Ms.Elluturi Harika

O.S.No.2861 OF 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE III-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, WARANGAL.

Dated, this the 26th day of June, 2025.

Present: Miss. E. Harika III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Warangal.

O.S.No. 2861 OF 2022

OLD O.S.No. 1717 OF 2006 Between : Appani Gyaneshwar, S/o.Ramchander, age: 55 years, Occu: Business, R/o.H.No.10-4-31, Girmajipet, Warangal.

... Plaintiff

AND

01)*Sanga Sammaiah, S/o.Mallaiah, Hindu, age: 46 years, Occu: Business, R/o.Quarter No.52(TRT)Labour Colony, Warangal.(Died) Per LRs.D5 & D6

02)P.Gyanamma, W/o Late Mattaiah, aged: about 63 years, Occu: Household, R/o.H.No.1 4-112, Christian Colony, Warangal City,

03)The Govt. of Telangana, Rep. by the District Collector, Warangal District.

(Amended as per the Orders in I.A.No.343/2016, dt.:06.05.2016)

04)The Asst. Commissioner of Labour, Warangal- I Balasamudram, Hanamkonda.

05)Smt.Sanga Laxmi, W/o.Late Sammaiah, Age 45 years, Occu:Homemaker, R/o.Plot No.52 (TRT) Labour Colony, Warangal City.

06)Sanga Raj Kumar, S/o.Late Sammaiah, Age about 32 years, Occu:Business, R/o.Plot No.52(TRT) Labour colony, Warangal City. (Defendant No’s.5 & 6 are brought on record as per Order passed in

I.A.No.248 of 2017, dt:25.07.2017 of LRs of defendant No.1)

… Defendants

This suit is coming up before me for final hearing on 19-12-2024 in the presence of Sri Y.Aravind, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri Mamidala Giri, Advocate for defendant No’s.2, 5 & 6 and the Assistant Government Pleader for defendant No.4, and the suit against defendant No.1 abated, upon hearing and on perusal of the material on record and having the matter stood over for consideration, this Court has delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, either jointly or severally, the agents, subordinates, heirs, legal representatives, successors in interest, any other person claiming through or under them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property or causing any interference; and for costs of the suit.

O.S.No.2861 OF 2022

2.The suit schedule property is: Open plot admeasuring 117.00 Sq. Yards equivalent to 97.82 Sq.Mts. out of the Survey No.397 of Fort-

Warangal Village, Warangal City and District is within the following boundaries :

East:20 Feet Road

West:Footpath T.R.T

North:100 Feet Road

South:9 Feet Lane

The brief averments of the plaint are that:

3.The plaintiff submitted that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the open plot admeasuring 117 Sq. Yds. = 97.82 Sq.Mts., out of Sy.

No.397 of Fort Warangal, Revenue Village Warangal City and within the

Municipal Corporation Limits, having purchased the same from Bommineni

Krishna Reddy, under registered sale deed vide document No.2690/2006,

Dt.23/03/2006 of the Office of Joint Sub-Registrar, Warangal. In fact the total land in Sy.No.397 of Fort Warangal Village was owned and possessed by ancestors of the plaintiff. There was earlier litigation besides some other properties of the suit property herein, which ended in Compromise. Since the said proceedings are not relevant for the issue in the present suit, the plaintiff in case of necessity reserves to disclose them. The plaintiff's vendor was the absolute owner and possessor of the said land. The said vendor was one of the defendants in OS No. 300/1991 on the file of the Hon’ble II-Addl Senior Civil

Judge at Warangal. The said suit ended in Compromise and the plaintiff's

vendor's possession is evidenced in the said proceedings. Thereafter the plaintiff’s vendor obtained the ULC Permission through Proceedings

D.Dis.No.A4/1207/96-1 and the original was enclosed to Doc.No.223/1997 of the

O.S.No.2861 OF 2022

O/o. Joint Sub-Registrar, Warangal. Even earlier to 1997 the plaintiff's vendor is in possession and enjoyment of the said property as absolute owner and possessor of the suit property, he alienated it for valuable consideration of

Rs.2,46,000/- to the plaintiff. As per the said sale deed the plaintiff is inducted into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Thus, the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit property.

4.The defendant No. I claims to have purchased two rooms tenement (TRT) Quarter No.170 from defendant No.2 who in turn claims to have purchased from Defendant No.3 rep.by Defendant No.4. Thus all of them are necessary and proper parties to adjudicate the issue involved in the present suit.

The property allegedly purchased by defendant No.1 is located on the Western side of the suit property after footpath area left out by Defendant No.3 for the aforesaid quarters. The TRT Quarters have been constructed for economically weaker sections of the community under hire purchased system. Layout has been prepared for the aforesaid quarters and to knowledge of the plaintiff there are about 180 TRT Quarters with in the aforesaid layout. The defendants are called upon and put on notice to produce such layout for better appreciation of things relating to the dispute. The defendants have resorted to grab the adjacent land more particularly towards the Eastern side land of the aforesaid

TRT Quarters. As per the knowledge of the plaintiff the footpath area hardly measures 10”-feet from the outer line of quarters. Any document even if produced by the defendants contrary to predecessor-in-title cannot have any relevance or otherwise in the matter. The defendant No.1 has dismantled the old structure including the compound wall under the guise of new construction and is attempting to encroach into the suit land. Unless the other defendants

O.S.No.2861 OF 2022

co-operated defendant No.1, by execution of false and fictitious documents he could not have attempted to grab the area more than the actual area for a TRT

Quarter. The Defendant No.1 is exceeding his limits in the attempts of his illegal and unauthorised constructions. The illegal and un-authorised construction activities of defendant No.1 though brought to the notice of Defendant No.4, since he is immediately accessible at Warangal, no steps were taken or any attention is paid for the representation of the plaintiff. Thus no action can be anticipated from him.

5.The plaintiff after purchasing the property has developed the said plot by earth filing and on the representation made by the plaintiff in

May 2006 the power distribution corporation limited has shifted the electric poles to the Eastern side of the suit plot, which is again a 20 feet road. Since the said proceedings are not readily available with the plaintiff, the same are not filed. However in due course of time the plaintiff will take steps to call for the said records in case of necessity.

6.The defendant No.1 is making attempts to raise compound wall by encroaching into the Suit property and such attempts have been made by him by attempting to dig trenches by encroaching into suit land on 19-10- 2006 and the plaintiff on noticing the said activities had immediately rushed to the spot and could prevent defendant No.1 and it may not be possible for the plaintiff for all the time to prevent such illegal activities since the defendant

No.1 is residing by the side of the suit plot and the plaintiff is away from the suit property. In case the defendant No.1 succeeds in his attempts and in those circumstances, the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss and untold hardship, which cannot be compensated in terms of money. Defendant No.1 is estopped

O.S.No.2861 OF 2022

from claiming any area more than what is allowable to a TRT Quarter. Since the attempts are being made to engulf the suit property and as there is no other go to the plaintiff the suit is filed for the relief of Permanent Injunction. Hence, this suit.

7. Defendant No.1 filed written statement and the same

was adopt by defendant No’s.2, 5 and 6 and denying the averments of the

plaint and submitted facts of the case are that – The defendants filed their written statement by denying the averments of the plaint.

