E.Sucharitha

1C.C.NO.148 OF 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT RAJENDRANAGAR

Tuesday, this the 17 th May, 2022

PRESENT: SMT. E. SUCHARITHA,

XVI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar.

CALENDAR CASE No.148 of 2017

IN

Crime No.416 of 2016

Between: The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Raidurgam

...Complainant

A N D

Mohd Habeeb Shareef S/o Mohammad Ismail Shareef, Aged : 28 years, Occ: AC Car Mechanic, R/o Plot No.365, Survey No.52, Diamond Hills, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District.

...Accused

This case is coming up for final hearing before me on 9-05-2022 in the presence of Sri. Praveen Naik, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of prosecution and of Sri Khaleel Ahmed, learned Counsel for accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Raidurgam filed charge sheet against the accused in crime No.416 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Section 504 and 509 of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred as IPC).

2.The case of the prosecution in brief:

The criminal law was set into motion on 23.12.2016 at 18:00 hours when PW1 lodged report alleging that they own plot No.365, survey

No.52 at Diamond Hills, Gachibowli and the said plot was given for lease to accused who is a AC Car Mechanic. Further that the lease agreement was for a period of 11 months only and even after expiry of lease period upon the request of accused the tenancy was extended for 11 more months. That on 22.12.2016 at 10:30 A.M. PW1 went to the above said plot to discuss with accused that the further extended period agreement also expired. That 2C.C.NO.148 OF 2017 when PW1 went to the above said plot accused before his workers abused

PW1 in filthy language and also behaved in indecent manner. That accused not even considering that PW1 was a woman has misbehaved with her and further that accused insulted PW1 in presence of his workers.

3. Registration of crime and Investigation done :

Basing on the contents of the report, PW4/Sub-Inspector of Police,

Raidurgam registered a case vide Crime No.416 of 2016 under Section 504 read with 509 IPC and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation PW4 examined and recorded the detailed statement of PW1 and LW2/D. Mahesh who is driver of PW1. Later PW4 went to the scene of offence situated at plot No.365, survey No.52 at Diamond Hills, Gachibowli and at the scene of offence PW4 examined and recorded the statements of

PW2 and PW3. On 24.12.2016 PW4 served the notice U/Sec. 41(A) Cr.P.C to accused, but the accused failed to comply with the notice and on 12.01.2017 the accused himself surrendered before the court.On completion of investigation PW4 filed charge sheet under Section 504 and 509 of IPC.

4.Cognizance by the court :

The case was taken on file by one of my learned predecessor-in-office for the offences U/Secs. 504 and 509 of IPC against accused.

5. Appearance of accused

On appearance of the accused, he was furnished with copies of all necessary documents as required U/Sec.207 Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after referred as Cr.P.C.).

6.Examination of accused under Section 251 Cr.P.C. :

3C.C.NO.148 OF 2017

The accused was examined by one of my learned predecessor in office

U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C. for the offences U/s. 447 and 509 IPC, by explaining the substance of accusation to him in his vernacular language, for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.Evidence adduced by prosecution :

To prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution examined PWs.1 to

PW4 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2. During cross examination of PW1 the defence got marked Ex.D1 and during cross examination of PW2 the defence got marked Ex.D2. The learned A.P.P. has given up the evidence of LW2.

8.Examination of accused and defence evidence:

After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

9. Arguments :

Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused. Perused the record.

10.Now the point for determination is :

“Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for

the offences under section 447 and 509 IPC beyond reasonable

doubt?

11.Discussion, Decision and reasons thereof :

4C.C.NO.148 OF 2017

The prosecution examined four (4) witnesses out of the listed five witnesses. PW1 in her evidence deposed that PW2 and PW3 are members of

Diamond Hills Association and that LW2 is her driver. That in the year 2013 plot No.365 in survey No.52 at Diamond Hills, Gachibowli was given to accused for lease. That she is a GPA holder of her son Ajay Kumar and also

GPA holder of Satyanarayana Reddy who is friend of her son. That her son and his friend are owners of the above said plot. Further that after four years she asked the accused to vacate the above said plot and accused stated that his marriage was settled and cannot vacate the plot. That as accused was not vacating the plot she took LW2, PW2 and PW3 along with her and went to accused. PW1 also deposed that she do not exactly remember the date but it was in the year 2016 or 2017, and when she went to the said plot accused was not present and there were other persons belonging to accused. That she asked them not to trouble her and vacate the place. It is also deposed by PW1 that the plot is in L shape and there are two entrances and that only one room and compound wall premises was given for rent, but accused without permission has built a shed. That after two days she received notice from accused and in the said notice it was alleged that I have abused the workers of accused and thrown away the material belonging to accused. That there was a civil case instituted at

Ranga Reddy Courts. Further that in the month of December, 2016 she again went to the premises given for rent to the accused and this time also she went along with LW2, PW2 and PW3. That PW2 and PW3 followed her by seeing that she was going to the rented premises. That at that time accused and two to three persons who are workers of accused were present.

That one of the worker of accused misbehaved with her by showing signal with his hand and also abused her. That they abused as “Pove Po

Musalidhana”. That they also abused in filthy language. It is also deposed by PW1 that she went to the police station on the same day but first 5C.C.NO.148 OF 2017 information report was registered on next day i.e., 23.12.2016 as the officer was not present. Through PW1 prosecution got marked the report lodged by

PW1 as Ex.P1. During cross examination PW1 admitted that she has not handed over any rental agreement to the police and further deposed that the police did not ask for it. She also admitted that she has not mentioned in

Ex.P1 and in her statement before police the filthy language used against her. She also admitted that she has not given the GPA document to police and deposed that the police did not ask for it. PW1 admitted about pending civil suit vide O.S. No.480 of 2016 at Miyapur Civil Court and at this stage the defence got marked Ex.D1 which is the ad-interim order passed in I.A.

No.896 of 2016 in O.S. No.480 of 2016. PW1 added that the final order is in her favour. PW1 further admitted that there are neighbours at the scene of offence property and the adjacent area is a commercial area. Further PW1 admitted that she did not issue any notice to accused to vacate the premises, prior to lodging of Ex.P1.

12.PW2 deposed that PW1 is also a member in Diamond Hills Society and that he is General Secretary of diamond Hills association. Further that PW3 is the treasurer. That on 22.12.2016 at 10:30 A.M., he and PW3 were going back from diamond hills association office to their respective places and when they were heading, they noticed that PW1’s car was parked near her plot area. They also noticed that four to five people were gathered and there was some galata. That they got down from car and noticed that there was quarrel taking place between PW1 and her tenant. PW2 also deposed that earlier he do not know about the details of PW1’s tenant and on that day he noticed the tenant and he can identify him. That to pacify the situation he also spoke to the tenant. Further PW2 identified the accused who was standing in the court hall on the day of examination of PW2 as the same person who was introduced as tenant. PW2 also deposed that the accused 6C.C.NO.148 OF 2017 was shouting loudly on PW1, though she was a lady. That the accused was saying that he will not vacate the premises and said that PW1 can do whatever she wishes. PW2 further deposed that he noticed this and after the situation got pacified he left from the place and that at that time along with him PW3 was also present. During cross examination PW2 admitted about sale deed document No.14032/2013 dated 17.09.2013, that the document relates to the premises at Diamond Hills which was let out to the accused.

