Devan Ajay Kumar

CC No.80/2019, XV ACJM, Hyderabad

Dt: 15-05-2026

IN THE COURT OF THE XV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

AT HYDERABAD

Present:-Ajay Kumar Devan XV Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad

Friday, this the 15h day of May, 2026

CC.No. 80 of 2019

BETWEEN: The State of Telangana Rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police, WPS, CCS Hyderabad. …. Complainant

And

A1 : D.Madhuudhan S/o.D.Ramesh(Abated) A2 : D.Ramesh, S/o.D.Mallaiah (Abated) A3 : D.Suma Latha, D/o.D.Ramesh, Age : 29 years, Occ : Household, A4 : D.Pavan Kumar, S/o.D.Ramesh, Age : 30 years, Occ : Nil, A3 & A4 are R/o.H.No.2-4-465, Krishna Nagar, Kachiguda, Hyderabad. … Accused * * * * * This case is coming before me for final hearing on 08-05-2026 in the presence of Smt Anitha Deshmukh, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and M/s.Suraj Baisa, Learned Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.Accused No.3 and 4 (In short A3 and A4) are prosecuted for the offence u/s.498-A of Indian Penal Code (In short IPC) and Sec 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act (In short DP Act).

2.Pw1/D Mahalaxmi is the De-facto complainant and Pw2/Madhavi is her mother. Pw3/C Sudhakar is the Sub Inspector of Police, CCS DD and the

Investigating officer.

Page No. 1 of 14

CC No.80/2019, XV ACJM, Hyderabad

Dt: 15-05-2026

3.On 10-08-2018 Pw1 has lodged a written report report the Sub Inspector of

Police, CCS DD, Lw5/P.Vijay Bhaskar and it was registered as case in

Cr.No.466 of 2018 for the offence u/s.498-A, 406 of IPC, sec 3 and 4 of DP

Act. Investigation was taken up by Pw3 and he examined Pws.1 and 2 and other available witnesses. He issued notice u/s. 41-A of Code of Criminal

Procedure (In short Cr.P.C) to A1 to A4. On completion of Investigation he has filed a charge sheet.

4.According to the prosecution the marriage of Pw1 and A1 was performed on 25-05-2011 as per Hindu rites and customs and it was an arranged marriage. At the time of marriage her parents have presented Rs.2,50,000/- cash, 6 tulas of gold, pulsar two wheeler and other house hold articles towards dowry. After the marriage she stayed with A1 and other accused for two years. They all started harassing her for additional dowry of Rs.15,000/- per month. A1 was suffering with physical and mental issues even prior to her marriage. A2 to A4 have cheated them and performed the marriage. A1 was suffering with kidney problem even prior to his marriage and this fact was suppressed from them. He was having medicines secretly without discussing the issue with her. A4 threatened her to revive the health of A1 or else he would kill her and her parents. Unable to bear the harassment she informed these facts to her parents and the matter was placed before the caste elders but there was no change in them. Her parents have presented

Page No. 2 of 14

CC No.80/2019, XV ACJM, Hyderabad

Dt: 15-05-2026

additional dowry of Rs.1,50,000/- to A1. From March 2018 she along with A1

were residing separately at Amberpet and A1 did not pay the house rent of

Rs.7000/-. In April 2018 A1 was admitted in Care hospital, Banjara Hills for 10 days and after discharge he left to his parents house. She tried to join him at her in laws house but was not permitted to enter into the house. She used to make telephone calls to A1 but there was no response.

5.Cognizance was taken for the offence u/s.498-A, 406 of IPC and Sec 3 and 4 of DP Act. On appearance of the accused, copies required under section 207 of Cr.P.C., was furnished and they were examined u/s.239 of Cr.P.C and charges u/s 498-A of IPC and Sec 4 of DP Act was framed. As they pleaded not guilty the case came up trial wherein the prosecution has examined

Pws.1 to 3 and exhibited P1 to P4, in detail mentioned in appendix of evidence annexed hereunder. After closure of the prosecution evidence the statement of accused was recorded u/s.313 of Cr.P.C., and their case is of total denial. In defence A3 was examined as Dw1 and exhibited D1 which is the original letter dated 13-07-2014 executed by President, Krishna Nagar

Youth Association.

6.Heard both the Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor (In short Ld. APP) and the learned defence counsel. Ld APP would contend that the evidence of Pw1 shows that immediately after two days of the marriage she was harassed by suspecting her fidelity. As the harassment increased after three months she

Page No. 3 of 14

CC No.80/2019, XV ACJM, Hyderabad

Dt: 15-05-2026

left to her parents house and a panchayat was held and she along with A1 shifted to a rented house at Amberpet. A1 was suffering with kidney problem from the childhood and it was concealed and she came to know about it when he was admitted in Care hospital Banjara Hills. These facts constitutes cruelty. Pw2 is the mother of the Pw1 and she corroborated the evidence of

Pw1 in all material aspect. Accused produced defence evidence and it proves holding of panchayat which corroborates the evidence of Pws.1 and

2. A3 also admitted about Pw1 and A1 residing separately and also about pulsar two wheeler presented towards dowry and that it is still in their possession.

7.Per contra learned defence counsel has criticized the prosecution case on the following grounds;

a) Prosecution did not produce documents to prove presentation of dowry.

The father of Pw1 has got no financial capacity to present dowry. Pw2 deposed that her husband has obtained PF loan and paid the dowry but the said document was not produced. Ex.P1 shows that after two years of the marriage accused started harassing Pw1 for additional dowry. A1 was having kidney problem and was not working even prior to the marriage. Pw1 in her cross examination admitted that in April, 2018 A1 was admitted to hospital and they came to know that he was suffering with kidney problem. Thus the

Page No. 4 of 14

CC No.80/2019, XV ACJM, Hyderabad

Dt: 15-05-2026

allegation that even prior to the marriage A1 was suffering with kidney problem is without any merits.

b) The allegation that Pw1 paid money for the demand of A1 is not supported with any documentary evidence. There was a panchayat and later Pw1 and

A1 set up separate residence in a rented house. Ex.D1 does not show the involvement of A3 and A4 and that they used to beat Pw1. This fact is admitted by Pw1 in her cross examination. Pw1 in her chief examination deposed that A3 beat her several times and A4 threatened her to kill her and her family members but it does not find place in Ex.P1. Pw1 claims that she was driven out of the matrimonial house but whereas the evidence of Pw2 shows that A1 has sent Pw1 to her house which disproves the statement of

Pw1.

c) The main cause of disputes between Pw1 and A1 is spoken by Pw2. Her evidence shows that A1 was unemployed and was not keeping well most of the time.

8.Now the point for determination are : “Whether Pw1 was subjected to cruelty for additional dowry and A3 and A4 have committed an offence u/s.498-A of

IPC and Sec 4 of DP Act?

9.Point : I have perused the entire material on record. From the admitted case of both the parties the following facts are not in dispute. The marriage of Pw1

Page No. 5 of 14

CC No.80/2019, XV ACJM, Hyderabad

Dt: 15-05-2026

and A1 was performed on 28-05-2011 as per Hindu rites and customs and it was an arranged marriage. Pw1 joined the society of A1 and A2 to A4 used to reside with them. Another sister-in-law and brother-in-law also used to resident with them. After three months cetain matrimonial disputes arose between them and a panchayat was held before Krishna Nagar Youth

Association and after the said panchayat both Pw1 and A1 set up a separate resident at Amberpet. They stayed together for three years. A1 was suffering with kidney problem and he was admitted to care hospital Banjara Hills for 10 days and after discharge he went to his parents house and Pw1 to her parents house and since then they are residing separately.