8.The defendants denies ownership, title and possession of suit schedule property and the relevant mutation of the same in Municipal

Records and the structures. In reply to para No.3 of the Plaint, the Defendant

No.1 submit that the Plaintiff is neither the absolute owner nor possessor of the suit schedule property. The Plaintiff in collusion with his Vendor viz., Bommineni

Krishna Reddy have created the registered document. The Plaintiff and his

Vendor are noted land brokers, manipulators and they have created the registered document with a view to knock away land pertaining to the house of the Def.No.1 and to block his main approach way to his house and his house and the road in Eastern side of his house is part and parcel of the layout plan of the

Industrial department.

(a) The Defendant No.1 submit that his house property and pathway is included in the lay-out Plan of the Industrial colony of the Labour

Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh and he is submit herewith a Xerox copy of the layout plan of the Labour Department annexed to this written statement, which exposes the evil designs of the Plaintiff and his Vendor. In this lay-out plan it is evident that his house and its

Eastern side road/footpath are included within the approved layout plan

O.S.No.2861 OF 2022

of the Labour department, who is the Defendant No.4. The defendant

No.1 hereby anticipate that the Labour department will file the layout plan of the Industrial colony or he is hereby undertake to obtain the certified copy of the layout approved plan.

(b) Admittedly the Plaintiff claims that he purchased a plot of 117.00 sq.yds., from his Vendor viz., Bommineni Krishna Reddy out of his land in

Sy.No.397 of Fort, Warangal. Under such circumstances, definitely the plot of Plaintiff should not exist inside the Layout Plan of the Industries department, but it should have existed outside the layout Plan area of the Industrial colony established by Labour department, as such the

Plaintiff cannot claim his plot within the approved layout of Labour

Department.

9.In reply to para 4 of the Plaint, the Defendant No.1 submits that Sy.No.397 of Fort Warangal is existing out side the layout approved plan of the Labour department, i.e. outside of the road/footpath, who alleged to have sold away to others. Said Bommineni Krishna Reddy is not holding any land. The alleged earlier litigation in O.S.No.300/1991 on the file of Hon'ble Court of

II-Addl. Subordinate Judge at Warangal pertains to the land in Sy.No.397/A and the same is also situated outside the approved layout plan. The Plaintiff, taking advantage of the compromise decree, colluded with his Vendor Bommineni

Krishna Reddy and created the document for the purpose of this suit and defendant No.1 reiterate that the decree do not pertains to the land covered within the layout approved plan of the Labour department and that of

Defendant No.1. The house of Defendant No.1 and its open place is covered under the Layout approved plan of the Labour department. The Plaintiff even if obtained the ULC permission, it do not pertains to the Defendant No.1's house

O.S.No.2861 OF 2022

and its open place which is covered within Layout approved plan of the Labour department.

10. In reply to para 5 of the Plaint the Defendant No.1 is absolute owner and possessor of Quarter No. 170-TRT (or corresponding

Municipal H.No.16-12-170) which he had purchased from its previous owner viz.,

Smt. P.Gyanamma, the Def.No.2 through Registered Sale deed vide document

No.8642/2003 dated 03.12.2003 of the Joint Sub-Registrar, Warangal (Urban).

Originally the house of two room tenement (TRT-170) was allotted to the husband of Defendant No.2 viz, Late P.Muthaiah. In fact the Government of

India got constructed Industrial colony under subsidized Housing Scheme for

Industrial workers by way Registered Lease-cum-Sale Agreement during the year 1977 and consequent to payment of the entire sale price, the allottee was made absolute owner. Consequent to the death of Late P.Muthaiah, his wife the

Def. No.2 has inherited the said quarter, as she being the legal heir of Late

P.Muthaiah, thus the Defendant No.2 became the absolute owner. The

Defendant No.1 further submit that, in front of TRT-170, an extra extent of 219.16 sq.yds., was under the possession of Late P.Muthaiah since time of allotment of the said TRT-170 to him i.e. since 1977 and the same is passed on to his wife the Def.No.2 thus she is in possession after death of P.Muthaiah. The

Commissioner of Labour, Warangal through the Proceedings No. H3/4289/2001

dated 23.05.2001 have regularized the said extra land to an extent of 150.00

sq.yds, vide G.O.Ms.No.67, dt:28-11-2000 by received consideration of

Rs.21,750/- and the remaining extra land of 69.16 is still in continuous possession of Late P.Muthatah and after his death, his wife and since the

Defendant No.1 had purchased the entire property, the Defendant No.1 is in

O.S.No.2861 OF 2022

possession of the same. Under any circumstances, the Plaintiff is not entitled to claim any excess land covered within the layout plan of the Labour department.

The Commissioner of Labour, Government of A.P., Warangal has also executed a registered sale deed in favour of Def. No.2 through Regd.Sale Deed document

No.7717 of 2003 dated 24.10.2003. The claim of the Plaintiffs that the

Defendants have resorted to grab additional land towards the eastern side is false. In fact after the house of the Defendant No.1 there is municipal drain, followed by the said 20' wide road which is covered within the layout of the

Labour department And after said road the private lands are existing. The

Plaintiff is not claiming that he purchased the land from the labour department.

When the Plaintiff did not purchase any land from the Labour department, he cannot claim even an inch of land covered under the layout of labour department, i.e, land of Defendant No.1. Any private land may be existing beyond the said 20" wide road of the Labour department. The Petitioner cannot claim land within the said road of 20' wide, which is shown in the annexed plan.

But the Plaintiff, with the help of exparte injunction order granted by this

Hon'ble Court, is resorting to grab open yard of his house i.e, which is within the

land covered under the approved layout of Labour Department. And if the

Plaintiff succeeds in his illegal attempts the eastern side road abetting front elevation of his house will be blocked. The Plaintiff is not in possession of suit schedule land prior to filing of the suit, as on the date of suit and even as on today also, hence the Plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction.

11.Further, the Plaintiff obtained the exparte interim injunction order by misrepresenting the material facts. With regard to

O.S.No.2861 OF 2022

dismantling of his house and compound wall, the Defendant No.1 submits that

Industrial colony old houses including his house are in dilapidated condition as the roof is totally leaking and it is in a condition that any time it may collapse, as such the Defendant No.2 had obtained building permission from Warangal

Municipal Corporation vide Permission No. 95, B.A.No.189/05-06. file Roc.

No.G4/3581/2005 dt:13.3.2006 and construction is almost completed. The allegation that unless the other defendants co-operated Defendant No.1 by execution of false and fictitious documents he could not have attempted to grab the area more than the actual area for a TRT Quarter is false, but as stated supra the def. No.1. As stated supra, the Defendant No.2 had purchased extra land of 150 sq. yds., from the Labour department through registered sale deed, that is in addition to the actual area allotted to TRT quarter. The Plaintiff had created a document purporting that he had purchased land in Sy.No.397 and with the help of such created document, the Plaintiff is trying to claim the land of Labour department. The Defendant No.1 is in possession of the house and its open place which was originally held by his Vendor the Defendant No.2 and the same is within the limits of approved layout of the department. In fact, Plaintiff with the help of a created document purporting that he had purchased the land in Sy.No 397 is trying to encroach the land pertaining to the house of Defendant

No.1 and 20’ wide road with a view to block his way towards eastern side and from the contents of the petition and Plaint, it is beyond doubt clear that

Plaintiff has big plans to occupy even the 20' wide road after consolidating his present plan of occupying the land of the Defendant No.1 which is in possession of Late P. Muthaiah, since its allotment and after his demise his wife/Gyanamma is in possession and since the Defendant No.1 had purchased the same through

O.S.No.2861 OF 2022

registered sale deed, he is in possession of the suit schedule land prior to filing of the suit, as on the date of suit and even subsequent to filling of the suit also.