The said document is marked as Ex.D2 by the defence. PW2 also deposed that as per Ex.D2 PW1 is not the owner and one Satyanarayana and Ajay are the owners.

13.PW3 who is the treasurer of Diamond Hills Development Society deposed that on 22.12.2016, he and PW2 were heading towards their house at Diamond hills and on the way they heard some sound (argument) and upon that they went to the plot No.365. That some argument took place and

PW1 was returning back and at that time he enquired with PW1 as to what happened. That PW1 informed him that she went to plot No.365 to ask the accused to vacate the plot and at that time accused abused her and said that he will not vacate the plot. PW3 further deposed that PW1 was crying and after she left the place, they also left from there. During cross examination PW3 admitted that he did not directly see or hear the argument that took place between PW1 and accused. Further that whatever he has deposed in his chief examination was informed to him by PW1. PW3 also admitted that there is a civil case between accused and PW1. Finally the investigation officer is examined by prosecution as PW4 and he deposed right from receiving report till filing of charge sheet. Through PW4 the prosecution got marked the first information report as Ex.P2. During cross examination PW4 admitted that the reason for one day delay in lodging report is not mentioned in Ex.P1 and as well as in Ex.P2. Further he admitted 7C.C.NO.148 OF 2017 that PW1 did not mention the words spoken by the accused in Ex.P1 and also in the statement given to the police. PW4 also admitted that he did not site any worker who worked in the shed or any person who is neighbour to the scene of offence as witness. Further he admitted that there is three days delay in sending the first information report to the court.

14.In the present case the accused is examined for the offences under

Sections 447 IPC and 509 IPC :

Section 447 IPC reads as follows :- “Whoever commits criminal trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both”

Section 509 IPC reads as follows :- “Whoever intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine”

15.Let us see if the prosecution could prove the essential ingredients of

Section 447 IPC against the accused. To bring home the guilt of the accused under section 447 IPC the essential ingredients as per Section 441 of IPC which deals with definition of criminal trespass are as follows :

(a) The property in dispute was in the possession of a person other than the accused ; 8C.C.NO.148 OF 2017

(b) the accused entered into, or upon, that property or remained there unlawfully after entering the same lawfully; and

(c) the accused did so with intent :

(i) to commit an offence, or

(ii) to intimidate, insult or annoy such person.

16.Therefore in the present case it should be established by the prosecution that the PW1 was in possession of the disputed plot or it should be established by the prosecution that accused who entered the disputed plot lawfully remained in the disputed plot unlawfully with an intention to intimidate, insult, annoy or to commit any other offence. The defence counsel relied on Ex.D2 to establish that PW1 is not the owner of the scene of offence property. Even PW1 herself deposed that she is not the actual owner of the property and that she is GPA holder of the owners. It is not in dispute that accused entered the scene of offence property as a tenant. It is the evidence of PW1 that she is the mother of one of the owner of the disputed plot and that the accused who is the tenant was continuing tenancy and that when PW1 came to the disputed plot upon the issue of not extending the tenancy, the alleged incident occurred. The possession of a tenant does not become illegal or unlawful, but is in the nature of a ‘judicial possession’ and as such even after expiry of tenancy, tenant cannot be evicted except in accordance with law. A Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh

High Court also considered the nature of possession of a tenant after the termination of lease while deciding a second appeal in the case of

Mogilipuvvi Annapurnaiah Vs Malampati Narsimha Rao AIR 1982 AP

253. The relevant portion is as follows “After a lease is terminated if the tenant continues in possession without the consent or acquiescene of the lessor, such a tenant is a tenant by sufferance. He cannot be deemed to be 9C.C.NO.148 OF 2017 ‘holding over’ when there is no proof of extension of lease in his favour, possession of a tenant by sufferance is a ‘judicial possession’, the possession of such a tenant should be protected by the courts. It is always better that a ‘person’ is driven to a court of law rather to permit him to forcibly evict a tenant. A tenant by sufferance is entitled to remain in possession of the demised premises till he is evicted in the course of law. Thus he is entitled to a decree for permanent injunction restraining the landlord from interfering with his possession”. Therefore the accused in the present case cannot be said as a trespasser. Even otherwise another important point to be noted over here is that there is no allegation made in Ex.P1 by PW1 that accused has trespassed in to the plot No.365 in survey No.52 at Diamond Hills,

Gachibowli. Even the evidence of PW1 before this court do not disclose anything that accused trespassed into the plot No.365 in survey No.52 at

Diamond Hills, Gachibowli. For the said reasons this court is of opinion that accused cannot be convicted for criminal trespass which is offence punishable under Section 447 IPC.

17.Coming to the accusation against the accused for the offence under

Section 509 IPC. To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 509 IPC the essential ingredients to be proved by the prosecution are that

(a) the accused uttered any word, or made a sound or gesture, or exhibited any object to PW1 intending that it may be heard or seen by PW1, or accused intruded upon the privacy of PW1; and

(b) accused did so with the intention to insult the modesty of PW1.

18.In Ex.P1 it is alleged by PW1 that on 22.12.2016 at 10:30 A.M. when she went to the plot No.365 in survey No.52 at Diamond Hills, Gachibowli, the accused in the presence of his workers, without considering that PW1 10C.C.NO.148 OF 2017 was woman insulted PW1, abused PW1 in filthy language and misbehaved with PW1. In the evidence before this court PW1 deposed that in the month of December, 2016 when she went to the rented premises, at that time accused along with two to three workers were present. That one of the worker of accused misbehaved by showing signal with hand and also abused

PW1. That she was abused by referring as “pove po Musalidana”. PW1 in her evidence did not depose anything specifically against the accused. She did not depose any words uttered by the accused. She did not depose any gesture made by the accused. Further she did not depose about any other act done by the accused with an intention to insult the modesty of PW1.

PW1 though made allegation against accused in Ex.P1, she did not depose anything against the accused specifically. PW1 deposed regarding showing of signal by hand by one of the worker of accused. But the prosecution could not elicit through PW1 as to what was the actual signal or gesture made by the worker. In this case the prosecution also examined two other witnesses i.e., PW2 and PW3 and cited them as eye witnesses. As per the prosecution’s story both PW2 and PW3 were together at the time of offence and they reached the place while they were going to their respective places in that route. PW3 during cross examination clearly admitted that he has not directly heard or seen as to what argument took between PW1 and accused and further that he came to know about the incident only through PW1.