10.According to the prosecution even prior to the marriage A1 was suffering with kidney problem and this fact was concealed and the marriage was performed. A3 used to quarrel with her on petty issue and beat her A4. A4 used to abuse and threaten to kill her and to revive health of A1. On the demand of accused parents of Pw1 gave additional dowry of Rs.1,50,000/- and even then the harassment continued. A1 failed to pay the house rent for 10 months and the parents of Pw1 have paid. On the other hand the case set up by the accused is that as A1 was suffering with kidney problem only after the marriage. Disputes arose between them as he was idle most of the time.

Page No. 6 of 14

CC No.80/2019, XV ACJM, Hyderabad

Dt: 15-05-2026

11.A1 and A2 died during the pendency of this case and this case is being disposed of only against A3 and A4 and as such the evidence only to connect these accused with the charges are being evaluated.

12.Pw1 and Pw2 deposed about presentation of dowry to the accused on their demand, but unfortunately no documentary evidence was produced. Both these witnesses claim that 6 tulas of gold, pulsar two wheeler were presented towards dowry. However the admission made by A3/Dw1 shows that pulsar two wheeler was presented to A1 and at present lying in her parents house in a shed. Thus it is proved that only Pulsar Two wheeler and house hold articles were presented to A1.

13.Pw1 deposed that after two days of marriage A1 started harassing by suspecting her fidelity and later A2 started harassing suspecting that she had premarital affair with others and even continuing after the marriage. For this reason A3 beat her several times. She question A1 to show proofs of her extra marital affair and A4 threatened to kill her and her family. After three months as the harassment increased she left to her parents house. A panchayat was held in a community hall near to her in laws house and on the advise of the elders she along with A1 shifted to separate rented house at Amberpet and stayed together for three years. A1 was not having conjugal relationship with her during this three years and she enquired him and took him to the Care hospital, Banjara Hills and came to know that he had kidney

Page No. 7 of 14

CC No.80/2019, XV ACJM, Hyderabad

Dt: 15-05-2026

problem since childhood and was unfit for marital life. After discharge from the hospital her in laws took A1 to their house and and on the request of A1 and A2 she came her parents house. A1 did not pay 10 months rent after discharge from the hospital and she paid it and vacated the house and residing with her parents. In her cross examination she stated that she along with her husband were in the matrimonial house till the year 2014. After three years of marriage she took up employment and at that moment they were residing in a rented house. Her father lodged a complaint dated 13-07- 2014 before Banjara Darwaza Welfare Committee as she was beat and driven out of the matrimonial house and in the said complaint there is no reference about A3 and A4 about beating and driving her out of the matrimonial house. A panchayat was held on 03-08-2014 at the above welfare committee and the elders passed written resolution and it contains the signature of her father and her father-in-law and after the said panchayat on her consent she along with A1 shifted to Amberpet. In the said panchayat it was resolved that her father-in-law shall pay Rs.2000/- per month to them.

According to her the said resolution was not honoured. She had no idea about A1 receiving Rs.60,000/- while separating from his joint family. After shifting to Amberpet her father used to meet the house rent and expenses and it was in cash. In April 2018 A1 was admitted to Care hospital, Banjara

Hills as he was ill and after diagnosis she came to know that he was suffering with kidney problem. In the year 2014 when she was with her in

Page No. 8 of 14

CC No.80/2019, XV ACJM, Hyderabad

Dt: 15-05-2026

laws A3 beat her and A4 threatened to kill her but she did not lodge any report against them as A1 stopped her. In the meeting before the committee she did not bring to the notice of the elders about the harassment of A3 and

A4 and for the first time she named A3 and A4 in Ex.P1.

14.Pw2 is the mother of Pw1 and she deposed that her daughter lived happily with A1 for six months and later disputes arose between them. A1 was unwell and other accused demanded her daughter to bring money for his medical needs and they paid Rs.1,50,000/-. After six months of marriage A1 was admitted in the hospital and after one week he was discharged and later her daughter and A1 separated from the joint family and started residing in a rented house and stayed for one year. A1 was unemployed and not keeping well most of the time and as such disputes arose between them. A1 was again admitted in the hospital and after discharge he sent her daughter to her house. In her cross examination she deposed that she used to visit her daughter at Amberpet. A3 and A4 were not present at Amberpet.

15.A3 was examined as Dw1 and she deposed that after two or three years of marriage certain disputes arose between Pw1 and A1 and a panchayat was held at Krishna Nagar Youth Association and after the panchayat they both started residing in a rented house at Amberpet. They never visited them.

Due to the health issued A1 received treatment but unfortunately he died on 11-01-2022. No dowry was presented to A1. The allegation of Pw1 that they

Page No. 9 of 14

CC No.80/2019, XV ACJM, Hyderabad

Dt: 15-05-2026

have provided treatment to A1 was incorrect as his father was working in a police department and A1 was having health card (Arogya Baratha Card) and his entire treatment was free. She produced letter dated 13-07-2014/Ex.D1 executed by the President of Krisna Nagar Youth

Association. In her cross examination she stated that at the time of marriage of A1 and Pw1 she was staying in a joint family along with her parents. She denied about the presentation of dowry to them and about the harassment of

Pw1 suspecting her fidelity. She further denied that A1 was suffering with kidney problem since his childhood. She denied the case of the prosecution.

16.When the evidence referred above are considered in totality it is understood that after the marriage both Pw1 and A1 used to stay in the a joint family compromising of other accused and after few months disputes arose between them and a panchayat was held before the Krishna Nagar Youth

Association, Kachiguda and as per the advise of the elders both Pw1 and A1 shifted to a rented house at Amberpet and stayed for three years. As A1 was not cohabiting with Pw1 she took him to treatment to Care hospital, Banjara

Hills and came to know that he was suffering with kidney problem and after discharges he came to his house and whereas Pw1 went to her parents house. A1 was most of the time idle without employment and whereas Pw1 was working. Her parents have financially assisted them to meet the day to day requirements.

Page No. 10 of 14

CC No.80/2019, XV ACJM, Hyderabad

Dt: 15-05-2026

17.The allegation of Pw1 that immediately after two days of marriage A1 and A2 started harassing her by suspecting her fidelity and on this point A3 used to beat her several times and when she questioned A1 to prove the allegations

A4 threatened to kill her and her parents is without merits. These facts are material improvements omitted in Ex.P1 and cannot be considered. Pw2 is the mother of Pw1 did not state these facts in her evidence. Apart from this there are no other circumstances on record to suggest that Pw1 was harassed by suspecting her fidelity. A3 and A4 used to beat her and threaten her on this aspect. This is the only allegation made against these accused and there are no other allegation against them, either in Ex.P1 or in the evidence of Pws.1 and 2. A panchayat was held before the elders and Pw1 did not bring this fact, ie., involvement of A3 and A3 before the said elders and for the first time she has stated this fact before this court. Contrary to this in Ex.P1 it is stated that A3 has several times beat her and A4 has threatened her to revive the health of A1 or he will kill her and her family members. Thus it is difficult to believe the said allegation made against the accused.