The Possession of the quarter and its open place right from the date of allotment to Late P.Mutharah, after his death his wife and his possession is also legal possession.

12.In reply to para No.6 of the Plaint, the Defendant No.1 submits that claim of the Plaintiff that he developed the plot after aforesaid purchase is false. The Petitioner in convince with the electricity authorities, got planted two extra poles in the middle of 20” wide road of the Labour department though separate poles at the side of road are already existing and same are visible in the photographs filed by defendant No.1 and photographs are clearly showing the location of house of defendant No.1 and the location where the plaintiff is trying to grab land pertaining to house of defendant No.1 and planting of two new electric poles by which evil designs of the plaintiffs are clearly visible.

13.In reply to Para 7 of the Plaint, On 19.10.2006 he attempted to raise compound wall by approaching the suit property is false. The construction activity is within the land held by Defendant No.1 and the same is within the layout approved plan of Labour department and within the limits of 20' wide road. If at all any land of the Plaintiff is existing, it should be in Eastern side of the out side of 20 wide road, i.e, outside the layout of the Labour department, the Plaintiff cannot search any land within the layout approved area. The Plaintiff is precluded from entering in side the layout approved area with the help of a document which shows that his land do not pertains to the

Labour department and from the contents of his document and from the earlier

O.S.No.2861 OF 2022

compromise decree the land of the Plaintiff do not fall within the limits of labour department approved layout plan area, as such, it is beyond doubt proved the evil designs of the Plaintiff that under the guise of exparte interim injunction order, the Plaintiff is trying to step into the land of Defendant No.1 which is in possession of Def. No. 1 and the Defendant No.1 on his successful consolidation of this grabbing, his intentions are to grab the land covered by the 20' wide road also

14.From the contents of the Plaint, the Plaintiff is not in physical possession of the suit schedule property prior to filing of the suit, as on the date of suit and even now, the land being claimed by him i.e., part of 20' wide road is covered under the approved lay-out Plan of the Labour department, and the Plaintiff cannot claim the land covered under the Layout of

Labour department, as such the Plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction. As per the legal advise given, the intention of the

Plaintiff for seeking appointment of commissioner was also dismissed holding that the Plaintiff is required to prove his possession at the trial and since to gather evidence a commissioner cannot be appointed. At the time of trial of the main suit if the exigencies of the case requires, the appointment of commissioner can be taken up.

15.The Def.No.1 submits that he had deposited his original title deed documents and other documents such as building permission etc., with the

Andhra Bank, Warangal branch where he had obtained housing loan, as such he is filing herewith the certified copy of his title deed document i.e. Registered

Sale deed document No.8642/2003 dated 3.12.2003 of the Joint Sub-Registrar,

O.S.No.2861 OF 2022

Warangal (Urban) which he is filing and Defendant No.1 hereby undertake that he will file the certified copies of the other documents shortly.

16.From the above facts and circumstances, it is proved that the Plaintiff brought this speculative suit to try a chance to grab the land covered within the layout plan of the Labour department which is part and parcel of the house of Def.No.1 who is having proper title to the suit schedule land. The Plaintiff failed to prove his possession over the suit schedule land either prior to filing of the suit, or as on the date of suit and even as on today, hence the suit is liable to be dismissed by imposing costs on the Plaintiff.

17.There is no cause of action to file suit and the causes of action shown as arisen on various dates is false and created for the purpose of this suit, hence the suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground. The suit is under valued, the court fee paid by the plaintiff is deficit, hence suit is liable to be dismissed in limini. Hence, the defendants sought to dismiss the suit.

18. Defendant No.4 filed written statement and denying the averments of the plaint and submitted facts of the case are that – In reply to para No.4 of the plaint, the Department is not a party in OS No.300/1991 on the file of II-Addl.Senior Civil Judge at Warangal. Hence no reply is needed.

19.The contents of the para No.5 is false and incorrect. The matter of fact that the Quarter No.: TRT 170 situated at I.S.H.S. Colony,

Warangal was original allotted to P. Mattaiah S/o. P. Mallaih in the year 1997 on rental basis and tenant has applied lease-cum-sale agreement Form-3 and requested to register the quarter on lease-cum-sale agreement in the year 1980.

The tenant expired on 30.04.2021 after demise his wife has applied sale deed

O.S.No.2861 OF 2022

application and request for final registration of the quarter and also she has submitted proper prescribed documents. After that quarter was registered in her name i.e. Smt. P.Gyanamma, S/o. Late P.Mattalah for 338.84 sq.yards i.e.

188.84 + 150 sq.yards. It was permitted to allot 188.34 and 150 sq.yards was encroachment land permission accorded from the Commissioner of Labour A.P.

Hyderabad vide Proceedings No:2/4289/2001, dated: 23.5.2001 150.52 sq.yards market value Rs. 26,100/- she has paid the amount through the cheque bearing

No:45168 dated 14.10.2023 of the State Bank of Hyderabad.

20.The suit is not maintainable because the Defendants 3 & 4 are Government Department, the Plaintiff must be send notice U/Sec.80 C.P.C.

But he failed to to do so.

21.The suit is not maintainable for non joinder of necessary parties and there is no cause of action to file this suit. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

22.Basing on the above pleadings, my Predecessor has framed the following issues for trial on 10.11.2014:

1.Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession of suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit ?

2.Whether the defendants herein causing interference to such possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property ?

3.If so, whether the plaintiff herein entitled to relief of permanent injunction against the defendants as prayed for ?

4.To what relief ?

23.During the course of trial, the learned counsel for defendant filed a Memo stating that defendant No.1/Sanga Sammaiah(died) and his legal representatives are being gathered.

O.S.No.2861 OF 2022

24.Heard both the counsel and perused the material on record.

Issues 1 to 3 are answered jointly for better appreciation and to avoid repetition.

25. During the course of trial, the plaintiff examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-5 and Ex.A-6 marked through the evidence of

DW-2. On behalf of the defendants, Defendant No.6 examined as DW-1 and got marked Ex.B-1. In support of their claim DW-2.

Ex.A-1 is Original sale deed vide Document No.2690/2006,

dt:23.03.2006. Ex.A-2 is Certified copy of Order in O.S.No.300/1991 on the file

of Hon’ble II-Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Warangal. Ex.A-3 is Certified Copy of decree in O.S.No.300/1991 on the file of the II-Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Warangal. Ex.A-4 is Certified Copy of Compromise Petition inclusive of appended to the compromise petition and along with map of suit schedule property of O.S.No.300/1991 pertaining to Sy.No.397/A (Plan No.1) in which suit schedule property herein and Map of Sy.No.389 (Plan No.2). Ex.A-5 is

Notification of Two Rooms tenement (TRT) quarters along with TRT Layout.

(Ex.A5 subject proof and admissibility) and Ex.A-6 is Certified copy of Lease-cum-

Sale agreement, dt:17.04.1986 executed by Labour Department in favour of

V.Gangadhar in respect of Q.No.172 vide document No.1063/1986.

The defendants are examined as DW-1 & DW-2 and got marked Ex.B-1.