Further it is also the evidence of PW3 that when PW1 was returning from plot he made enquiry with PW1. Therefore the evidence of PW3 being hearsay evidence is not admitted even otherwise his evidence also did not disclose any word uttered, gesture made or act done by accused.

19.Coming to the evidence of PW2, PW2 deposed that they have noticed people gathered and that some galata was taking place. Further that the accused was shouting on PW1 and saying that he will not vacate the 11C.C.NO.148 OF 2017 premises. From the evidence of PW2 and PW3 it is seen that they have not stated anything about the words, gestures or act done by accused with an intention to outrage the modesty of PW1. Merely because accused was shouting at PW1 regarding not vacating of the premises, it cannot be said that accused entertained an intention to insult the modesty of PW1. The offence under Section 509 IPC is said to be proved only when the prosecution is able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused intended to outrage the modesty of PW1 and done some act. It appears from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and also from the suggestions posed by the learned counsel for accused that the terms between accused and PW1 are strained and that there is dispute with regards to continuation of tenancy. Admittedly there is also a civil suit pending before the civil court vide O.S. No.480 of 2016 between accused and PW1, therefore in the background of said dispute, it is essential that the evidence should be scrutinized carefully. In the present case there is no sufficient evidence on record to prove the essential ingredients Section 509 IPC except for the statement of PW1 that she was referred as “Pove po Musalidana”. Further neither Ex.P1 nor in the statement before police nor in the evidence before this court, PW1 spoke about the filthy language used by accused or his workers. Therefore the accused is entitled for acquittal for the offence under Section 509 IPC.

20.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 509 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly he is acquitted for the said offences under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused stand cancelled and the sureties shall be discharged after expiry of appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17th day of May, 2022)

XVI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate 12C.C.NO.148 OF 2017

Cyberabad at Rajendra Nagar.

APPENDEX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined For Prosecution:

PW.1/S. Ganga DeviDefacto Complainant/Victim

PW.2/M. Kalyan Chakra VarthyEye Witness

PW.3/A. Rajendhar Eye Witness

PW.4/A. Muralidhar, SI Of PoliceIO & Filed Charge Sheet

For Defence: - None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 is the Report lodged by PW1.

Ex.P2 is the First Information Report

For Defence: Ex.D1 is the Ad-Interim order passed in IA No.896/2016 in OS No.480/2016

Ex.D2 is the Sale Deed document No.14032/2013 dated : 17-9-2013

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil –

XVI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at Rajendra Nagar.

13C.C.NO.148 OF 2017

C A L E N D A R

IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:

CYBERABAD AT RAJENDRANAGAR.

CALENDER CASE. No.148 of 2017

Name of the Complainant:Raidurgam Police Station

Name of the accused:

Mohd Habeeb Shareef S/o Mohammad Ismail Shareef, Aged : 28 years, Occ: AC Car Mechanic, R/o Plot No.365, Survey No.52, Diamond Hills, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District.

Date of:

a) Offence under section:Sections 447 and 509 IPC

b) Offence:22.12.2016

c) Complaint:22.12.2016

d) Apprehension/Appearance: 12.01.2017

e) Commencement of trial: 04.04.2022

f) Close of trial: 04.05.2022

g) Judgment: 17.05.2022

h) Finding of Court: Found not guilty

RESULT:

14C.C.NO.148 OF 2017

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 509 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly he is acquitted for the said offences under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused stand cancelled and the sureties shall be discharged after expiry of appeal time.

XVI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Rajendranagar

Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad.

1C.C.NO.300 OF 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT RAJENDRANAGAR

Friday, this the 20 th May, 2022

PRESENT: SMT. E. SUCHARITHA,

XVI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar.

CALENDAR CASE No.300 of 2016

IN

Crime No.183 of 2016

Between: The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Narsingi

...Complainant

A N D

Pantham Sanjeev Kumar S/o Vittalaiah, Aged : 34 years, Occ: Sarpanch of Mirzaguda village, R/o H.No.2-1, Mirzaguda village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

...Accused

This case is coming up for final hearing before me on 16-05-2022 in the presence of Sri. Praveen Naik, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of prosecution and of Sri B. Kumar Yadav, learned Counsel for accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Narsingi filed charge sheet against the accused in crime No.183 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Section 447, 427, 188 of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred as IPC).

2.The case of the prosecution in brief:

The criminal law was set into motion on 22.03.2016 at 21:10 hours when PW1/MRO Shankarpally lodged report alleging that, prior to 22.03.2016 accused who is a Sarpanch of Mirzaguda village criminally trespassed the government land in survey No.192 situated at Mirzaguda village and illegally started constructing the water plant and Beerappa

Swamy temple. That accused disobeyed the order duly promulgated by public servant.

2C.C.NO.300 OF 2016

3. Registration of crime and Investigation done :

Basing on the contents of the report, PW5 registered a case vide Crime

No.183 of 2016 under Section 447, 427 and 188 IPC and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation PW5 examined and recorded the detailed statement of PW1. Later in the presence of mediators PW4 and

LW5/Bethlaham Ganneshwar, PW5 conducted the scene of offence panchanama and drafted rough sketch of crime scene. PW5 examined and recorded the detailed statements of prosecution witnesses PW2 and PW3.

On 12.05.2016, PW5 served the notice U/Sec. 41(A) Cr.P.C to accused and on completion of investigation PW5 filed charge sheet under Section 447, 188, 427 of IPC.

4.Cognizance by the court :

The case was taken on file by one of my learned predecessor-in-office for the offences U/Secs. 447, 427, 188 of IPC against accused.

5. Appearance of accused :

On appearance of the accused, he was furnished with copies of all necessary documents as required U/Sec.207 Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after referred as Cr.P.C.).

6.Examination of accused Under Section 251 Cr.P.C.:

The accused was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C. for the offences U/s. 447, 427 and 188 IPC, by explaining the substance of accusation to him in his vernacular language, for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.Evidence adduced by prosecution :

3C.C.NO.300 OF 2016

To prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution examined PWs.1 to

PW5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4. The evidence of LW5 is closed.

8.Examination of accused and defence evidence:

After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

9. Arguments :

Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused. Perused the record.

10.Now the point for determination is :

i) “Whether accused had knowledge of an order

promulgated by a public servant and have disobeyed the said

order”?

ii) “whether prior to 22.03.2016 the accused committed

criminal trespass by entering into the Government land in survey

No.192 of Mirzaguda village and thereby committed offence

punishable under Section 447 IPC?”

iii) Whether on the same date and time, the accused

committed mischief causing wrongful damage to the property of

government valued more than Rs.50/- and thereby committed an

offence punishable under Section 427 IPC?”