18.It is understood that A1 was suffering with kidney problem and was unemployed and not cohabiting with Pw1 and disputes arose between them and the said disputes went to the extent of their separation. Immediately after the discharge from the hospital A1 went to his house and whereas Pw1

Page No. 11 of 14

CC No.80/2019, XV ACJM, Hyderabad

Dt: 15-05-2026

went to her parents house. Later Pw1 filed this case and during its pendency

A1 died due to kidney problem.

19.Another allegation made against the accused is about concealing the disease of A1 prior to the marriage. In order to suggest that A1 was suffering with kidney problem even prior to the marriage no material is produced on record. In Ex.P1 it is stated that A1 used to consume medicines secretively without disclosing it to Pw1 and this fact is not spoken by Pw1 and Pw2.

These witnesses did not speak any other circumstance to suggest that in- fact A1 was suffering with kidney problem even prior to his marriage. On the other hand in the chief examination Pw1 stated that she came to know about it when A1 failed to cohabit with her during his stay at Amberpet for three years and when she took him to the care hospital, Banjara Hills. The above evidence suggest that even A1 and other accused were unaware about his disease.

20.As A1 was unemployed and idle most of the time parents of Pw1 supported them financially to meet day to day requirements. It might be true they have paid Rs.1,50,000/- to meet their day to day requirements. The allegation that accused demanded Pw1 to bring money to meet the medical needs of A1 is found without material. Pw1 though stated in Ex.P1 but did not speak this fact. On the other hand A3 has categorically stated that her father worked in police department and A1 was having Aarogya Bhatrha Card and his entire

Page No. 12 of 14

CC No.80/2019, XV ACJM, Hyderabad

Dt: 15-05-2026

treatment was free. This fact was not specifically denied by the prosecution.

Prosecution could have produce material to show that the medical expenses of A1 have borne by the Pw1 and her parents but failed to do so.

21.For the foregoing discussion this court hold that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and A3 and A4 are entitled for acquittal.

22.In the result, A3 and A4 are found not guilty for the offence u/s.498-A of IPC and Sec. 4 of DP Act and accordingly they are acquitted for the said offence u/s. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall be in force for (6) months in terms of sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr-II, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open

court, on this the 15 th day of May, 2026.

(Ajay Kumar Devan) XV Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Prosecution Pw1 : Mahalakshmi -Defacto Complainant Pw2 : Madhavi -Mother of Pw1 – Circumstantial witness Pw3 : C Sudhakar -Investigating officer

For Defence Dw1 : Sumalatha

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Ex.P1/Pw1 : Report report of Pw1 Ex.P2/Pw1 : Marriage photographs (2 Nos)

Page No. 13 of 14

CC No.80/2019, XV ACJM, Hyderabad

Dt: 15-05-2026

Ex.P3/Pw1 : Wedding card Ex.P4/Pw3 : First Information Report

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

Ex.D1/Dw1 : Original letter dated : 13-07-2014 executed by Krishna Nagar Youth Association

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil - (Ajay Kumar Devan) XV Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad //True copy//

Page No. 14 of 14

CC No.4503/2024, XV ACJM, Hyderabad

Dt: 15-05-2026

IN THE COURT OF THE XV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

AT HYDERABAD

Present:-Ajay Kumar Devan XV Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad

Friday, this the 15h day of May, 2026

CC.No. 4503 of 2024

(Old CC No.759 of 2016)

BETWEEN: The State of Telangana Rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police, WPS, CCS Hyderabad. …. Complainant

And

A1 : M.A.Salam, S/o.M.A.Majeed (Case against A1 was split up in CC No.9849/2025) A2 : M.A.Majeed (Abated) A7 : M.A.Sami, S/o.M.A.Majeed, Age : 44 years, Occ : Pvt Work, R/o.H.No.8-1- 332/3/A/91/A, Arvind Nagar Colony, Tolichowki, Hyderabad. … Accused * * * * * This case is coming before me for final hearing on 14-05-2026 in the presence of Smt Anitha Deshmukh, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and Smt.Lalitha Kumari, Learned Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.Accused No.7 (In short A7) is prosecuted for the offence u/s.498-A of Indian

Penal Code (In short IPC) and Sec 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act (In short DP

Act).

2.Pw1/Ather Ayesha Sultan is the De-facto complainant and Pw2/Mohd

Jalauddin is her elder brother. Pw3/Sirajuddin is said to be an independent

Page No. 1 of 11

CC No.4503/2024, XV ACJM, Hyderabad

Dt: 15-05-2026

witness and whereas Pw4/B.Pandary is the Sub Inspector of Police, CCS

DD and the Investigating officer.

3.According to the prosecution the marriage of Pw1 and A1 was performed on 23-01-2012 as per Muslim rites and customs and it was an arranged marriage. At the time of marriage her parents have presented Rs.1 lakh towards jode ka rakam, two wheeler, household articles and jahez articles towards dowry. After the marriage she joined the society of A1 and her in laws including A7 used to reside with them. After three months of the marriage A1 left India and she was at her in laws house. Her in laws including A7 started harassing her stating that substandard jahez articles were presented and also started commenting on the financial capacity of her parents and when she objected they bore grudge and started harassing her on petty issues. Her sister-in-law Siraj Fatima used to stay along with her and she used to called her as Randi. She was made to do all the household works. She conceived and when she was eight months pregnant she went to her parents house and on 25-10-2012 she gave birth to a female child. All her in laws started suspecting her fidelity and make allegations that the child in the womb does not belongs to A1 and she was pregnant even prior to the marriage. Her parents and relatives tried to convince them but it was in vain.

After the birth of the child her in laws were informed about it and they came

Page No. 2 of 11

CC No.4503/2024, XV ACJM, Hyderabad

Dt: 15-05-2026

to the hospital and left back without happiness. Her parents have borne all the medical expenses. A1 did not bother to congratulate her and make any attempts to see the minor girl over phone. On the next date her mother-in- law called her mother and picked up a quarrel for not getting up and wishing her at the hospital. Her sister-in-law Siraj Fatima also picked up a quarrel with her mother stating that the baby does not resemble A1. Even after completion of five months of birth of the child, A1 and other accused did not turn up to take her back to their society. A panchayat was held and she was taken to her in laws house but the harassment continued. They did not help her to take care of the child. She was given more household works and no time to look after the child. Her in laws did not allow her to speak with A1. He also used to avoid her stating that he is busy in work. On her daughter’s birth her sister-in-law Talath Fatima picked up a quarrel for not bring gold jewellery to the child. Unable to bear the harassment several times she tried to commit suicide but could not take the extreme step. In January, 2015 A1 came to Hyderabad and he brought several gifts to his family member but nothing to her. Her sister-in-law Siraj Fatima advised A1 not to meet her parents and avoid them. On 04-01-2015 her sisters-in-law Mehraj Fatima and Talath Fatima came to her house and when she was preparing to leave to her parents house to attend her brothers pre-wedding function they took her child and bag and demanded to finish the household works and go to her

Page No. 3 of 11

CC No.4503/2024, XV ACJM, Hyderabad

Dt: 15-05-2026

parents house. They both started harassing her and A1 kept quite without interfering. She requested A1 to hand over her gold jewellery to attend her brothers function but he replied that it was in the custody of her mother-in- law and when requested her mother-in-law to give her gold jewellery she stated that her sister-in-law Mehraj Fatima has sold it. On 31-01-2015 her brother Mohd Mujeeb Kamaluddin came to her house to pick her as her father was serious and admitted in Global Hospital her sister-in-law and father-in-law objected and prevented her to visiting her father at the hospital.