The Ex.B-1 is Certified Copy of Registered Sale Deed, vide Document

No.8642/2003.

O.S.No.2861 OF 2022

26. Issue Nos.1 to 3 : PW-1 deposed and admitted that towards

North side 100-feet road is situated which proceeding from Warangal to

Narsampet for the extent of total 117 Square Yards and further admitted that as per the lay-out annexed Ex.A-5 towards plaintiff for internal road situated and the same is connected to 100-feet Narsampet road. PW-1 further admitted that as per the lay-out there is no private property surrounding to Quarter

No.170 and witness voluntarily says that the physically the defendants are interfering and encroaching 10-feet into his property and also 10-feet road footpath. Further PW-1 clearly admitted that the property is not situated in the lay-out of TRT Quarters and his property is covered in the Sy.No.397 and deposed that his plot is 2 to 3 feets from the main road and there is a Nala between main road and his plot. Further PW-1 admitted that as per Ex.A-5 i.e.

lay-out the PWD road to Narsampet was 40 feet road in the year of 1955 and gradually it was extended to 60 feets and then to 100 feet road and there is also

Nala to an extent 2½ feets. Further admitted that in the lay-out map it is not mentioned as to the 40 feet road and further stated that there is no signature of any Surveyor or seal on the enclosed map of compromise decree of

O.S.No.300/1991. Further denied by the suggestion of counsel and he is

interfering with the possession of defendant No.1 by crossing the footpath and that the defendant No.1 has not encroached the footpath and interfering with the suit schedule property, and further PW-1 deposed that as per the lay-out there is no private property situated surrounding to the TRT Quarter No.170,

PW-1 voluntarily deposed that towards East side there is a small park after that there is a footpath, and then extreme East there is his land and admitted that towards East of Quarter No.170 it is not mentioned as there is a parking.

O.S.No.2861 OF 2022

27.DW-1 deposed and admitted that under Ex.B-1 purchased to an extent of 370 Square Yards and he further deposed that as per his document

Eastern side there is 25-feet road and towards Southern it is footpath. Further admitted that he did not seeing any document stands in the name of defendant

No.2 and also deposed that his father verified defendant No.2 having the possession right and title to execute Ex.B-1in his favour prior to the purchase.

Further deposed that in addition to Ex.B-1 there is a release deed executed in his favour by his mother regarding to the property shown in Ex.B-1. DW-1 deposed that under Ex.B-1 is clinging 338 Square Yards and admitted that as per the Ex.B-1 is claiming the property bearing TRT No.170. He further deposed that the plaintiff has acquired the suit schedule land the H.No.16-12-171 is located towards North-side of TRT Qtr.No.170 and he deposed that he do not know to whom the house number belongs to and he further deposed that TRT

Qtr.No.169 belongs to Afzalunnissa Begum has purchased the year 2004 under registered sale deed, and further DW-1 deposed about the boundaries Eastern- side: there is a Road; Western-side: TRT Qtr.No.169 is situated for the boundaries of Northern-side of his plot. He further deposed that TRT

Qtr.No.172 belongs to V.Gangadhar and also he do not know the labour department has executed lease-cum-sale document in favour of V.Gangadhar in respect of TRT Qtr. No.172 and further denied the suggestion between the ownership of Afzalunnissa Begum towards North as well as ownership of

Afzalunnissa towards west and deposing false. Further DW-1 deposed that his father has got measured the measurements of plot before purchasing from their vendor Gyanamma under Ex.B-1, and as per Ex.A-6 the labour department has alienated 338 square yards in favour of the Gyanamma and there is a

O.S.No.2861 OF 2022

compound wall was surrounding to the 338 Square Yards and the witness voluntarily there is a road towards east of his land and soon-after that road private land situated. DW-1 admitted that the width of the footpath is not mentioned in Ex.B-1 and also in Ex.A-6, and he deposed that he do not know about what is the suit schedule property and the denied the suggestion is plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property.

28.DW-2 deposed that he do not know the contents of the chief affidavit and he is having the documents in respect of TRT Qtr.No.172. The sale deed which is executed in favour of his father to an extent of 129 Square

Yards by the Labour Department. Further he deposed that he do not know the width of the footpath situated towards East of TRT Qtr.No.170 and also the footpath width situated towards the TRT Qtr.No.172. He do not know whether the labour department has cancelled the Ex.A-6 before executing the sale deed in favour of his father. DW-2 further denied the suggestion himself and deceased/Sanga Sammaiah illegally occupied the footpath situated towards

East side of plaintiff’s property and continue to encroaching towards East side and claiming the footpath which is in the private property. Further DW-2 deposed that he had acquaintance with plaintiff from the date when the house was constructed in TRT Qtr.No.172, and deposed that plaintiff’s property situated after the road. The road and footpath are different. Further he deposed that he do not know whether they have encroached into the footpath area situated towards East and showing the footpath area to the land of the plaintiff and denied the generic suggestions put forth by the counsel for the plaintiff.

O.S.No.2861 OF 2022

29. In a suit for injunction, possession as on the date of suit is crucial.

30.The burden is on the plaintiff to prove possession and enjoyment of suit property as on date of filing of the suit. The plaintiff claims possession from 23-03-2006 based on a Registered Sale Deed under Ex.A-1 and no independent witness has been examined to support the claim of possession and enjoyment of the property and also no supporting document, such as tax receipts, utility bills or others and the plaintiff claims to possession rest on his assertion and the sale deed. However, the Ex.A-2 to Ex.A-4 shows possession of vendor of plaintiff, and as per the admissions made by PW-1 that as per lay-out there is no private property surrounding to Quarter No.170 and deposed that physically the defendants are interfering and encroaching to an extent of 10- feet into his property, and also 10-feet road, and footpath but no photographs have filed by the plaintiff to an extent of interference alleged to be made by the defendants in between the West side of property of the plaintiff and defendant property there was is 20-feet road, which clearly appearing in Ex.A-5. Moreover by way of admission made by the plaintiff is that there is footpath and road in between the suit schedule property and defendant property, but no photos are filed to such alleged interference made by the defendant, this Court is of considered view that, there is no interference by the defendant into the suit schedule property by encroaching 10-feet road as alleged by the plaintiff, as in his pleadings and in oral evidence, and also plaintiff has not placed any proof

before this Court with respect to the alleged encroachment or interference.

O.S.No.2861 OF 2022

Though the plaintiff has been the possession of the suit schedule property, but he failed to proof the alleged interference or encroachment of 10-feet the suit schedule property by defendant. However, there is no independent evidence of such attempts and also no complaint of police report filed.

31.Further, the defendants denied the allegations which was alleged by the plaintiff, hence the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendants attempted to interference and encroached into suit schedule property of the plaintiff. From the above appreciation and discussion. The plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction. Accordingly, issue No’s.1 to 3 answered against the plaintiff.

32. Issue No.4 : To what relief ?

In view of the above discussion Issue No’s.1 to 3, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

33. In the result, the Suit is dismissed, but in the circumstance of the case, there is no order to cost.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open court on this the 26 th day of June, 2025)

Sd/-

III- ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

O.S.No.2861 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

F or Plaintiff :- For Defendants:-

PW1: Appani Gyaneshwar DW-1: Sanga Raj Kumar DW-2: Bandi Surender

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A-1: Original sale deed vide Document No.2690/2006, dt:23.03.2006.