11.Discussion, Decision and reasons thereof :

4C.C.NO.300 OF 2016

The prosecution examined five (5) witnesses out of the listed six witnesses. PW1 in her evidence deposed that previously she worked as

Tahsildhar of Shankarpally Mandal from the month of October, 2015 to 02.06.2017. That prior to 22.03.2016 she received written complaint from

PW3 stating that accused was collecting money from the beneficiaries who were allotted house site pattas in Sy.No.192 of Mirzaguda Village for issuance of permission for making constructions in their respective plots.

That upon the said complaint PW1 deputed PW2, to visit the above survey number and file report. Then, PW2 visited the above survey number and found that one temple and one water plant were being constructed. PW1 further deposed that she gave warning to accused not to make any construction and subsequently she received complaints from the villagers that accused was collecting money for issuance of permission. That on 22.03.2016 she went to police station, Narsingi and lodged a report. Ex.P1 is the Report. During cross examination PW1 admitted that PW3 gave written complaint against the accused. She also admitted that she did not state the specific amount demanded by the accused. PW1 also deposed that she has filed document to show that land in survey No.192 belongs to Government.

She further deposed that she addressed a letter to panchayat secretary not to issue any permission in respect of survey No.192 of Mirzaguda village and further that on similar ground she addressed a letter to electricity department. Regarding this she admitted that she has not mentioned the same in Ex.P1.

12.PW2 in his evidence deposed that during the period from 2015 to 2016 he was Revenue Inspector at Shankarpally Mandal. That villagers of

Mirzaguda gave complaint to PW1 regarding accused making illegal constructions of water plant and temple in Government land in Sy.No. 190 of village Mirzaguda. That accused was the then Sarpanch of Mirzaguda. PW2 5C.C.NO.300 OF 2016 further deposed that he along with VRO went to the field/Sy.no. 190 on the instructions of PW1 in the year 2016. That in Sy.No. 190 he noticed that water plant structure was under construction. Further that he also noticed that material for constructing temple was also dumped. PW2 also deposed that he informed the same to PW1 on phone and later filed report on the same. That basing on the report given by him, PW1 lodged complaint before

PS Narsingi. During cross examination when PW2 was questioned as to which survey number he has gone for inspection, he deposed that he went to survey No.190 at 2:50 P.M and also deposed that while he was at survey

No.190, PW1 was at her office.

13.PW3 who is an auto driver in his evidence deposed that since 2005, he is residing at Mirzaguda village and that the land in Sy.No. 192 at Mirzaguda village is Government land and in that land ill-legal construction such as water plant, Beerappa temple were being constructed without permission.

That the said land is near by service road of ORR. That in the said land,

Government has allotted him 60 Sq.Yds., and along with him other people were also allotted land. PW3 also deposed that accused was constructing ill- legally and upon that issue he along with others approached PW1. Though

PW1 approached accused and asked not to raise ill-legal constructions, accused did not listen to her. Further that the said ill-legal constructions were demolished by the order of Collector but accused was repeating the same. That PW1 lodged report before police and police examined him.

During cross examination PW3 deposed that after ten days from lodging of

Ex.P1 the illegal construction was demolished. PW3 also admitted that he has received acknowledgment from PW1 when he lodged complaint before

PW1.

6C.C.NO.300 OF 2016

14.PW4 in his evidence deposed that he knows LW5/B. Gnaneshwar and that around 4 years back the police called him at Indrareddy Nagar and they have conducted panchanama. That the police informed that the case is pertaining to one person whose details he do not know, but it was informed that without permission water tank was being constructed and that the panchanama is relating to the said case. PW4 further deposed that police obtained his signature on panchanama. (Ex-P2 is the scene of offence panchanama). During cross examination PW4 admitted that no rough sketch was drawn in his presence. He also deposed that he do not know the contents of the panchanama.

15.PW5 who is the investigation officer in his evidence deposed right from the time of receiving report from PW1 till filing of charge sheet on completion of investigation. Through PW5 prosecution got marked Ex.P3 which is first information report and Ex.P4 which is rough sketch. During cross examination PW5 admitted that the date of offence is not mentioned and also admitted that he has not filed any document to show that the scene of offence land falls under survey No.192 of Mirzaguda village. Further PW5 admitted that he did not collect any document regarding the housesite plots.

Further PW5 admitted that he did not receive any complaint from any individual that accused was collecting amount from anybody.

16.In the present case the accusation against accused is of committing offences punishable under Section 188 IPC, Section 447 and 427 IPC.

Section 188 IPC reads as follows :- “Whoever knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such 7C.C.NO.300 OF 2016 disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both:

and if such disobedience causes or tends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both”.

Section 447 IPC reads as follows :- “Whoever commits criminal trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both”

Section 427 IPC reads as follows:- “Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both”.

17.Let us first proceed to see if prosecution could bring home the guilt of accused under Section 188 IPC. As per Ex.P1 the allegation is that the scene of offence land was allotted to PW3 and several other people in survey

No.192 of Mirzaguda village and that they are housesite plots allotted in the year 2005 by the Collector and that inspite of said order the accused disobeyed the said order and trespassed into the scene of offence land and started illegal constructions. Therefore the prosecution must exhibit before this court the order of the Collector allotting land to PW3. But the prosecution failed to adduce the said order in evidence. The said order was 8C.C.NO.300 OF 2016 cited as reference No.4 in Ex.P1 but the same has not been adduced in evidence. Further Section 188 IPC is enacted to ensure public tranquillity, health, safety and convenience and it is obvious that this court must go through the said order to convict the accused under this section. Another most important point to be taken note over here is that Section 195(1)(a)

Cr.P.C. mandates that the court should take cognizance of offence punishable under Section 188 IPC only on complaint in writing by the public servant concerned or some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. Here the public servant whose order was promulgated and was disobeyed is the concerned authority to lodge complaint and not the police. Accordingly this court is of opinion that prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of accused under Section 188 IPC.

18.Let us now go through the record to find out if prosecution could bring home the guilt of accused both under Section 447 and 427 IPC. As the alleged mischief of illegal constructions is coupled with the alleged act of criminal trespass into scene of offence land, let us discuss the essential ingredients of both these offences together. The prosecution must first prove that the property in dispute i.e., the scene of offence land (land in survey

No.192 of Mirzaguda village at Indrareddy Nagar) was in possession of government and was allotted for 439 housesite plots. In the oral evidence adduced, PW1 who is Tahsildar of Shankarpally Mandal did not depose specifically that survey No.192 of Mirzaguda village belongs to the

Government. She deposed that on the written complaint given by PW3 that land in survey No.192 was allotted to the beneficiaries for housesite pattas and accused was doing illegal constructions, she has deputed PW2 to go to the survey number, inspect the same and file report. In the present case the prosecution did not exhibit the written complaint given by PW3 to PW1.