They abused her in filthy language and beat with slippers. A7 used to visit their matrimonial house once in a week and abused her in filthy language and used to state that she was unsuitable for A1 and advised A1 to marry another women as he has done. He used to instigate other family members against her. On 31-01-2025 A1 slapped her and abused in filthy language and driven her out of the matrimonial house with a demand to bring Rs.5 lakhs for settling their disputes. Unable to bear the harassment she lodged a written report before the concerned police.

4.Basing on the said report, the Inspector of Police, WPS CCS DD,

Lw7/V.Srinivas Reddy has registered a case in crime No.44 of 2015 for the offence u/s.498-A, 406 of IPC and Sec 4 and 6 of DP Act and handed over the investigation to Pw4. During the course of Investigation Pw4 has

Page No. 4 of 11

CC No.4503/2024, XV ACJM, Hyderabad

Dt: 15-05-2026

examined Pws.1 to 3, Lw3/Abbas Bee, Lw4/Mohd Azam Ali and Lw5/Ashwin

Mahajan. As the involvement of A2, A4 to A6 was ruled out in the offence he deleted their names from the charge sheet. He issued notice u/s. 41-A of

Code of Criminal Procedure (In short Cr.P.C) to A1, A3 and A7. On completion of Investigation he has filed a charge sheet.

5.Cognizance was taken for the offence u/s.498-A, 406 of IPC and Sec 4 and 6 of DP Act. On appearance of the accused, copies required under section 207 of Cr.P.C., was furnished and he was examined u/s.239 of Cr.P.C and charges u/s 498-A of IPC and Sec 6 of DP Act was framed. As he pleaded not guilty the case came up trial wherein the prosecution has examined

Pws.1 to 4 and exhibited P1 to P5, in detail mentioned in appendix of evidence annexed hereunder. After closure of the prosecution evidence the statement of accused was recorded u/s.313 of Cr.P.C., and his case is of total denial and he did not choose to produce defence evidence.

6.Heard both the Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor (In short Ld. APP) and the learned defence counsel. Ld APP would contend that the evidence of Pw1 is consistent with the prosecutions case. Her evidence proves that accused used to abuse her in filthy language and instigated A1 to perform second marriage. He instigated the other family members to harass her. Pw2 is the brother of Pw1 and he corroborated the evidence of Pw1 in all material

Page No. 5 of 11

CC No.4503/2024, XV ACJM, Hyderabad

Dt: 15-05-2026

aspects. Pw4 is the investigating officer and he spoke about the

Investigation conducted by him and nothing useful was elicited to suggest that the investigation was biased.

7.Per contra learned defence counsel would contend that A7 was residing separately from Pw1 and other accused. There are no specific overt acts against him. The evidence of Pw1 cannot be relied upon as there are several omissions and contradictions. Pw3 has turned hostile. There is no evidence on record to connect A7 with the charges.

8.Now the point for determination are : i) “Whether Pw1 was subjected to cruelty by A7? and ii) Whether the dowry presented to Pw1 was not given to her?

9.Point Nos.1 and 2 : As both these points are interconnected with each other they are taken up together for disposal. I have perused the entire material on record. From the admitted case of both the parties the following facts are not in dispute. The marriage of Pw1 and A1 was performed on 23-01-2012 as per Muslim rites and customs and it was an arranged marriage. A7 is the brother-in-law of Pw1. After two months of marriage A7 separated from other accused.

Page No. 6 of 11

CC No.4503/2024, XV ACJM, Hyderabad

Dt: 15-05-2026

10.Pw1 has made several allegations against her husband and in laws including

A7 and only the evidence relevant to connect A7 with the charges are appreciated.

11.There is no sufficient material to connect A7 with the charges. Pw1 deposed that after birth of female child on 24-10-2012 A7 made an allegation that the child was not born to his brother and used to repeatedly make the said allegation. After two months of the marriage he separated from the joint family but regularly used to visit them. He married twice and instigated A1 to marry another women. He also used to harass stating that jahez articles are sub-standard and insufficient. After registration of the FIR counseling was done and A7 assured that A1 will take care of her. A1 agreed to pay

Rs.6,000/- per month to her and separate maintenance to her child and she shall stay with her parents till he returned from Kuwait. A7 and his father promised if A1 fails to keep his promise they will pay the said maintenance and later A1 left to Kuwait and breached his promise. In her cross examination she denied that she omitted to state before police that A7 made allegation that the child was not born to his brother and after lodging her report a compromise was arrived and A1 promised to pay maintenance to her and her child but later failed to keep it and A7 assured that if A1 fails to

Page No. 7 of 11

CC No.4503/2024, XV ACJM, Hyderabad

Dt: 15-05-2026

keep the promise he shall honour it. She denied that A7 is residing separately from them and never harassed her.

12.Pw2 is the brother of Pw1 and he deposed that after the marriage Pw1 joined the society of A1, A7 and other in laws used to reside with them. After three months of marriage A1 left to Kuwait for his employment and Pw1 was staying with her in laws. In September 2012 when Pw1 was eight months pregnant she came down to her house and 24-10-2012 she gave birth to a female child and doctors gave her date of delivery on 23 or 25 but she gave birth on 24-10-2025. A3 made an allegation that the child was not born to his son. A7 used to instigate A1 and advised him to perform another marriage whenever a quarrel took place with his sister. In his cross examination he denied that he omitted to state before the police that A7 used to instigate and advised A1 to perform another marriage whenever quarrel took place.

After two months of marriage of Pw1, A7 separated from his parents. He denied that A7 never instigated A1 to perform another marriage .

13.Pw3 is an Independent witness and neighbor of A7 and he turned hostile.

Pw4 is the investigating office and he spoke about the investigation conducted by him. In his cross examination he denied that A7 never stayed with Pw1 and other accused and basing on false report lodged by Pw1 a false FIR was registered.

Page No. 8 of 11

CC No.4503/2024, XV ACJM, Hyderabad

Dt: 15-05-2026

14.When the entire evidence is considered it is found that there are several omission and contradictions in the evidence of Pw1 and 2. From the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 it is understood immediately after three months of the marriage A7 separated from the joint family and started residing separately. In Ex.P1 it is alleged that A7 used to visit his parents weekly once and he used to abuse Pw1 in filthy language and instigated A1 to desert Pw1 so that he can marry another women. Except the above allegation there are no other allegation made against him. Pw1 stated that

A7 made a allegation that the child was not born through A1 and it is a material omission. With regard to the other allegation that A7 used to instigate A1 to separate from Pw1 and marry another women it is a general in nature without any specific overacts. The statement of Pw1 that after registration of Ex.P1 a counseling was done and A7 assured that A1 will take care of her and also pay Rs.6000/- per months and a separate maintenance to her child and if he failed to do so he will honour it is also a material improvement, omitted in Ex.P1. Obviously this statement will be a omission as this incident took pace after registration of FIR.

15.The evidence of Pws.1 and 2 show that after three months of marriage A1 left to Kuwait and during his absence Pw1 was staying with her in laws and disputes arose between them and Pw1 lodged her report/Ex.P1. Prior to

Page No. 9 of 11

CC No.4503/2024, XV ACJM, Hyderabad

Dt: 15-05-2026

registration of crime a counseling was done. From the above evidence it is understood that prior to registration of Ex.P5 a counseling was held and A1 promised to pay maintenance to Pw1 and their child and later left to Kuwait and breached the promise and A7 and his father also assured that A1 will pay the maintenance to her. Even if these facts are considered to be true in my view it constitute a breach of promise and it does not constitute an offence u/s.498-A of IPC.

