presence of elders and the matter has been settled amicably. At present she has no grievance against the accused. On that learned Assistant Public Prosecutor requested the Court to permit her to ask the questions in form of cross examination. During her examination by Learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor PW4 denied the suggestion put forth by learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor of deposing as mentioned in her statement recorded under section 161 of Code of

Criminal Procedure. She further admitted that the matter has been settled amicably. At this juncture having no expectation in the improvement of case, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor preferred to give up the examination of remaining witnesses.

9.5 As seen from the charge sheet the case of prosecution was completely based upon the testimony of above said vital witnesses but the complainant and injured in their entire evidence recorded by this court did not depose against the accused. As the witnesses retracted from their previous version, hence this court is of the opinion that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused by producing relevant and cogent evidence. Therefore the accused are entitled for acquittal. Point is answered accordingly.

10.In the result, Accused are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 341, 504 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, accused are acquitted under

Page 4 of 4 CC.NO.415 of 2022

Date: 31.05.2022

Section 248 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offences. The bail bonds of Accused shall remain in force for a period of 6 months so as to bind them to appear before appellate court if any appeal is preferred against this judgment. As seen from the record there is no case property, hence no specific order is passed in that regard.

Typed by the Stenographer, to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 31stday of May, 2022.

XXVI ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD: IBRAHIMPATNAM.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

PW1LW1Barla RajuComplainant/Injured PW2LW2Barla KumarInjured PW3LW3Barla ParvathaluInjured PW4LW4Barla PadmaInjured

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

--NONE—

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

Exhibit.P1 09-05-2022Complaint Exhibit.P2 09-05-2022Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure statement of PW1

Exhibit.P310-05-2022Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure statement of PW2

Exhibit.P409-05-2022Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure statement of PW3

Exhibit.P510-05-2022Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure statement of PW4

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

-NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

XXVI ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD: IBRAHIMPATNAM.

Page 1 of 5 CC.NO.277 of 2019

Date:03.05.2023

IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD AT IBRAHIMPATNAM, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

(Wednesday, this the 03rd day of May, 2023)

PRESENT: Ms.Anamika, XVI Additional.Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District

Calendar Case Number 277 OF 201 9

Between:

The State of Telangana, through Sub Inspector of Police, Yacharam, Police Station. …Complainant. Represented by: Ms.G.Aruna, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. A N D

Erukali Mallaiah Son of Sataiah, Age: 46 years, Occupation:Auto Labour, Resident of Medipally Village, Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. … Accused. Represented by: Mr.N.Anjan Reddy, Learned counsel for accused.

Date of Offence19-09-2018

Date of FIR19-09-2018

Date of Chargesheet16-04-2019

Date of Framing of charges 17-09-2019

Date of commencement of evidence05-07-2022

Date on which judgment is reserved 02-05-2023

Date of Judgment 03-05-2023

Date of the Sentencing Order, if any ---

This case came before this court for hearing on 02-05-2023 in the presence of Mrs.G.Aruna, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Mr.N.Anjan Reddy, learned counsel for accused, having heard and considered the record till date, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Yacharam, Police Station filed a charge sheet in Crime

Number 267 of 2018 against the Accused for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of

Andhra Pradesh Excise Act.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 19.09.2018 at 06.30PM LW1:Mr.B.Suresh

Babu, Sub Inspector of police, Yacharam received a credible information about selling liquor in

Medipally Village, without any valid license. On that he along with police constable number

Page 2 of 5 CC.NO.277 of 2019

Date:03.05.2023

3851 Mr.J.Srinu, Police constable number 3147 Mr.Shyam Sunder, proceeded to Medipally

Village, secured the presence of mediators Mr.Vaddemoni Naresh and Vabbath Lakshman went to the spot and found some bottles of liquor. He also found Erukala Mallaiah and he confessed that he is running belt shop at Medipally village from last few years and he is trying to gain extra money. In this process he is purchasing liquor from various wine ships and selling the same in his home for higher price with a margin of Rs.10/-. LW1:Mr.B.Suresh Babu seized

I)16 bottles of Offcer choice (180 Milliliter), II) 02 bottles of Imperial Blue (375 Milliliter) and

III)10 bottles of Imperial Blue (180 Milliliter).