Ex.A-2: Certified copy of Order in O.S.No.300/1991 on the file of Hon’ble II-Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.

Ex.A-3: Certified Copy of decree in O.S.No.300/1991 on the file of II-Addl.

Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.

Ex.A-4: Certified Copy of Compromise Petition inclusive of appended to the compromise petition and along with map of suit schedule property of O.S.No.300/1991 pertaining to Sy.No.397/A (Plan No.1) in which suit schedule property herein and Map of Sy.No.389 (Plan No.2).

Ex.A-5: Notification of Two Rooms tenement (TRT) quarters along with TRT Layout.(Ex.A5 subject proof and admissibility).

Ex.A-6: Certified copy of Lease-cum-Sale agreement, dt:17.04.1986 executed by Labour Department in favour of V.Gangadhar in respect of Q.No.172 vide document No.1063/1986.

For Defendants:- Ex.B-1: Certified Copy of Registered Sale Deed, vide Doc.No.8642/2003.

Sd/-

III-ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

STC No. 495 of 2022 1 Dt: 18.03.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE III-ADDL. JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-

CUM-JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT WARANGAL.

Wednesday, the 18 th day of March, 2026

Present:- Ms. E. Harika, III-Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I-Class, Warangal

STC No.495 OF 2022

OLD STC No. 248 of 2022 Between : Syed Mazher, S/o.late Sri Syed Sarwar, aged 70 years, Ex-Serviceman of Indian Air Force and a retired employee of LIC, R/o.2-7-650/1, Central Excise Colony, Hanamkonda-506001. Cell No.8885159346. … Complainant AND

Mohammad Zubair, S/o. Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor, aged 48 years, Proprietor Zubair Book Stall, H.No.6-8-180, situated at the end of Lane abutting Masjide-e-Chowk, near Hanamkonda Chowrastha, Hanamkonda-506001. Cell No.:9390101542.

... Accused

This Case is coming before me on 26-02-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Mohd.Valiuddin, Advocate for the Complainant; and of Sri Shaik Habibuddin Ali Ahmed, Advocate for Accused and after perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

1)This is a Private Complaint filed by the complainant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2) The brief averments of the complaint are as follows: The accused, namely Muhammad Zubair, is the Proprietor of Zubair

Book Stall and the said book stall is well known among the book readers of Warangal and adjoining districts. The complainant states that he came to know the accused through a common friend and became acquainted with him. It is further submitted that the

STC No. 495 of 2022 2 Dt: 18.03.2026 accused was facing severe financial difficulties as he had suffered heavy losses due to a fire accident which gutted his book shop. In that connection the accused approached the complainant and requested him to lend some amount to overcome his financial crisis and to restore his business.

3)It is submitted that on 30-10-2019 the complainant paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the accused. On the same day the accused executed a promissory note in favour of the complainant agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of 3% per month. It is further stated that in discharge of the said liability the accused issued a cheque bearing No.596452 dated 30-10-2021 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Chowrasta

Branch, Hanamkonda.

4)It is further submitted that when the complainant presented the said cheque on 13-01-2022 through his account at State Bank of

India, Industrial Estate Branch, Warangal, the said cheque was returned unpaid with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient”.

Thereafter the complainant got issued a legal notice dated 17-01- 2022 through his counsel demanding payment of the cheque amount within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice. It is submitted that though the accused received the said legal notice, he failed to comply with the demand and instead got issued a reply notice dated 01-02-2022. Hence this complaint.

5)The Complainant fled sworn statement incorporating the contents as mentioned by him in his complaint.

STC No. 495 of 2022 3 Dt: 18.03.2026

6)This case was taken on file under section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act agaisnt the accused by the VI-Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of First Class at Warangal, later this case was transferred

to III-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Warangal, on the point of jurisdiction and from III-AJFCM it was transferred to this

Court and it is re-numbered.

7)Upon the receipt of the summons, the Accused appeared before the Court and a copy of the complaint was furnished to him.

Thereafter, the Accused was examined under Section 251 CrPC by notifying the substance of the accusation for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act. After notifying the substance of the accusation and on the question of the plea of guilt he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the trial.

8)In order to prove his case, the complainant examined himself as

PW-1 and relied upon the documents such as Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 the promissory note dated 30-10-2019, cheque bearing No.596452

dated 30-10-2021, cheque return memo dated 13-01-2022 and copy

of the legal notice dated 17-01-2022 as documentary evidence.

9)PW1 was cross-examined by the learned counsel of the Accused.

For brevity and to avoid repetition, the relevant aspects of the cross- examination are discussed while appreciating the evidence.

10)After the closure of the Complainant’s evidence, the Accused was examined Under Section 313 Cr.P.C enabling him to explain personally the incriminating circumstances that appeared against

STC No. 495 of 2022 4 Dt: 18.03.2026 him in the evidence of the Complainant, for which, the Accused denied the truthfulness of the evidence of the Complainant. The

Accused reported that there is no defence evidence. After hearing learned counsels of both sides at length in the present case and the matter was reserved for Judgment.

11)Heard the arguments on both sides. Perused the record.

12)Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the complainant has proved the guilt of the Accused

for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument

Act 1881 beyond all reasonable doubt?

13)Before proceeding to the merits of the case, it is important to lay down the basic provision of law with respect to Section 138 NI Act which is as follows:- Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 makes dishonour of cheques an offence. It provides that ''where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by her with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall without prejudice to any other provisions of this act,be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years, or with fine which extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both''. In order to ascertain whether the

STC No. 495 of 2022 5 Dt: 18.03.2026 accused has committed on offence under Section138 N.I Act, the following ingredients constituting the offence have to be proved:- in

Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Vs. Pennar Peterson Securities

Ltd., (2000) 2 SCC 745, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that to establish the offence under Section 138 of N.I Act, the complainant must fulfill all the essential ingredients of the offence, as highlighted below:

a) First Ingredient: the cheque was drawn by a person on an account maintained by him/her for payment of money and the same is presented for payment within a period of (3) months from the date, on which, it is drawn or within the period of its validity;

b) Second Ingredient: the cheque was drawn by the drawer for discharge of any legally enforceable debt or other liability;

c) Third Ingredient: the cheque was returned unpaid by the bank due to either insufficiency of funds in the account to

honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be

paid from that account on an agreement made with that bank;

d) Fourth Ingredient: a demand of the said amount has been made by the payee or holder in due course of the cheque by a notice in writing given to the drawer within thirty days of the receipt of information of the dishonour of cheque from the bank;

e) Fifth Ingredient: the drawer fails to make payment of the said amount of money within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice.

14)In addition to the above, the conditions stipulated under Section 142 N.I Act have to be fulfilled. It becomes imperative to mention that

Section 139 of the N.I Act provides a statutory presumption in favour

STC No. 495 of 2022 6 Dt: 18.03.2026 of the Drawee that the Cheque was issued to him in discharge of a debt or other liability of a legally enforceable nature. Also, the said provision must be read along with Section 118 of N.I Act which states that every negotiable instrument is presumed to have been drawn and accepted for consideration. That said, what follows is that trial under section 138 N.I Act is structured on the premise of the reverse onus of proof theory since the offence is a document-based technical one.