16.With regard to the sec 6 of DP Act absolutely there is no evidence on record.

Prosecution did not produce any documentary evidence to show that Rs.1 lakhs cash towards jode ka rakam, two wheeler and jahez articles was presented to accused and it also failed to show that it is in the custody of A7 he and he failed to deliver it back to Pw1. On the other hand the evidence on record suggest after three months of marriage A7 separated from the joint family, i.e., Pw1 and other accused. In these circumstances it can be safely concluded that he is not concerned with the dowry and also the articles presented to Pw1. Thus conviction u/s.6 of IPC cannot be sustained.

17.For the foregoing discussion this court hold that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and A7 is entitled for acquittal.

Page No. 10 of 11

CC No.4503/2024, XV ACJM, Hyderabad

Dt: 15-05-2026

18.In the result, A7 is found not guilty for the offence u/s.498-A of IPC and Sec 6 of DP Act and accordingly he is acquitted for the said offence u/s. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall be in force for (6) months in terms of sec.437-

A of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr-II, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open

court, on this the 15 th day of May, 2026.

(Ajay Kumar Devan) XV Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Prosecution Pw1 : Ather Ayesha Sultana -Defacto Complainant Pw2 : Mohd Jalauddin -Brother of Pw1 – Circumstantial witness Pw3 : Sirajuddin - Independent witness Pw4 : Pandari -Investigating officer

For Defence - None -

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Ex.P1/Pw1 : Report report of Pw1 Ex.P2/Pw1 : Marriage photograph Ex.P3/Pw1 : Wedding card Ex.P4/Pw3 : Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C., statement of Pw3 Ex.P5/Pw4 : First Information Report

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil - (Ajay Kumar Devan) XV Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad //True copy//

Page No. 11 of 11

CC No.11915/2024, XIII ACJM, Hyderabad

Dt:27-04-2026

IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

AT HYDERABAD

Present:-Ajay Kumar Devan XV Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad FAC XIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad

Monday, this the 27th day of April, 2026

CC.No. 11915 of 2024

BETWEEN: The State of Telangana Rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police, WPS, East Zone, Hyderabad. …. Complainant

And

Y Eshwar Rao, S/o.Y Thaviti Naidu, Age: 39 years, R/o.H.No.9/2/2024, Narasimhabasthi, Shivam Road, Amberpet, Hyderabad. … Accused * * * * * This case is coming before me for final hearing on 21-04-2026 in the presence of Smt M.Roopa, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri Vijay Kumar, Learned Legal Aid counsel for the accused and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.Sole accused is prosecuted for the offence u/s.498-A and 506 of Indian

Penal Code (In short IPC).

2.Pw1/Shanthi is the De-facto complainant and Pw2/Adilaxmi is her mother.

Pw3/B S Srivani is the Sub Inspector of Police, East Zone and the

Investigating Officer. According to the prosecution the marriage of Pw1 with the accused was performed on 08-05-2001 as per Hindu rites and customs and it was an arranged marriage. After the marriage Pw1 joined the society

Page No. 1 of 10

CC No.11915/2024, XIII ACJM, Hyderabad

Dt:27-04-2026

of accused and they were blessed with two sons. The first son was born in the year 2002 and second in the year 2005. In the year 2007 their second son has died due to ill-health. Later accused started consuming alcohol daily and failed to maintain her and her son. He used to abuse her in filthy language and beat her. Several panchayats were held before the elders but there was no change in him. After the death of the second son accused left her society and went back to his native village Palvancha. Her mother-in- law also supported him. As there was no change in him she started living independently along with her child. She sent a divorce notice to him and on its receipt he threatened to kill her if she again sends any such notice.

Unable to bear the harassment she lodged her report before Pw3.

3.Basing of the said report of Pw1, Pw3 has registered a case in crime No.54 of 2024 for the offence u/s.498-A and 506 of IPC and took up the

Investigation. During the course of Investigation she examined Pw1 and 2,

Lw3/Apparao, Lw4/R.Savitri and Lw5/Siddhappa. She issued notice u/s. 41-

A of Code of Criminal Procedure (In short Cr.P.C) to the accused. On completion of Investigation she filed a charge sheet.

4.Cognizance was taken for the offence u/s.498-A and 506 of IPC. On appearance of the accused, copies required under section 207 of Cr.P.C., was furnished and he was examined u/s.239 of Cr.P.C and charges

Page No. 2 of 10

CC No.11915/2024, XIII ACJM, Hyderabad

Dt:27-04-2026

u/s.498-A and 506 of IPC was framed. As he pleaded not guilty the case came up for trial, wherein the prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 3, and exhibited P1 to P3, in detail mentioned in appendix of evidence annexed hereunder. After closure of the prosecution evidence the statement of accused was recorded u/s.313 of Cr.P.C., and his case is of total denial and he did not choose to produce defense evidence.

5.Heard both the Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor (In short Ld. APP) and the learned defence counsel. Ld APP would contend that the evidence of Pw1 is consistent with the prosecutions case. Her evidence proves that accused used to consume alcohol and neglected her and her child. On failure of provide medical aid her younger son has died due to dengue in the year 2007 and this act constitutes cruelty. After receipt of the legal notice issued by Pw1 accused threatened to kill her and it amounts to criminal intimidation. Pw2 corroborated the evidence of Pw1 in all material aspects.

Pw3 is the Investigating officer and she spoke about the investigation conducted by her and nothing was elicited in her cross examination to suggest that the investigation was biased.

6.Per contra learned defence counsel would contend that there is no evidence to prove that accused subjected Pw1 to cruelty and harassed her for dowry and as such conviction u/s.498-A of IPC cannot be sustained.

Page No. 3 of 10

CC No.11915/2024, XIII ACJM, Hyderabad

Dt:27-04-2026

From the date of marriage till lodging of Ex.P1 Pw1 did not lodge any other report which suggest that their marital life was cordial. There is no evidence on record to show that the younger son of the accused and Pw1 died because of negligence of the accused. Pw2 is an Interested witness being the mother of Pw1 and whereas there are no Independent witnesses to prove the allegation made against the accused.

7.Now the point for determination is :- i) Whether accused has subjected Pw1 to cruelty and committed and offence u/s.498-A of IPC and ii) Whether accused on receipt of legal notice from Pw1 has criminally intimidated her to do away with her life ?

8.Point Nos.1 and 2 : As the evidence is common for both these points they are taken together for disposal. I have perused the entire material on record. From the admitted case of both the parties the following points are not in dispute. The marriage of Pw1 and accused was performed on 08-05- 2001 as per Hindu rites and customs and it was an arranged marriage. After the marriage Pw1 joined the society of accused at Palvancha of Khammam district and they were blessed with two son. Their elder son was born on 08-02-2001 and the second son in the year 2005 and in the year 2007 he has died. After the death of the second child accused started consuming

Page No. 4 of 10

CC No.11915/2024, XIII ACJM, Hyderabad

Dt:27-04-2026

alcohol regularly. Since the year 2018 both Pw1 and accused are staying separetely.