The prosecution also failed to adduce evidence about the report prepared by 9C.C.NO.300 OF 2016

PW2 and submitted to PW1. Though PW1 deposed in the cross examination that she has filed document to show that survey No.192 pertains to the

Government, no such document has been exhibited by the prosecution.

There are only four documents exhibited by the prosecution and among them Ex.P1 is the report lodged by PW1 at Police Station, Ex.P2 is scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P3 is the first information report and Ex.P4 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence. None of these documents establish the essential ingredient that the scene of offence land was in possession of the

Government and was allotted for housesite plots to the beneficiaries. The two crucial documents i.e., complaint of PW3 given to PW1, and the report of

PW2 which is submitted to PW1, are not adduced in evidence. In the present case admittedly the investigation officer PW5 deposed that he did not collect any document to show that scene of offence land falls under survey No.192 of Mirzaguda village. Apart from this there is inconsistency in the evidence of PW1 and PW2. As per the evidence of PW1 the alleged scene of offence land pertains to survey No.192 and PW1 has deputed PW2 to inspect survey

No.192 and file report. Whereas the evidence of PW2 discloses that upon the instructions of PW1 he has gone to survey No.190 and noticed that water plant was being constructed and further that material was dumped for constructing temple. As such there is inconsistency in the survey number inspected. Absolutely there is no material on record to establish that the scene of offence land belonged to the Government and was allotted for housesite plots. Now let us see if prosecution could prove another ingredient, that accused trespassed and did illegal constructions of water plant and temple. There is no direct evidence on record who has seen accused doing any illegal constructions. No independent witness has been examined by the police in the present case. When criminal trespass by accused is itself not proved, on the same lines it is held that Section 427 IPC pertaining to mischief done by accused, is also not proved beyond 10C.C.NO.300 OF 2016 reasonable doubt. Therefore accused is entitled for acquittal for the offences under Section 447 IPC 427 IPC also.

19.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 and 188 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly he is acquitted for the said offences under Section 255 (1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled and the sureties shall be discharged after expiry of appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20th day of May, 2022)

XVI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at Rajendra Nagar.

APPENDEX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined For Prosecution:

PW.1/Nimma Rajaiah SarithaDefacto Complainant PW.2/Burri Karthik ReddyWitness PW.3/Lekireddy Basawa ReddyWitness PW.4/Shetty AnjaneyuluPanch for Scene of Offence PW.5/B. Nagi Reddy, SI Of PoliceIO & Filed Charge Sheet

For Defence: - None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 is the Report lodged by PW1.

Ex.P2 is the Scene of offence Panchanama

Ex.P3 is the First Information Report

Ex.P4 is the Rough Sketch

For Defence:

11C.C.NO.300 OF 2016 - Nil –

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil –

XVI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at Rajendra Nagar.

C A L E N D A R

IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:

CYBERABAD AT RAJENDRANAGAR.

CALENDER CASE. No.300 of 2016

Name of the Complainant:Narsingi Police Station

Name of the accused:

Pantham Sanjeev Kumar S/o Vittalaiah, Aged : 37 years, Occ: MRO Shankarpally, R/o Alwal, Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District.

Date of:

a) Offence under section:Sections 447, 427 and 188 IPC

b) Offence:prior to 22.03.2016 12C.C.NO.300 OF 2016

c) Complaint:22.03.2016

d) Apprehension/Appearance: 6.6.2016

e) Commencement of trial: 10.10.2018

f) Close of trial: 12.04.2022

g) Judgment: 20.05.2022

h) Finding of Court: Found not guilty

RESULT:

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 and 188 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly he is acquitted for the said offences under Section 255 (1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled and the sureties shall be discharged after expiry of appeal time.

XVI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Rajendranagar

Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad.

Page 1 of 8 C.C. No. 1713 of 2021 XVI AMM, R’Nagar.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE CUM- XVI ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, CYBERABAD :: AT RAJENDRANAGAR.

Present: Smt. E. Sucharitha II Addl. Junior Civil Judge–cum- XVI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar.

Monday, the 16 th day ofMay, 2022

C.C. No. 1713 of 2021

Between:

The State of Telangana through SI of Police, PS Narsingi (Crime No. 163 of 2021

…...Complainant.

A N D

Kallem Naresh, S/o. Krishna

Aged: 24 years, Occ: Student,

R/o. H.No.3-122, Kokapet Village, Gandiepet Mandal.

….....Accused.

This case is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri.

P.Amarnath Reddy, Counsel for accused, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the

Court delivered the following:

J U D G E M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Narsingi has filed Charge

Sheet against Accused No.1 in Crime No. 163 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections341, 326 r/w 34 of IPC.

Page 2 of 8 C.C. No. 1713 of 2021 XVI AMM, R’Nagar.

Brief facts of the prosecution story:

2.The law was set into motion on the report lodged by PW-1 on 16.02.2021 at 18.00 hours. It is alleged in the report that the brother of PW1 i.e. PW2 along with his friend PW3 were pro- ceeding on bike bearing No.TS-13-EG-0952 from Kokapet to- wards Financial District. On the way when they were near Her- itage Supermarket infornt of Seven Hills Building they noticed speed breaker and applied break. At that time the person who was proceeding backside of PW2 on a bullet has abused PW2 in filthy language. Along with that said person another two persons who came on Honda Activa Black colour bike also stopped their vehicle. They all beat PW2. During that time PW2 tried to es- cape from there, but the said persons chased him and beat him.

That PW2 sustained injury over his right hand and later the said persons threw PW2 into a pit near Global Edge School. That

PW1 came to know about the incident through LW3/K.Raju who resides in the said locality. LW3 informed the same through his phone (phone number 7893288802). That upon receiving the said information PW1 went and took PW2 to Gachibowli Care

Hospital. That later PW1 lodged report before police.

Registering of Crime and Investigation done:

3.Basing on the report lodged by PW-1, LW12/T.Sridhar, Sub-

Inspector of Police of PS Narsingi registered FIR with Crime No.

163 of 2021 under Section 341, 324 r/w 34 of IPC and entrusted

Page 3 of 8 C.C. No. 1713 of 2021 XVI AMM, R’Nagar.

the investigation to LW13/Sri K.Balaram, Sub-Inspector of Po- lice, P.S.Narsingi. LW13 examined and recorded the statement of PW1, PW3. On 17.02.2021LW13 visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of

LW7/Sri T.Ganesh and LW8/Sri Muralidhar. On 18.02.2021 LW13 examined and recorded the statement of

LW3/K.Raju further on 22.02.2021 LW13 recorded the statement of PW2. On receiving the medical certificate of PW2 from

LW11/Dr.Sandhya, the section was altered from 324 IPC to 326

IPC as the injury sustained by PW2 was grievous in nature. Dur- ing the course of investigation, LW13 apprehended accused No.1 on 23.02.2021 and Accused No.1 admitted his guilt, as such

LW13 recorded the confession of Accused NO.1 cum seizure pan- chanama in the presence of LW9/G.Malla Reddy and LW10/

M.Praveen. As LW13 could not trace out the absconding un- known accused, LW13 on completion of investigation filed charge sheet against accused No.1 alone with the prayer to file supplementary charge sheet on tracing out the absconding ac- cused.