3.Basing on the contents of confession-cum-seizure panchanama

LW7:Mr.L.Krishnam Raju, Inspector of police, Yacharam, registered a case in Crime Number 267 of 2018 under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act and entrusted the investigation to LW8:Mr.B.Venkataiah, Sub Inspector of police, Yacharam.

4.During the course of investigation LW8:Mr.B.Venkataiah, Sub Inspector of police,

Yacharam examined and recorded the statements of witnesses who assisted LW1:B.Suresh

Banu. Later sample was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for Chemical Examination.

LW6:Ms.V.R.GUnasheela, Assistant Director Forensic Science Laboratory, Red Hills,

Nampally, Hyderabad opined in her report that there was Ethyl Alcohol in samples number 1 to 3. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.

5.The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of Andhra

Pradesh Excise Act 1968, against the accused and numbered as Calendar Case Number 277/2019.

6. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

7. Accused was examined under Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure explaining the substance of accusation leveled against him. Charge was framed for the offence under

Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act 1968 for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Page 3 of 5 CC.NO.277 of 2019

Date:03.05.2023

8. During the trial proceedings PW1 to PW5 were examined and Exhibits P1 to P7 were marked for prosecution.

9.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure with reference to the incriminating material available against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied and reported no defense evidence.

10.Heard both sides. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor requested to convict the accused by considering oral evidence adduced and documentary evidence marked by the prosecution during trial. On the other hand, learned counsel for accused requested to acquit the accused as panch witnesses for seizure of liquor did not supported the case of prosecution. Perused the record.

11.Now the point for determination is whether prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act 1968?

11.1 To prove the allegations levelled against the accused Police constable who assisted the investigation officer was called and examined as PW1. He deposed that on 19.09.2018 LW1

Mr.B.Suresh Babu, Sub Inspector of Police received information about illegal sale of liquor in

Medipally Village. So he and LW2 J.Srinu went to the village. On searching the house of accused, he was found in possession of 1)16 bottles of Offcer choice (180 Milliliter), 2) 02 bottles of Imperial Blue (375 Milliliter) and 3)10 bottles of Imperial Blue (180 Milliliter), total 28 bottles. Those bottles were seized in presence of panch witnesses. Nothing new or contrary to the case of prosecution came to record during her cross examination.

11.2 Panch witnesses for Scene of offence and Confession-Cum- Seizure panchanama were called and examined as PW2 and PW3. They deposed that accused never confessed anything

before them. Nothing was seized from the possession of accused in their presence. About four

years ago they went to police station for their own work. At that time a police officer instructed them to affix their signatures on a blank paper. On the instructions of police officer they affixed

Page 4 of 5 CC.NO.277 of 2019

Date:03.05.2023

their signatures on a blank paper. During the questions asked to them by Learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor nothing came to record in favour of prosecution.

11.3. Thereafter, Investigating Officer was called and examined as PW4. He deposed about registration of First Information Report by LW7:Mr.L.Krishnam Raju, Inspector of Police

Yacharam on the basis of confession cum seizure panchanama received from LW1:B.Suresh

Babu, examination of witnesses, forwarding of sample to Forensic Science Laboratory , issuing of notice under 41(A)of Code of Criminal Procedure to the accused and filing of charge sheet against the accused.

11.4PW5 who conducted confession cum seizure panchanama deposed about raiding the house of accused, conducting of confession cum seizure panchanama in presence of PW2 and

PW3, seizure of liquor bottles and producing him before the Station House Officer for further action.

11.5. As seen from the record, the case of prosecution was completely based upon the testimony of above said vital witnesses but the material witnesses in their entire evidence recorded by this court did not utter even a single word incriminating the accused. As the panch witness for seizure of liquor bottles retracted from their previous version, hence this court of the opinion that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused by producing relevant and cogent evidence. Therefore the accused is entitled for acquittal . Point is answered accordingly.