9.The main allegation made against the accused is that after the death of second child he started consuming alcohol and neglected Pw1 and her elder son. He demanded additional dowry stating that insufficient dowry was presented to him. As he was not providing maintenance, Pw1 got issued divorce notice to him and immediately after its receipt he threatened to kill her.

10.The evidence of Pw1 is found consistent with Ex.P1. Her evidence proves that immediately after the death of their second son in the year 2007 accused started consuming alcohol and neglected them. In these circumstances Pw1 along with her elder son came down to her parents house and since then they are residing separetly. She got issued a legal notice to the accused seeking divorce and immediately thereafter he threatened her. With regard to the demand of additional dowry the same is found general in nature without any substance. Pw1 did not state about the dowry presented to her. She was residing happily with accused till the year 2007 and only after the death of their second son disputes arose between them as accused was addicted to alcohol and neglected them. Thus the allegation about demand of dowry is without merits. The accused did not

Page No. 5 of 10

CC No.11915/2024, XIII ACJM, Hyderabad

Dt:27-04-2026

deny issuance of legal notice to him. Pw1 spoke this fact in her chief examination and also in her cross examination. In her cross examination she stated that she issued legal notice for divorce and later lodged Ex.P1.

Thus, this fact is stood proved. It was suggested to Pw1 that she has got no evidence to show that her husband used to consume alcohol and regularly beat he and she do not have the old mobile phone to show that accused used to make threatening calls to her. Burden is on the accused to prove that he was not addicted to consuming alcohol. Unfortunately excepting suggesting that he has no habit of consuming alcohol no other circumstances are brought on record to believe this fact. The case set up by the accused as seen from the cross-examination of Pw1 is that Pw1 demanded him to transfer his 2 acres of land situated at Palvancha and as he refused she lodged Ex.P1. In order to substantiate this fact he did not produce documents to show that he was holding two acres of land. He failed to bring material and circumstance to suggest and believe this fact.

11.Thus the evidence of Pw1 proves that after the death of the younger son in the year 2007 disputes arose between them and accused started consuming alcohol and neglected Pw1 and her elder son. Since the year 2018 they both are residing separately. Pw1 got issued a legal notice to the

Page No. 6 of 10

CC No.11915/2024, XIII ACJM, Hyderabad

Dt:27-04-2026

accused for divorce as he failed to take her back and provide maintenance immediately on its receipt he visited Pw1 and threatened her.

12.Pw2 is the mother of Pw1 and her evidence is corroborative in nature. She corroborated the evidence of Pw1 in all material aspects. She is a direct witness to the threat given by the accused to Pw1. Her evidence shows that both PW1 and accused used to reside at Palvancha and after the birth of the first child they both shifted to Jeedimetla. After the death of their second child he started consuming alcohol daily and used to beat her daughter on petty issues. About 8 years back he left to his village and since then her daughter is staying with them. As he was not maintaining her daughter and child she issued legal notice to him and his parents and after its receipt he came down to their house and threatened them. She was not thoroughly cross examined to dis-credit her. She was not cross examined with regard to the accused visit to their house and threat given to her daughter.

13.Pw3 is the Investigating officer and he spoke about the investigation conducted by him. In his cross examination he stated that he did not collect documents for presentation of dowry. He did not collect any medical record from Pw1 and he did not collect divorce notice sent by Pw1 to the accused.

His investigation is defective but this cannot be a ground to disbelieve the entire prosecutions story. It is true the divorce sent by Pw1 to the accused

Page No. 7 of 10

CC No.11915/2024, XIII ACJM, Hyderabad

Dt:27-04-2026

was not collected by Pw3 and not produced before this court but accused has not disputed this fact. Both Pws.1 and 2 have got no oblique motive to speak false against the accused. No prudent women would spoil her life without any justification. There is no reason for her to stay away from the accused. As accused was not maintaining them and also not taking her back to his society since the year 2018, after five years she has got issued legal notice to him seeking divorce. Her conduct is natural.

14.Now the question before this court is whether the proved facts constitute an offence u/s.498-A and 506 of IPC. In order to constitute an offence u/s.498-

A of IPC, prosecution has to establish that Pw1 was subjected to cruelty to such an extent that it has caused grave mental and physical injury or driven her to commit suicide or was harassed in respect of any valuable security and for not fulfilling the said demand. In the instant matter accused started consuming alcohol after the death of their younger son and neglected Pw1 and their elder son. In my view this fact does not attract the rigor of Sec 498-A of IPC. At most it can be a ground for judicial separation or seeking maintenance. Thus conviction u/s.498-A of IPC cannot be sustained.

However the evidence on record is clear to believe that after the receipt of the legal notice accused visited the house of Pws.1 and 2 and threatened

Page No. 8 of 10

CC No.11915/2024, XIII ACJM, Hyderabad

Dt:27-04-2026

them with dire consequences. The said act constitutes an offence u/s.506 of IPC and accordingly he is liable to be convicted for the said offence.

15.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence u/s.498-A of IPC and he is acquitted for the said offence u/s. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. However he is found guilty for the offence u/s.506 of IPC and accordingly convicted for the said offence u/s.248 (2) of Cr.P.C. His bail bonds stands cancelled forthwith.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr-II, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open

court, on this the 27 th day of April, 2026.

(Ajay Kumar Devan) XV Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad FAC XIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad

16.Heard the convict with regard to the quantum of sentence. He submits that he is innocent. The offence u/s.506 of IPC attracts imprisonment upto two years or fine or both. Considering the fact that the present case is outcome of a matrimonial dispute the convict is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six (6) months. The remand period already undergone by him from 15-05-2025 to 20-08-2025 and 17-12-2025 to till date ie., 27-04-2026 shall be set off under Sec 428 of Cr.P.C. As the accused in judicial custody for more than six months, the

Superintendent, Central Prison, Chanchalguda is directed to release him forthwith if not required in any other case. Office is directed to furnish a free copy of

Page No. 9 of 10

CC No.11915/2024, XIII ACJM, Hyderabad

Dt:27-04-2026

judgment to the convict. Convict is informed about his right to prefer an appeal

before the Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Hyderabad against the judgment passed by

this court and also about his right to avail free legal aid. Office is directed to furnish a free copy of judgment to the convict.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr-II, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open

court, on this the 27 th day of April, 2026.

(Ajay Kumar Devan) XV Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad FAC XIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Prosecution Pw1 : Shanthi - Defacto Complainant Pw2 : Adilaxmi - Mother of Pw1, circumstantial witness Pw3 : B S Srivani - Investigating officer

For Defence - None -

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Ex.P1/Pw1 : Report of Pw1 Ex.P2/Pw1 : Marriage photographs (3 Nos) Ex.P3/Pw3 : First Information Report

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil - (Ajay Kumar Devan) XV Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad FAC XIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad //True copy//

Page No. 10 of 10

CC No.203/2018, XV ACJM, Hyderabad

Dt:15-05-2026

IN THE COURT OF THE XV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

AT HYDERABAD

Present:-Ajay Kumar Devan XV Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad

Friday, this the 15th day of May, 2026

CC.No.203 OF 2018

BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana Rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police, WPS, Begumpet, Hyderabad. …. Complainant

And

A1 : K.Anantha Ram Reddy, S/o.Prakash Reddy (Abated) A2 : Katta Rajyalaxmi, W/o.Prakash Reddy, Age : 58 years, Occ : Housewife, R/o.4-4-107, Reddy Wada, Rajanna Sirisilla District.