15)It is pertinent to discuss the relevant provisions of law, which deal with legally enforceable debt or liability under the NI Act which are

Section 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act. Section 118(a) of the NI Act deals with the presumption of consideration and Section 138 of NI Act deals with presumption of legally enforceable debt or liability and reads as follows: "118. Presumptions as to Negotiable Instruments-

Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:(a) of consideration: that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration;

16) 139. Presumption in favour of holder- It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in Section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability."

STC No. 495 of 2022 7 Dt: 18.03.2026

17)It is further pertinent to mention the relevant judgments on the point of presumption of legally enforceable debt or liability. Reliance is placed by this court upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan, (2010 11 SCC 441), Kumar

Exports Vs. Sharma Carpets, (2009) 2 SCC 513, and Bir Singh

Vs. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197, wherein it has held that the presumption U/Sec.139 NI Act is a presumption of law and not presumption of fact. It has further been held that it is not necessary that the cheque must have been filled by the accused himself and the accused may be liable even when the cheque has been filled by the complainant. The essential requirement is that the liability must exist on the date of the presentation of the cheque in question. It has been further held that once the signatures on the cheque are admitted then the Court is bound to raise presumption U/Sec.118 r/w 139 N.I Act regarding existence of legally enforceable debt or liability.

Further, it is a settled position that when an Accused has to rebut the presumption under Section 139 N.I Act, the standard of proof for doing so is that of "preponderance of probabilities". It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rangappa v. Sri. Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441 that the presumption contemplated under

Section 139 of the N.I Act includes the presumption of the existence of a legally enforceable debt. To rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 N.I Act, the standard of proof is that of the preponderance of probabilities, by which the Accused is required to raise a probable defence. To rebut the presumption, it is open to the

STC No. 495 of 2022 8 Dt: 18.03.2026

Accused to rely on evidence led by him/her, or the Accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the Complainant or the circumstances upon which the parties rely to raise a probable defence. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418 that to rebut the presumption, the Accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the Complainant to raise a probable defence. The

Accused by cross-examining the Complainant can rebut the presumption of issuance of cheque in discharging of any debt or other liability. The inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the material brought on record but also by reference to the circumstances. The Accused by cross-examining the

Complainant can rebut the presumption of issuance of cheque in discharging of any debt or other liability.

18) The Accused can prove the non-existence of a consideration by raising a probable defense and if the Accused is proven to have discharged the onus of proof showing that the existence of consideration was doubtful or improbable, the onus would shift on the

Complainant who will be obligated to prove it as a matter of fact and upon his failure to prove would dis-entitle him for the grant of relief under Section 138 of the N.I Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Kumar Exports Private Limited Vs. Sharma Carpets (2009) 2

SCC 513, held that to disprove the presumption under Section 139 of the Act, the Accused should bring on record such facts and circumstances, upon consideration of which, the court may either

STC No. 495 of 2022 9 Dt: 18.03.2026 believe that the consideration and debt did not exist or their non- existence was so probable that a prudent man would under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that they did not exist.

19)Thus, as laid down in the catena of decisions it is an established law that the onus lies upon the Accused to rebut the presumption and to establish that cheque in question was not given in respect of any debt or liability, with the standard of proof being the preponderance of probability. Therefore, it becomes critical to examine whether the explanation of the Accused coupled with the evidence on record is sufficient to dislodge the presumption envisaged by Sections 118 & 139 of N.I Act. Being cumulative, it goes without saying that it is only when all the aforementioned ingredients are satisfied that the person who had drawn the cheque can be deemed to have committed an offence u/s 138 NI Act. This criminal liability can be attached by proving each of the elements of the section under which the liability is sought to be enforced. I shall now go on to appreciate the evidence, documentary or oral, in the light of how compellingly it satisfies each of such ingredients if at all.

20)The presentation of cheque in question for encashment of dishonour of cheque for the reason funds in sufficient is not in dispute. As it is a matter of record proved by Ex.P2 cheque and cheque return memo dated 13-01-2022 marked as Ex.P3 which shows that Ex.P2 was cheque presented within validated period and was returned unpaid for the reason on “Insufficient Funds” and it is also

STC No. 495 of 2022 10 Dt: 18.03.2026 not disputed that Ex.P2 was drawn by the accused on the bank account maintained by himself, as he has not denied his signature on

Ex.P2 cheque. Further, the complainant has filed legal notice dated 17-01-2022 to the accused and address mentioned of the address which is also mentioned in the cause title of the complaint i.e.

Mohammad Zubair, S/o. Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor, aged 48 years,

Proprietor Zubair Book Stall, H.No.6-8-180, situated at the end of

Lane abutting Masjide-e-Chowk, near Hanamkonda Chowrastha,

Hanamkonda-506001. Cell No.:9390101542” and also the complainant filed and got marked Ex.P1/Promissory note

dt:30.10.2019, Ex.P5/postal receipts and postal returned covers. Even

though in the cross examination of PW-1, the accused has been denying receiving of legal notice. However, on perusal of Memo of

Appearance filed by the accused in this Court and it is an admitted that the documents filed by him during the Court proceedings and his address mentioned that it can be safely presumed that the assistance of Section 27 r/w Sec.114 of Indian Evidence Act that the legal notice was duly served to the accused and the accused failed to repay the amount within (15) days from the date of receipt of Ex.P4/legal notice. Therefore, the statutory requirement of 138-A(a)(b) & (c) are duly proved.

21)Further it is pertinent to question which requires determination is whether Ex.P2/cheque was issued by the accused in discharge of legal enforceable debt or liability. It is a matter of record that the accused has not denied the signature on Ex.P2/Cheque can be taken

STC No. 495 of 2022 11 Dt: 18.03.2026 from the admission in the cross-examination. The Hon’ble Supreme

Court in M/s.Kalamani Text and Another Vs. P.Balasubrama-

nian 2021 5 SC 283 held that in N.I.Act mandates that once the signatures of an accused on the cheque is established, then these “reverse onus” clauses become operative. In such a situation, the obligation fixed upon the accused to rebut the presumption imposing on him. Due to such admission the presumption U/Sec.139 of N.I.Act that there is exists a legally enforceable debt or other liability arising in favour of the complainant. The standard of proof for rebuttal is on preponderance of probability has held by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the Division cited as K. N. Beena Vs. Muniyappan and

others 2001 8 SCC 458 in order to rebut the presumption mere denial by the accused will not suffice. The accused must prove by leading cogent evidence that there was no debt/liability. It is the contention of the complainant that accused has issued a cheque bearing No.596452, dt:30.10.2021 for Rs.2,00,000/- towards payment of hand loan amounts. The accused has denied owning the amounts as alleged by the complainant.

22)In the present case, onus to prove that the accused has not issued cheque in favour of the complainant to discharge the liability primarily lies on the accused U/Sec.102 Indian Evidence Act that the person who assets the fact must prove the same unless the law otherwise provide. To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on the evidence lead by him or he can also rely on the material submitted by the complainant in order to raise a

STC No. 495 of 2022 12 Dt: 18.03.2026 probable defense.

23)In the present case, the accused in the cross-examination of PW-1 has accepted his signature on the cheque and issuance of cheque. In such a case, a presumption shall be raised U/Sec.139 r/w 118 of

N.I.Act that the cheque in question was issued in discharge of validate debt/liability and it is thereafter upon him, to rebut them by adducing evidence, if upon preponderance of probabilities, the accused is able to show the same, onus once again shifts back on the complainant to proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

24)Further, the learned defence counsel challenged financial capacity of the accused to lend huge amount. To such extent, the counsel put certain questions in the cross examination of the PW-1 additionally but defence has reiterated this contention through its written submissions seeking to dislodged the presumption U/s.139 of N.I. Act on the ground that the complainant failed to establish legitimate source of fund for the alleged cash transaction.