12.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act 1968. Accordingly, accused is acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of 6 months so as to bind them to appear before appellate court if any appeal is preferred against this judgment. As seen from the record there is no case property, hence no specific order is passed in that regard.

Typed by the Stenographer, to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 03rd day of May, 2023.

XVI ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD: IBRAHIMPATNAM.

Page 5 of 5 CC.NO.277 of 2019

Date:03.05.2023

LIST OF PROSECUTION AND DEFENCE WITNESSES

A-PROSECUTION WITNESSES

PW1LW3Shyam SunderAssisted the investigating officer PW2LW4 Panch witness for confession cum seizure Vaddemoni Naresh panchanama

PW3LW5Panch witness for confession cum seizure Vabbath Lakshman panchanama

PW4LW8B.VenkataiahInvestigating Officer

PW5LW1B.Suresh BabuConducted confession cum seizure panchanama

B- DEFENCE WITNESSES

-Nil-

LIST OF PROSECUTION AND DEFENCE EXHIBITS

A-PROSECUTION EXHIBITS

Exhibit.P1/PW219-09-2018Signature of PW2 on confession cum seizure panchanama

Exhibit.P2/PW319-09-2018Signature of PW3 on confession cum seizure panchanama

Exhibit.P3/PW419-09-2018First Information Report Exhibit. P4 /PW423-04-2019Attested copy of proceedings issued by Deputy Commissioner Exhibit.P5/PW4 02-05-2019Attested copy of destruction panchanama Exhibit.P6/PW4 25-03-2019Forensic Science and Laboratory Report Relevant portion of Confession-cum seizure Exhibit.P7/PW519-09-2018 panchanama

B-DEFENCE EXHIBITS

-Nil- MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: Nil

XVI ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD: IBRAHIMPATNAM.

Page 1 of 4 CC.NO.416 of 2022

Date: 31.05.2022

IN THE COURT OF THE XXVI ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD AT IBRAHIMPATNAM, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

(Tuesday, this the 31st day of May, 2022)

PRESENT: Ms.Anamika, XXVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District

Calendar Case Number 416 OF 2022

Between:

The State of Telangana, through Sub Inspector of Police, Yacharam, Police Station. …Complainant. A N D 1.Barla Kumar Son of Parwathalu, Age: 23 years, Occupation:Agriculture, Resident of Nandiwanaparthy Village, Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Barla Padma Wife of Parwathalu, Age: 50 years, Occupation:Agriculture, Resident of Nandiwanaparthy Village, Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

3. Barla Parvathalu Son of Istari, Age: 55 years, Occupation:Agriculture, Resident of Nandiwanaparthy Village, Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. …Accused. This case came before this court for hearing on 31.05.2022 in the presence of Mrs.G.Aruna Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and accused, having heard and considered the record till date, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Yacharam, Police Station filed a charge sheet in Crime

Number 172 of 2022 against the Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 504, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 09.05.2022 at 09.30pm LW10:Mr.S.Gopal,

Sub Inspector of Police, Yacharam Police station received complaint from LW1:Mrs.Beenamoni

Yadamma in which she stated that on 09.05.2022 at 07.10pm she was taking fire woods in her

Bolero vehicle. When she was unloading the fire woods at her home Mrs.B.Yadamma, and her husband Parvathalu abused her. When she questioned their acts Mr:B.Raju and B.Kumar beat her elder son Srisailam by an Axe. Due to that he received injury on his hand. They also threatened to kill them. Hence he requested to take necessary action.

3. Basing on the contents of complaint LW10:Mr:S.Gopal, Sub Inspector of Police,

Yacharam registered a case in Crime Number 172 of 2022 under Sections 324, 504, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and entrusted the investigation to LW11:Mr.G.Prabhakar, Sub

Inspector of Police Yacharam. During the course of investigation LW11:Mr.G.Prabhakar, Sub

Inspector of Police Yacharam examined the material witnesses, conducted panchanama for scene of offence and drew a rough sketch. After collection of medical certificate and issuing

Page 2 of 4 CC.NO.416 of 2022

Date: 31.05.2022

notice under 41(A)of Code of Criminal Procedure to accused he filed charge sheet against the accused.