… Accused * * * * * This case is coming before me for final hearing on 11-05-2026 in the presence of Smt Anitha Deshmukh, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri Ravinder Reddy, Advocate, Learned counsel for the accused and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.Accused No.2 (In short A2) is prosecuted for the offence u/s.498-A of Indian

Penal Code (In short IPC) and Sec 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act (In short

DP Act). Case against A1 was abated.

2.Pw1/K.Swetha is the Defacto complainant. On 30-03-2018 she lodged a written report before the Sub Inspector of Police, WPS, Begumpet

Lw6/M.Rajashekar and he inturn has registered a case in crime in Cr.No.86 of

Page No. 1 of 6

CC No.203/2018, XV ACJM, Hyderabad

Dt:15-05-2026

2018 for the offence u/s.498-A, 506 of IPC, sec 4 and 6 of DP Act and took up the Investigation. During the course of investigation he examined Pw1,

Lw2/V.Laxmi,Lw3/V.KarunakarReddy,Lw4/G.Dayasagarand

Lw5/G.Ramadevi. He issued notice u/s. 41-A of Code of Criminal Procedure (In short Cr.P.C) to both the accused. On completion of Investigation he has filed a charge sheet.

3.Prosecutions case is that the marriage of the Pw1 and A1 was performed on 124-04-2008 as per Hindu rites and customs and it was an arranged marriage.

At the time of marriage on the demand of accused her parents have presented

Rs.5,50,000/- and 15 tulas of gold towards dowry. After the marriage she joined the society of A1, and A2 used to reside with them. After few days both the accused started harassing her stating that inadequate dowry was presented to them. In the year 2011 A1 took her 5 tulas of gold and

Rs.60,000/- cash and started Takshashila school at Sirisilla along with this friends but later it was closed due to losses. Later she along with A1 shifted to her parents house at Vemulavada and stayed for four year. On 20-07-2012 she was blessed with a male child and her parents have borne all the expenses. They performed the naming ceremony of the child. As on the date of filing this case her son was aged 6 years. Till the year 2014 A1 used to do petty works and she used to run the house with the financial assistance of her parents. Her father-in-law sold the land and purchased a three stored house in

Page No. 2 of 6

CC No.203/2018, XV ACJM, Hyderabad

Dt:15-05-2026

the name of A1 in Risala Bazar and some where in the year 2014 they shifted to the said house consisting of ground and two floors and they used to get rent of Rs.50,000/- and out of the said money they used to meet their requirements. A1 used to spend money for consuming alcohol and failed to provide maintenance to her and her child. A1 and A2 demand her parents Rs.5 lakhs or to transfer 2 acres of land in the name of A1 on a ground that insufficient dowry was presented to her. In the year 2016 her father-in-law died in a road accident and during this period they shifted to Siricilla. In the year 2017 her father came to Hyderabad for medical checkup and on the night A1 consumed alcohol and picked up a quarrel with her demanding her to ask money or land from her father and beat her. Her father interfered and convinced A1 that he will give some dowry. She informed the harassment to

A2 but she has put a deaf ear. In the year 2017 A1 insisted to provide an employment to his friend Srinivas Reddy and she contacted her paternal uncle

Dayakar Reddy and he arranged employment in Sri Chaitanya college. A1 used to regularly consume alcohol and beat her and unable to bear it she consumed about 50-60 thyroid tablets and she was taken to doctor and treated. On the next day he sent her to her parents house. After 15 days her husbands uncle Harshavardam reddy came to their house for mediation and advised them not to take drastic steps. In March 2018 she came back to

Risala Bazar and whereas A1 has left to his village. He filed a false case

Page No. 3 of 6

CC No.203/2018, XV ACJM, Hyderabad

Dt:15-05-2026

against her alleging that she committed theft of gold ornaments. In April 2018 she went to her parents house for financial assistance and when she returned back lock of the house was changed. Her gold and silver ornaments are in the custody of A2 and she took it away after one year of the marriage. Unable to bear the harassment she lodged a written report before the concerned police.

4.Cognizance was taken for the offence u/s.498-A, 506 of IPC and Sec 4 and 6 of DP Act. On appearance of the A2, copies required under section 207 of

Cr.P.C., was furnished and she was examined u/s.239 of Cr.P.C and charges u/s 498-A of IPC and Sec 4 and 6 of DP Act was framed. As she pleaded not guilty the case came up trial.

5.At trial the defacto complainant was examined as Pw1 and exhibited Ex.P1 and P2 and she was also partly cross examined. When the matter was coming for further cross examination on the request of both the parties the matter was referred to mediation and it was settled as per the mediation agreement/Ex.P3.

In view of the compromise Pw1 was again examined. The evidence of

Lw2/V.Laxmi, Lw3/V.Karunakar Reddy, Lw4/G.Dayasagar, Lw5/G.Ramadevi and the Investigating officer Lw6/M.Raja Shekar was closed. Examination of the accused 313 of Cr.P.C. was dispensed.

6.Heard both learned Asst. Public Prosecutor (In short Ld. APP) and learned defence counsel.

Page No. 4 of 6

CC No.203/2018, XV ACJM, Hyderabad

Dt:15-05-2026

7.Now the point for determination is:- Whether the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt ?

8.Point: - I have perused the entire material on record. The marriage of Pw1 and

A1 was performed on 24-04-2008 as per Hindu rites and customs and it was an arranged marriage. After the marriage Pw1 and A1 stayed with A2 for few days and later they shifted to Hyderabad and stayed for one year and as A1 was unemployed they both shifted to parents house and stayed for four years and during this period they were blessed 0.with a male child. In the year 2017 the father of A1 purchased a house at Risala Balazar and they both shifted to the said house and use to meet their requirements with the rents of the house.

Certain disputes arose between them giving rise to the present case. During the pendency of the case A1 has died. When the matter was coming for the further cross examination of Pw1 at the request of both Pw1 and A2 the matter was referred to mediation and settled as per the mediation agreement /Ex.P3.

As per the compromise A2 agreed to transfer 6 tulas of gold ornaments, 2 silver plates, 1 silver kukum barni plate and two silver manikyalu to Pw1 and she received it and inturn Pw1 agreed to give one gold chain and ring total weighing about 3.5 tulas to A2. They both agreed to not to make any future claims in respect of the present case. Pw1 agreed to withdraw this case. They both agreed that the compromise will not affect the pending civil disputes between them. In view of the compromise A2 is entitled for acquittal.

Page No. 5 of 6

CC No.203/2018, XV ACJM, Hyderabad

Dt:15-05-2026

9.In the result, A2 is found not guilty for the offence u/s.498-A of IPC and Sec. 4 and 6 of DP Act and accordingly she is acquitted for the said offence u/s. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. Her bail bonds shall be in force for (6) months in terms of sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr-II, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court,

on this the 15 th day of May, 2026.