Cognizance by this Court:

4.The court took cognizance of the offences under section 341, 326 r/w 34 of IPC against sole accused/accused No.1.

Appearance of the accused person:

Page 4 of 8 C.C. No. 1713 of 2021 XVI AMM, R’Nagar.

5. On receipt of summons, the accused appeared and copies of relevant documents under Section 173 Cr.P.C were furnished to the accused in compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

Charge against the accused:

6.Considering the relevant documents attached with the case records and hearing both the parties, this court found sufficient grounds against the accused to frame charges and accordingly, charge was framed under Section 326, 341 of IPC against the ac- cused, which was read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Witness examined and documents exhibited:

7.To prove its case, prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-3 and got marked Ex.P1/Signature of PW1 on report, Ex.P2/Section 161 of Cr.P.C. statement of PW-1, Ex.P3/Section 161 of Cr.P.C.

statement of PW-2 and Ex.P4/Section 161 of Cr.P.C. statement of

PW-3. The evidence of other witnesses i.e. LW-3, LW-5/Sri

M.Vittal, LW6/M.Shobha Rani, LW7 to LW-13 is given up by learned Asst. Public Prosecutor as PW-1 to PW-3 did not support the case of the prosecution.

Examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C:

8.After closure of prosecution evidence, as there is no incriminating material found against the accused, the examination of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is not conducted.

Page 5 of 8 C.C. No. 1713 of 2021 XVI AMM, R’Nagar.

Arguments:

9.Both the learned APP and learned counsel appearing for ac- cused put forward their arguments in favour of their plea and af- ter hearing the arguments put forwarded by both sides and after going through all the evidence on record and documents exhib- ited in the instant case, I have framed the following point for de- termination.

Point for determination:

10. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for offences punishable under Section 326, 341 of IPC”?

Evidence on record in brief:

11. As stated above, the prosecution examined only PW-1 to

PW-3 and got exhibited Ex.P1 to P4. PW1 is the defacto complainant,and who has set the law into motionby lodging report deposed before this court that he do not know the contents of the report lodged by him. He also deposed that he do not know the facts of this case. Similarly PW2 who is the crucial witness in this case and who is the injured who can speak about the case, has simply deposed that some people attacked him on 15.02.2021 while he along with his friend PW3 were going on bike. He deposed that the persons were wearing masks and that police never examined him and recorded his statement in this case. PW3 also corroborated the version of

PW2 and also deposed that police never examined and recorded

Page 6 of 8 C.C. No. 1713 of 2021 XVI AMM, R’Nagar.

his statement. With the permission of this court learned APP cross-examined PW1 to PW3, but nothing could be elicited from

PW1 to PW3 in support of the prosecution’s case. All the three witnesses i.e. PW1 to PW3 deposed that they have settled the matter with the accused outside the court. Absolutely there is no incriminating material against the accused. The prosecution failed to prove the ingredients U/Sec.341, 326 IPC against the accused. Therefore the accused is entitled for acquittal.

12.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 326, 341 of IPC and accordingly the ac- cused is acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the above said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled and the sureties shall be discharged after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to typist, typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 16 th day of May,

2022.

II ADDI. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE –CUM-

XVI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD AT RAJENDRANAGAR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Prosecution:

PW-1:Vikram, defacto complainant.

PW-2 :M.Vivek, Injured.

PW-3:E.Suresh, Circumstantial Witness

Page 7 of 8 C.C. No. 1713 of 2021 XVI AMM, R’Nagar.

Defence:-None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR:

Prosecution:

Ex.P1 : is the signature of PW1 on compalint

Ex.P2 : is the 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-1.

Ex.P3 : is the 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-2.

Ex.P4 : is the 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-3.

Defence:-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR:

Prosecution:-Nil-

Defence:-Nil-

II ADDI. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM-

XVI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD AT RAJENDRANAGAR.

C A L E N D A R

IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:

CYBERABAD AT RAJENDRANAGAR.

CALENDER CASE. No.1713 of 2021

Name of the Complainant:Narsingi Police Station

Name of the accused:

Kallem Naresh, S/o. Krishna

Aged: 24 years, Occ: Student,

Page 8 of 8 C.C. No. 1713 of 2021 XVI AMM, R’Nagar.

R/o. H.No.3-122, Kokapet Village, Gandiepet Mandal.

Date of:

a) Offence under section:341 and 326 IPC

b) Offence:16.02.2021

c) Complaint:16.02.2021

d) Apprehension/Appearance: 22.04.2021

e) Commencement of trial: 10.05.2022

f) Close of trial: 10.05.2022

g) Judgment: 16.05.2022

h) Finding of Court: Found not guilty

RESULT:

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 326, 341 of IPC and accordingly the accused is acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the above said offences. The bail bonds of the ac- cused shall stand cancelled and the sureties shall be discharged after ex- piry of appeal time.

XVI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Rajendranagar Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad.

Page 1 of 8 C.C. No. 667of 2017 XVI AMM, R’Nagar.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE CUM- XVI ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, CYBERABAD :: AT RAJENDRANAGAR.

Present: Smt. E. Sucharitha II Addl. Junior Civil Judge–cum- XVI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar.

Tuesday, the 17 th day ofMay, 2022

C.C. No. 667 of 2017

Between:

The State of Telangana through SI of Police, PS Raidurgam

…...Complainant.

A N D

Bunga Durga Prasad, S/o. Krishna Rao, Age: 34 Yrs.,

Occ: Civil Engineer, R/o. Puppalaguda, Rajendranagar(M)

N/o. H.No. 10-5-12, Sathyanarayanapet, Elur Town,

East Godavari Dist.

….....Accused.

This case is coming up before me for final hearing on 13.05.2022 in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the

State and of Sri. M. Ravinder Reddy, Counsel for accused, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G E M E N T

Page 2 of 8 C.C. No. 667of 2017 XVI AMM, R’Nagar.

The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Raidurgamhas filed

Charge Sheet against Accused in Crime No. 60of 2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 304(A)of IPC.

Brief facts of the prosecution story:

2.The law was set into motion on the report lodged by PW-1 on 05.02.2017 at 10:00 AM. It is alleged in the report that PW1’s son-in-law/Mr. Jamal Rao went to Gachibowli bus stop to give send off to his relative at 2030 hrs., and while he was returning back by walk with his friend/PW2, meanwhile the driver of vehi- cle Br.No. TS07EK7553 (Honda Shine Vehicle) drove the vehicle in a drunken state and in a rash and negligent manner. The driver of the said vehicle hit Mr. Jamal Rao at 0030 hrs. As a re- sult Mr. Jamal Rao sustained head injury and his left leg got frac- tured. Immediately PW2 with the help of others shifted Mr. Jamal

Rao to Continental Hospital. From there Mr. Jamal Rao was shifted to Gandhi Hospital and the doctors informed that the con- dition of Mr. Jamal Rao is serious.