25)Before proceeding to decide whether the complainant had financial capacity to lend loan in question or not and whether the complainant has proved his source of funds out of which he has given the alleged sum of money. It is imperative to note that the settled possession of law that the in case of cash transactions show causing that complainant did not have adequate financial capacity and sources of funds to lend the money to the accused amounts to probable defence and can help in rebutting the presumption that accrued to the benefit of the complainant in the cheque dishonoured of case.

STC No. 495 of 2022 13 Dt: 18.03.2026

26)The relevant case Laws in this regard have been produced for reference K.Abraham Vs. Simon C. Abraham and others; and

C.C.No.607/2022 in Crl.Appeal No.2043/2013 which is held by

SC it was held that, it has been stated that in order to draw presumption U/s.118 r/w 138 of N.I.Act burden was heavily upon the complainant to have shown that he had required funds for having advanced the money to the accused that the issuance of cheque in support of the said payment advanced was true and that the accused was bound to make the payment had been agreed, while issuing the cheque in favour of the complainant and in K.Prakasham Vs.

P.K.Surendram 2007(4) CCC 713 SC and it was held that the complainant is required to show his solvency to the extent of his case either through bank account or to other means in Basalingappa Vs.

Mudibasappa AIR 2019 SC 1983 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that during his cross-examination that the financial capacity to pay the accused was questioned there was no satisfactory reply given by the complainant. The evidence on record, there is a probable defence on the accused which shifted the burden on the complainant to prove his financial capacity and other factors. In APS

Forex Services Private Limited Vs. Shakti International

Fashion Linkers and Others AIR 2020 SC 948. The Hon’ble

Supreme Court has clarified and explained the issue as follows:

Whenever the accused has questioned the financial capacity of the complainant in support of his probable defence, despite the presumption U/s.139 of N.I.Act about the presumption of legally

STC No. 495 of 2022 14 Dt: 18.03.2026 enforceable debt and such presumption is rebuttable. Thereafter the onus shift again the complainant to prove his financial capacity.

At this stage, the complainant is required to lead the evidence to prove the financial capacity more particularly when it is a case of giving loan by cash and thereafter issuance of a cheque and in Tedhi

Singh Vs. Narayan Dass Mahant 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 275 held that it cannot be excepted of a complainant initially to lead the evidence to show that he had financial capacity unless such a case was set-up by the accused, however the accused has a right to demonstrate that the complainant in a particular case did not have a capacity therefrom. The case of the accused is acceptable which he can do by producing independent materials namely by examining himself as a witness and producing the documents and it is also open to him to establish very same accept by pointing materials produced by the complainant himself. He further more importantly through cross-examination of the witness of the complainant, he can achieve ultimately, it is become the duty of the Court to consider carefully and appreciate the totality of the evidence, then come to a conclusion whether in the given case the accused has shown that case of the complainant is in peril, for the reason accused has been established probable evidence.

27) Now it is for the Court to decide on Evolution of Evidence.

By applying the above principles of the present case, it is evident that the accused has raised the issue of financial capacity, during the cross-examination by pointing out that the complainant was retired

STC No. 495 of 2022 15 Dt: 18.03.2026 employee and the complainant has no capacity to lend the amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- and there is no documentary evidence, such as salaries slips or bank statements has been filed. However, it is equally important to note that the defence has not produced any independent material to show that the complainant was not in a financial capacity to lend the amount, no income tax returns and bank statements or third party witnesses have been brought on record by the defence to substantiate the allegation of the financial in capacity. The accused has not furnished any explanation as how the cheque came into the complainant possession nor as any possible alternative version of the events being established, mere suggestion or bald questions put during the cross-examination without laying a factual foundation of producing supporting evidence are insufficient to shift the evidentiary burden back on to the complainant.

28)The case Law relied upon by the defence is as such

i) Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatraye G.Hegde (2008) 4 SCC 54 which was held that set-aside by a Three Judges Bench in Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441.

ii) Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa which was relied by the counsel for the accused is discussed in above.

iii) Dattatraya Vs. Sharanappa.

iv) B.Gopal Reddy Vs. State of Telangana

v) Vijay Kumar Vs. Vishwanath Rao.

These cases are not relevant to the present case and P.C.Hari

Vs. Shine Varghese and Another is also set-aside by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of Sanjabij Tari Vs. Kishore S.Borcar and another 2025 in SC 1158 and another Law of defence of the

STC No. 495 of 2022 16 Dt: 18.03.2026 accused is that the accused has not issued the cheque and the complainant has filled the contents of the cheque by one person name Md.Imtiyaz Ahmed and filed the present case. The accused counsel asked the question and suggestion from the PW-1 and PW-1 answered that the hand-writing is of the and the promissory note and the cheque was scribed by Md.Imtiyaz Ahmed. The counsel put a certain suggestions to the complainant and the same are categorically denied by the PW-1 and also the defence taken by the counsel for the accused is that the promissory note under the present case was fabricated with the assistance of Md.Imtiyaz Ahmed and the cheque is in question was not issued in discharge of any legally enforceable debt, however PW-1 denied all the suggestions and is specifically denied the suggestion that promissory note was devoid of consideration or that the cheque was not issued towards discharge of liability. Though the certain admissions were elicited in the cross- examination of PW-1 regarding multiple financial transaction and absence of money lending business and the same is not sufficient to disbelieve the version of the complainant and unless the accused is able to establish that the cheque was not issued in discharge of any legal enforceable debt, except making the suggestions in the cross- examination the accused has not even taken any steps to send the cheque and the promissory note to determination whether the hand- writing belongs to the accused or not.

29)Be that as it is may even it can be taken as that the contents of cheque and or written by the Md.Imtiyaz Ahmed himself still these

STC No. 495 of 2022 17 Dt: 18.03.2026 are invalid, even if are taken the arguments it is believed that the cheque in question was blank that the fact that accused has not denied his signature on the cheque and the cheque is in possession of the complainant with no plausible explanation coming from the accused to show that how it is ended up with the complainant does not dilute the liability of the accused as a legal position U/s.20 of

N.I.Act provides that if the person signed and delivers a paper stamp in accordance with the loan either wholly have been written thereon and incomplete negotiable instrument, such person thereby gives prima-facie authority to hold thereof to make or complete as the case may, be a negotiable instrument for any amount testified therein and not exceeding amount covered by the stamp. In other wards commending Section 29 and Section 87 of N.I.Act as aforesaid amply reveals that mere filling the particulars of a blank signed cheque would not amount material alteration and the person giving the blank cheque can be attributed with an intention of having given implied consent to the filled that cheque. Hence, even it is assumed for instant that the complainant or Md.Imtiyaz Ahmed filled the cheque the same does not invalidate instrument that these arguments of the accused is unsustainable in the view of settled law.

30)Further, this Court is of the considered view that the accused in relation to the second ingredient the cheque was drawn by the drawer by discharge of any legally enforceable debt or other liability has failed to rebut the presumption U/s.139 of N.I.Act.