(Ajay Kumar Devan) XV Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Prosecution For Defence Pw1 : K. Swetha - Defacto Complainant - None -

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Ex.P1/Pw1 : Report of Pw1 Ex.P2/Pw1 : Marriage photographs (4 Nos) Ex.P3/Pw1 : Mediation Agreement along with joint memorandum of compromise cum acknowledgment.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil - (Ajay Kumar Devan) XV Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad //True copy//

Page No. 6 of 6

CC No.11186/2019, XV ACJM, Hyderabad

Dt:15-05-2026

IN THE COURT OF THE XV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

AT HYDERABAD

Present:-Ajay Kumar Devan XV Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad

Friday, this the 15th day of May, 2026

CC.No.11186 OF 2019

BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana Rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police, WPS, South Zone, Hyderabad. …. Complainant

And

A1 : Mohd Ismail @ Aman, S/o. Mohd Osman, Age : 27 years, Occ : Pvt Teacher, A3 : Anwari Begum, W/o.Mohd Anwar, Age : 35 years, Occ : House wife, A1 & A3 are R/o.H.No.19-3-262/A.13/72/2, Plot No.73 & 74, Mustafa Nagar, Anasari Road, Teegalakunta, Falaknuma, Hyderabad. A2 : Hafeeza Begum, W/o.Mohd Osman (Abated) … Accused * * * * * This case is coming before me for final hearing on 11-05-2026 in the presence of Smt Anitha Deshmukh, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and M/s.G.Nanda Gopal, Advocate, Learned counsel for the accused and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.Accused Nos.1 and 3 (In short A1 and A3) are prosecuted for the offence u/s.498-A of Indian Penal Code (In short IPC) and Sec 4 and 6 of Dowry

Prohibition Act (In short DP Act).

2.According to the prosecution the marriage of the Defacto complainant,

Pw1/Syeda Irfana was performed with accused on 08-09-2013 as per Muslim

Page No. 1 of 6

CC No.11186/2019, XV ACJM, Hyderabad

Dt:15-05-2026

rites and customs and it was an arranged marriage. At the time of marriage on the demand of accused her parents have presented Rs.3,00,000/- towards jodekerakam, ½ tula gold ring to A1, 10 tulas of gold jewellery to her and jahez articles and performed the marriage by incurring Rs.3 lakhs. After the marriage she joined the society of A1 and other accused used to stay with them. Soon after the marriage all the accused started harassing her stating that substandard jahez articles were presented to her. A2 and A3 used to harass her if they had performed the marriage of A1 with other girl they would have got huge dowry and they both took her gold jewellery and kept in their custody.

A3 was married but she used to frequently visit her house. All the accused started harassing for additional dowry of Rs.1 and when she expressed her inability A1 beat her. Meanwhile she conceived but the harassment continued.

She was made to wake up in the early morning and made to do all the household works and failed to provide basic necessities. She gave birth to a female child and her medical expenses were borne by her parents. After the birth of female child they harassed her for male child. She informed the harassment to her parents and they paid Rs.40,000/- to A1 and after few days there was no quarrels but again started. A1 failed to provide basic necessities to her and her child. He suspected her fidelity. Meanwhile she conceived for the second time and gave birth to the second female child and all her medical expenses were borne by her parents. Both A1 and A3 abused her in filthy language for giving birth to a female child and did not allow her to enter into

Page No. 2 of 6

CC No.11186/2019, XV ACJM, Hyderabad

Dt:15-05-2026

her matrimonial house. In these circumstances her parents paid Rs.50,000/- and she again joined his society. As she gave birth to two female child A1 demanded her to give divorce. On 02-12-2018 A1 and A2 picked up a quarrel by demanding additional dowry and driven her out of the matrimonial house.

Her parents tried to pacify the matter but it was in vain.

3.Basing on the written report of Pw1, the Sub Inspector of police, WPS, South

Zone, Lw6/E Sreenu has registered a case in crime No.25 of 2019 for the offence u/s.498-A, 406, 506 of IPC, sec 4 and 6 of DP Act and Sec 4 of Muslim

Women (Protection of Rights on divorce) Act (inadvertently mentioned as Sec 4 of Muslim Women Protection rule 2018) and took up the Investigation.

During the course of investigation he examined Pw1, Lw2/Syeda Faheem

Begum, Lw3/Syed Abdul Kaleem, Lw4/Ayeshwa Begum and Lw5/Abdul Jani.

He issued notice u/s. 41-A of Code of Criminal Procedure (In short Cr.P.C) to all the accused. On completion of Investigation he has filed a charge sheet.

4.Cognizance was taken for the offence u/s..498-A, 406, 506 of IPC, sec 4 and 6 of DP Act and Sec 4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on divorce) Act.

On appearance of the accused, copies required under section 207 of Cr.P.C., was furnished and they were examined u/s.239 of Cr.P.C and charges u/s 498-

A of IPC and Sec 4 of DP Act was framed. As they pleaded not guilty the case came up trial. At this stage the matter was referred to mediation and was settled as per the mediation agreement/Ex/P1. In these circumstances, the

Page No. 3 of 6

CC No.11186/2019, XV ACJM, Hyderabad

Dt:15-05-2026

evidence of Lw2/Syeda Faheem Begum, Lw3/Syed Abdul Kaleem,

Lw4/Ayeshwa Begum and Lw5/Abdul Jani and the investigating officer

Lw6/E.Sreenu was closed. Examination of the accused u/s.313 of Cr.P.C was dispensed.

5.Heard both learned Asst. Public Prosecutor (In short Ld. APP) and learned defence counsel.

6.Now the point for determination is:- Whether the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt ?

7.Point: - I have perused the entire material on record. The marriage of Pw1 and

A1 was performed on 08.09.2013 as per Muslim rites and customs and it was an arranged marriage. They were blessed with 2 daughters. Since the date of her first pregnancy disputes arose between them. From November 2019 she is staying separately from accused at her parents house and later filed this case. During the pendency of this case the matter was referred to mediation and was settled as per the mediation agreement. As per the terms of compromise A1 agreed to pay Rs.10 lakhs to her towards permanent alimony and full and final settlement to her and her two daughters which is excluding mehar amount Rs.11,051/-. Both her daughters shall be in her custody and A1 has got visitation rights as per his choice and when he takes her daughters out her mother shall accompany them. She agreed to withdraw this case and also

Page No. 4 of 6

CC No.11186/2019, XV ACJM, Hyderabad

Dt:15-05-2026

DVC No.93/2020 on file of Learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and MC No.980/2022 on file of Hon'ble II Additional Family Court Judge,

Hyderabad. A1 agreed to pay Rs.10 lakhs before 3 months from today and on its receipt she shall withdraw DVC and MC. Out of Rs.10 lakhs A1 agreed to deposit Rs.3.5 lakhs each in the name of her two daughters under fixed deposit receipts and the remaining money shall be paid to her. She is remarried and both her daughters are with her mother. A1 agreed out of free will to support their daughters financially for education and other aspects but it is not an obligation and he cannot be compelled. She agreed to withdraw this case today. Ex.P1 is the mediation agreement along with memorandum of understanding dated 11.05.2026 executed by Pw1 and A1. Pw1 was examined and she stated the aforesaid facts. In view of the compromise of the matter between the parties, both the accused are entitled for acquittal.

8.In the result, A1 and A3 are found not guilty for the offence u/s.498-A of IPC and Sec. 4 and 6 of DP Act and accordingly they are acquitted for the said offence u/s. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall be in force for (6) months in terms of sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr-II, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court,

on this the 15 th day of May, 2026.

(Ajay Kumar Devan) XV Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad

Page No. 5 of 6

CC No.11186/2019, XV ACJM, Hyderabad

Dt:15-05-2026

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Prosecution For Defence Pw1 : Syeda Irfana - Defacto Complainant - None -

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Ex.P1/Pw1 : Mediation Agreement dated : 11-05-2026 along with the memorandum of understanding

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil - (Ajay Kumar Devan) XV Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad //True copy//

Page No. 6 of 6