Registering of Crime and Investigation done:

3.Basing on the report lodged by PW-1, LW11/Y. Ramesh,

Sub-Inspector of Police of PS Raidurgamregistered FIR with

Crime No. 60of 2017 under Section 337of IPC. During the

Page 3 of 8 C.C. No. 667of 2017 XVI AMM, R’Nagar.

course of investigation LW11 examined PW1 and recorded his statement. Later LW11 visited the scene of offence located at

ORR Exit road, Khajaguda and prepared crime detail form in- cluding rough sketch in the presence of LW5/T. Venkat Reddy and LW6/K. Yellaiah. On 06.02.2017 LW11 received information that Mr. Jamal Rao succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment. Based on the said information the Sec. 337 is altered to Sec. 304(A) IPC. Later LW11 recorded the statements of

LW2/D. Achaiah who is father of deceased, PW2 and LW4/Sarath

Kumar. Further LW11 conducted inquest panchanama of the de- ceased in the presence of LW7/Bhupati Suresh and LW8/K.

Salman Raju. Later the dead body of the deceased was subjected to PME and LW9/Dr. K.V. Ramana Murthy issued PME report that the cause of death is due to head injury. Further LW10/V.

Satyanarayana inspected the crime vehicle and opined that the accident has occurred not due to any defect in the vehicle. On 25.09.2017 LW11 served notice U/Sec. 41(A) Cr.P.C to the ac- cused. On completion of investigation LW11 filed charge sheet.

Cognizance by this Court:

4.The court took cognizance of the offence under section 304(A)of IPC against sole accused.

Appearance of the accused person:

Page 4 of 8 C.C. No. 667of 2017 XVI AMM, R’Nagar.

5. On receipt of summons, the accused appeared and copies of relevant documents under Section 173 Cr.P.C were furnished to the accused in compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

Examination of accused U/Sec. 251 Cr.P.C. :

6.Considering the relevant documents attached with the case records and hearing both the parties, this court found sufficient grounds against the accused and the accusation is read over and explained to the accused in his language for the offence U/Sec.

304(A) IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Witness examined and documents exhibited:

7.To prove its case, prosecution examined PW-1 & PW-2and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. The evidence of other witnesses i.e.

LW-4 to LW-11 is given up by learned Asst. Public Prosecutor as

PW-1 & PW-2did not support the case of the prosecution. The evidence of LW2 is closed as he is dead.

Examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C:

8.After closure of prosecution evidence, as there is no incriminating material found against the accused, the examination of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is not conducted.

Arguments:

Page 5 of 8 C.C. No. 667of 2017 XVI AMM, R’Nagar.

9.Both the learned APP and learned counsel appearing for ac- cused put forward their arguments in favour of their plea and af- ter hearing the arguments put forwarded by both sides and after going through all the evidence on record and documents ex- hibited in the instant case, I have framed the following point for determination.

Point for determination:

10. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for offence punishable under Section 304(A)of IPC”?

Evidence on record in brief:

11. As stated above, the prosecution examined only PW-1 &PW- 2 and got exhibited Ex.P1 to P3. PW1 is the defacto complainant,and who has set the law into motion by lodging report and he deposed before this court that LW2 passed away one month back and deceased/Mr. Jamal Rao is the son of his elder sister. Further that he do not know the contents of the report lodged by him. He also deposed that he do not know the facts of this case and the manner in which Mr. Jamal Rao passed away. Similarly PW2 who is the crucial witness in this case and who was along with the deceased on the alleged date of incident while returning from bus stand deposed that he do not know the facts of this case and that police never examined him and recorded his statement. With the permission of this court learned APP cross-examined PW1 & PW2, but nothing could be

Page 6 of 8 C.C. No. 667of 2017 XVI AMM, R’Nagar.

elicited from PW1 & PW2 in support of the prosecution’s case. It appears that PW1 & PW2 have settled the matter with the accused outside the court. Absolutely there is no incriminating material against the accused. The prosecution failed to prove the ingredients U/Sec.304(A) IPC against the accused. Therefore the accused is entitled for acquittal.

12.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 304(A)of IPC and accordingly the accused is acquitted under Section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the above said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled and the sureties shall be discharged after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to typist, typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17 th day of May,

2022.

II ADDI. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE –CUM-

XVI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD AT RAJENDRANAGAR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Prosecution:

PW-1:K. Ankaiah, Defacto

Complainant.

PW-2 :D. SureshEye Witness

Defence:-None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR:

Page 7 of 8 C.C. No. 667of 2017 XVI AMM, R’Nagar.

Prosecution:

Ex.P1 : is the signature of PW1 on report

Ex.P2 : is the 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-1.

Ex.P3 : is the 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-2.

Defence:-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR:

Prosecution:-Nil-

Defence:-Nil-

II ADDI. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM-

XVI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD AT RAJENDRANAGAR.

C A L E N D A R

IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:

CYBERABAD AT RAJENDRANAGAR.

CALENDER CASE. No.667 of 2016

Name of the Complainant:Raidurgam Police Station

Name of the accused:

Bunga Durga Prasad, S/o. Krishna Rao, Age: 34 Yrs.,

Occ: Civil Engineer, R/o. Puppalaguda, Rajendranagar(M)

N/o. H.No. 10-5-12, Sathyanarayanapet, Elur Town,

East Godavari Dist.

Page 8 of 8 C.C. No. 667of 2017 XVI AMM, R’Nagar.

Date of:

a) Offence under section:Sections 447, 427 and 188 IPC

b) Offence:04.02.2017

c) Complaint:05.02.2017

d) Apprehension/Appearance: 20.10.2017

e) Commencement of trial: 06.05.2022

f) Close of trial: 06.05.2022

g) Judgment: 17.05.2022

h) Finding of Court: Found not guilty

RESULT:

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 304(A)of IPC and accordingly the accused is acquitted under Section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the above said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled and the sureties shall be discharged after expiry of appeal time.

XVI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Rajendranagar

Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad.

1 O.S.No.526 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM XI

ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT RAJENDRANAGAR

Present: Smt.E.Sucharitha Prl. Junior Civil Judge–cum- XI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate R.R.District at Rajendranagar

Monday, the 01 st Day of May, 2023

O.S. No.526 of 2022

Between:

Dinesh Yadav, S/o. Shivalal Yadav, Aged about 40 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.3-5-122/6/1, Attapur, Hyderabad, T.S.

.....Plaintiff

A N D

The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Rep. by its Commissioner and Spl. Officer Having its Head Office at Municipal Complex Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad.