4. The case was taken on file for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 504, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, against the accused and numbered as Calendar Case Number 416/2022.

5. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

6. Accused were examined under Sections 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure explaining the substance of accusation leveled against them. Charge was framed under the heads 324, 504, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. During the trial proceedings PW1 to PW3 were examined and Exhibits P1 to P4 were marked for prosecution. As nothing came against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Hence examination of accused under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was dispensed with.

8.Heard both sides. Both requested the court to decide the case on merits. Perused the record.

9.Now the point for determination is whether prosecution proved the guilt of the Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 504, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal?

9.1 To prove the allegations levelled against the accused complainant was called and examined as PW1. She deposed that on 09.05.2022 a dispute arose between them and accused.

During that they attacked and beat them. So she filed complaint in the police station. After coming to know about the concept of Lok Adalath they discussed the matter in presence of elders and the matter has been settled amicably. At present she has no grievance against the accused. On that, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor requested the Court to permit to ask the questions in form of cross examination. During her examination by Learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor PW1 denied the suggestion put forth by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor of deposing as mentioned in her statement recorded under section 161 of Code of Criminal

Procedure. She further admitted that the matter has been settled amicably.

9.2.Thereafter injured Mr.B.Nagaiah was called by the prosecution and examined as PW2.He deposed that on 09.05.2022 a dispute arose between them and accused. During that they attacked and beat them. On that to know about the concept of Lok Adalath they discussed the matter in presence of elders and the matter has been settled amicably. At present he has no grievance

Page 3 of 4 CC.NO.416 of 2022

Date: 31.05.2022

against the accused. On that learned Assistant Public Prosecutor requested the Court to permit him to ask the questions in form of cross examination. During his examination by Learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor PW2 denied the suggestion put forth by learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor of deposing as mentioned in his statement recorded under section 161 of Code of

Criminal Procedure. He further admitted that the matter has been settled amicably.

9.3 Finally Mr.B.Shiva was called and examined as PW3. He deposed that on 09.05.2022 a dispute arose between them and accused. During that they attacked and beat them. After coming to know about the concept of Lok Adalath they discussed the matter in presence of elders and the matter has been settled amicably. At present he has no grievance against the accused. On that learned Assistant Public Prosecutor requested the Court to permit him to ask the questions in form of cross examination. During his examination by Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor PW2 denied the suggestion put forth by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor of deposing as mentioned in his statement recorded under section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure. He further admitted that the matter has been settled amicably. At this juncture having no expectation in the improvement of case, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor preferred to give up the examination of remaining witnesses.

9.4 As seen from the charge sheet the case of prosecution was completely based upon the testimony of above said vital witnesses but the complainant and injured in their entire evidence recorded by this court did not depose against the accused. As the witnesses retracted from their previous version, hence this court is of the opinion that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused by producing relevant and cogent evidence. Therefore the accused are entitled for acquittal. Point is answered accordingly.

10.In the result, Accused are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 504, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, accused are acquitted under

Section 248 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offences. The bail bonds of Accused shall remain in force for a period of 6 months so as to bind them to appear before appellate court if any appeal is preferred against this judgment. As seen from the record there is no case property, hence no specific order is passed in that regard.

Typed by the Stenographer, to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 31stday of May, 2022.

XXVI ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD: IBRAHIMPATNAM.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

PW1LW1Beenamoni YadammaComplainant/Injured

Page 4 of 4 CC.NO.416 of 2022

Date: 31.05.2022

PW2LW2Beenamoni NagaiahInjured PW3LW3Beenamoni ShivaInjured

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

--NONE—

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

Exhibit.P1 09-05-2022Complaint Exhibit.P2 09-05-2022Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure statement of PW1

Exhibit.P309-05-2022Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure statement of PW2

Exhibit.P410-05-2022Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure statement of PW3

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

-NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

XXVI ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD: IBRAHIMPATNAM.