....Defendant

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of M/s.M.a.Wahad (Yaseen), learned counsel for the plaintiff and Defendant set exparte and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

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

The suit has been filed by the plaintiff for perpetual injunction

Under Section 26 Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C., praying the court to grant perpetual injunction restraining the defendant corporation, its employees, subordinates, workmen or any other person or persons claiming through or acting under it from interfering into peaceful possession and enjoyment of the business or repairs within the boundaries in suit property or any part of the suit schedule property belonging to the plaintiff.

2 O.S.No.526 of 2022

2.The case of the plaintiff as per the plaint averments is that, plaintiff is the lawful tenant and peaceful possessor of the property i.e. one Stall admeasuring 240 Sq.ft or equivalent to 26.6 Sq. yards and running a business under name and style as "United Food Court" situated at door

No.1-4 6-73/2&3, United Arcade Complex, Attapur, Rajendranagar, R.R.

District (hereinafter referred as suit schedule property) having obtained the same under Rental Agreement dt. 28.11.2020 for period of (3) years.

3.That after entering into the Rental Agreement plaintiff herein have obtained the Registration Certificate bearing No.36ANLPY6263F2ZE,

Government of India form GST Reg-06, dt.30.06.2021, Registration

Certificate bearing No.23621029000029 from Food Safety and Standards

Authority of India, Government of Telangana and Registration Certificate bearing Reg.No.SEA/HYD/ALO/03/0262573/2021 from Labour

Department, Government of Telangana.

4.That the plaintiff has also obtained the no objection certificate from the owners/tenants of the United Arcade Complex and Society.

5.That after obtaining permission from the necessary departments the plaintiff herein is carrying out the business without any hindrance from the owners/tenants of United Arcade Society as mentioned supra upon the suit schedule property. While the matter stood thus, in the last week of August, 2022 while the plaintiff was trying to run his business without causing disturbance or hardship to any person, few persons visiting the suit schedule property and interrupting into the food court work and pretended to be from defendant corporation. That the defendant is interfering into peaceful possession and threatening to seize 3 O.S.No.526 of 2022 and demolish the suit schedule property and also demanding to remove the construction from the suit schedule property.

6.That being a law-abiding citizen of the country and after the retirement and with hard earned money plaintiff is carrying out the construction work upon the suit schedule property, that one or the other subordinates of the defendant are constantly visiting the suit schedule property.

7.While the matter being so on 05.09.2022 some persons posing as officials of the defendant corporation came to the suit property and interfered with the food court regular work of the plaintiff and threatened for demolishing of the structure in the suit property. The plaintiff has resisted the illegal acts of the defendant officials with the help of the passers- by and neighbours. The plaintiff has explained them about the permission obtained by him from various departments for running the business of the food court and also produced registration certificate copy for carrying out business in the suit schedule property, but said officials have paid deaf ear and left the suit premises threatening the plaintiff that they would come with force and demolish/seize the suit schedule property. The defendant officials without verifying the registration certificate obtained by plaintiff for carrying out the business of food court.

That the business of the plaintiff is not causing any nuisance to anybody and the same is within the 4 boundaries of the suit property. That the defendant is under legal obligation to issue notices as per the provisions of HMC Act and give a fair chance of hearing to the plaintiff and then to 4 O.S.No.526 of 2022 proceed as per the provisions of HMC Act before under taking any step against plaintiff.

8.That it is the duty of the defendant corporation to serve notices as per HMC Act before initiating any action of demolition/seize/shut down.

But in the instant case the corporation has not served any such notices.

9.That as threatened earlier, the defendant officials again visited the suit schedule property on 13.09.2022 and interfered with daily work of the food court and threatened seizer which was already damaged standing in the suit property without issuing any prior notices as per HMC

Act. The plaintiff again resisted the illegal acts of the defendant officials.

The defendant officials are making continuous threats of seizer/demolition down of the suit schedule property and the plaintiff apprehends that the defendant may repeat their illegal attempts of demolition at any moment and as such the plaintiff having no other go approached this court to restrain defendant corporation from illegal acts without issuing the mandatory notice U/Sec.685 of HMC Act. Hence the suit.

10.On defendant summons were served, vakalath was filed, but they did not file written statement objecting the claim of plaintiff. Hence defendant was set exparte for non-representation subsequently.

11.On behalf of plaintiff, plaintiff himself is examined as PW1, through him Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 are marked.

12.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the record.

5 O.S.No.526 of 2022

13.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief as prayed for”?

Answer to the point:

14. The plaintiff in support of his contention got examined as PW1 and through him Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 are marked. Ex.A1 is the original Rental

Agreement, dated 28.11.2020. Ex.A2 is the original No Objection from

UACSOS. Ex.A3 is the original resolution passed by UACSOS. Ex.A4 is the photographs (2 in nos.) along with CD.

15. On perusal of Ex.A1 it is seen that plaintiff is the tenant and on

Rs.8,000/- rent per month the United Arcade Commercial Complex shops owner society had let out the suit schedule property to plaintiff. Further plaintiff also relied on Ex.A2 and Ex.A3. Ex.A2 shows that United Arcade

Commercial Complex Shops Owner Society had issued no objection to let out the suit schedule property on rental basis to prospective tenants and

Ex.A3 shows that the above said society has taken a decision/resolution to sublet common area in front of the above said commercial complex to prospective tenants on monthly rental basis. Further Ex.A4 photographs disclose that there is a shop in existence. It is the contention of learned counsel for plaintiff that they should be served with notice by the defendant corporation before seizing or demolishing the shop or else plaintiff will be put to irreparable loss. The defendant corporation did not choose to file written statement and contest the case. The evidence adduced by plaintiff that he is in possession of suit schedule property, remained unchallenged. If the plaintiff is in possession illegally a notice to plaintiff should be served and should be given an opportunity to represent him. Therefore this court is of opinion that the plaintiff is 6 O.S.No.526 of 2022 entitled for relief sought. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of plaintiff.

16. In the result, the suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff and the defendant corporation, its employees, subordinates, workmen or any other person or persons claiming through or acting under it, are restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit schedule property without following due process of law. In the circumstances of the case, no costs ordered.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 01 st day of May, 2023.

-Sd/XXXXXX PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE –CUM-

XI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

R.R.DISTRICT AT RAJENDRANAGAR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFFS:-

PW1/Sri Dinesh Yadav

DEFENDANTS:- - None –

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFFS:-

Ex.A1 is the original Rental Agreement, dated 28.11.2020.

Ex.A2 is the original No Objection from UACSOS.

Ex.A3 is the original resolution passed by UACSOS.

Ex.A4 is the photographs (2 in nos.) along with CD.

DEFENDANTS:- - NIL - -Sd/XXXXXX PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE –CUM-

XI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

R.R.DISTRICT AT RAJENDRANAGAR