STC No. 495 of 2022 18 Dt: 18.03.2026

31)On the other hand the complainant is established his case by proving issuance of cheque i.e. Ex.P2 in discharge of a legally enforceable debt by the accused, which is supported by the evidence of PW-1 and documents exhibited in course of trial. Hence, it is held in the present case, the accused is failed to rebut the presumption

U/s.139 of N.I.Act which is in favour of complainant and hence accused is liable to be punished for the offence U/s.138 N.I.Act.

32)In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, and the accused is convicted U/sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, after his transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of March, 2026)

Sd/-

III-Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate- cum-III.Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Warangal.

QUESTIONING ON QUANTUM OF SENTENCE:

Accused called present. When the accused is questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence, the accused pleaded that he is the sole bread earner and pleaded this court to take a lenient view. Heard

Accused on quantum of sentence.

Keeping in view of the nature of the case and the offence involved, and above mentioned factors and his age, this Court is not inclined to invoke the benefit under Probation of Offenders Act, but however the

Court is inclined to take a lenient view while awarding the sentence.

Accused is explained of his right to prefer appeal against the Judgment of this Court.

STC No. 495 of 2022 19 Dt: 18.03.2026

Having considered the nature of offence, it seems proper to award a sentence of fine instead of awarding sentence of Imprisonment. In

R. Mohan v. A.K.Vijaya Kumar [(2012) 8 SCC 721] the Hon’ble Apex

Court held that the court may also consider imposing default sentence in case the accused fails to pay the compensation amount. It has been held in Suganti Suresh Kumar v. Jagadeeshan [AIR 2002 SC 681] by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court that the court may consider granting of payment

in installments or give time to pay such amount.

In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, as such, accused is convicted under section 255(2) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.3,00,000/-. In default

Accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (3) months.

Out of the Rs.3,00,000/- , Rs 10,000/- shall be defrayed to the State

U/s.357(1)(b) CrPC and remaining Rs.2,90,000/- shall be paid to the complainant U/s.357(1)(b) CrPC. Accused shall pay the entire fine amount in two installments within (2) months from the date of this judgment. The bail bonds of the Accused, if any, shall stand cancelled after expiry of 6 months.

The Section Officer is directed to furnish a copy of this judgment to the Accused free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, after his transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of March, 2026)

Sd/-

III-Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate- cum-III.Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Warangal.

STC No. 495 of 2022 20 Dt: 18.03.2026

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Complainant: For Defence:

PW1/LW1: Syed Mazher – None –

Exhibits marked

For the Complainant:

Ex.P.1: Original Promissory Note, dtd:30.10.2019.

Ex.P.2: Original Cheque bearing No.596452, dt:30.10.2021.

Ex.P.3: Original Cheque return Memo dt:13.01.2022.

Ex.P.4: Office copy of legal notice, dt:17.01.2022.

Ex.P.5: Postal receipts(2), dt:18.01.2022.

For defence: – Nil –

MOs. Marked - Nil-

Sd/-

III-Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate- cum-III.Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Warangal.

C.C.No. 6047 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

AT WARANGAL.

Present: Ms. E. Harika,

III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Warangal.

Dated this the 26th day of June, 2025.

C.C.No. 6047 of 2022

OLD C.C.No. 513 of 2014 Between The State, Police, through S.I of Police,

P.S. Matwada.... Complainant.

And

A-1)Sriramoju Venugopal, S/o.Late Krishnamurthy, Age 47 years, Caste: Gold smith, R/o.H.No.22-8-85/2, Doctors Colony-II. A-2)Smt.Mallepally Shobarani, W/o Sudharshana Chary, Age: 50 years, Caste: Gold smith, R/o Housing Board Q.No 11 Black No 16 Baglingampally, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad. A-3)Smt.Mothkuri Usharani, W/o.Late Narsimha Rao, Age 44 years, R/o.H.No.22-8-85/2, Doctors Colony-II, Matwada, Warangal. A-4)Sriramoju Jyothirani, D/o Krishnamurthy, Age 38 yrs, Caste: Gold smith R/o.H.No.22-8-85/2, Doctors Colony-II, Matwada, Warangal. …. Accused.

This case came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. Ch.Swamy Nathan, Counsel for the accused, upon hearing on both sides, stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Matwada filed charge sheet in Crime

No.208/2014, for the offences punishable U/Secs. 323, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. against the accused No’s.1 to 4.

2. The Brief facts of the prosecution case is that :

The husband of complainant used to work as Deputy Manager in Cement

Company. They have (5) children of them, A-1 is on and LW-2, A-2 to A-4 are daughters. The husband of LW-1 was expired on 05-05-2003. LW-1 performed marriages to all their children. A-2 has been residing in Hyderabad and she used to

C.C.No. 6047 of 2022 visit the house of LW-1 now and then. A-3 has been residing in the house of LW-1, as the husband of A-3 was expired. A-4 who had taken divorce with husband has been also residing in the house of LW-1. Due to family quarrels LW-2 has been lodged complaint against her husband and residing along with LW-1.

One house bearing No.22-8-85/2 in Doctors Colony-II, 3000 Sq.Yards open land in Ambala Road are on the name of LW-1 while a Flat No.22 in Chandra

Apartment in Safilguda, Hyderabad was on the name of LW-1, LW-2 & LW-4. A-1 to

A-4 used to picked up quarrels with LW-1 and LW-2 whenever they were visited to

Doctors Colony. As in the same manner on 13-05-2013 when LW-1 and LW-2 were visited to their house, A-1 to A-4 quarreled with them for distributing the above property. On 14-05-2013 at about 0730-hours A-1 to A-4 with a common intention abused LW-1 and LW-2 in filthy language and beat them with hands and threatened to kill them if not Partition the property.

In this regard, on 14-05-2013 at 0930-hours WHC-2762 P.S Matwada received petition in respect of victim/Smt.Ramoju Rama Mani which reads as follows:- “Today morning between 7:30 to 8:15 a.m. M.Shobarani/A2, M.Usharani/A3 and S.Jyothi Rani/A4 beat her mother to death. They beat her even when she felt unconscious. They beat her/LW-2/Panuganti Radhikarani also and restricted to defend her mother from them. They are telling to all the people who gathered their that

Radhika/LW-2 and her mother/LW-1 have give rape complainant in P.S. against LW-1’s con Venugopal. They told that they will kill them for sure. This is our forth petition

Sir, A-1 to A-4 are not allowing her mother to reside peacefully in her home. As told earlier they have life threat from them. Please provide justice to us”.Hence, the complaint.

C.C.No. 6047 of 2022

In this connection, WHC-2762/T.Kamala of P.S Matwada advised the petitioner to co-operate in the enquiry, as she was not present in the above address whenever police enquiry officer visit to there for enquiry. However, the police visit the spot enquired in the area, but nobody were came-forward to disclose about the dispute and quarrels, further came to know that the petitioner not present in the house bearing No. 22-8-85/2, Doctors Colony-II, Warangal and whereabouts are not known, as such no action was taken against the above petitions. While the matter stood above, with regards to the civil dispute pertains to House properties at Warangal and Hyderabad, the petitioner has filed a Writ

Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. vide W.P.No.5881/2014.

Then as per the instruction of Inspector of Police, PS Matwada, the LW-11/SI of Police have visited Hyderabad and appeared before the Hon’ble High Court of

A.P. and submitted written instructions to the G.P. for Homes and the matter was adjourned. Then only, they came to know that the petitioner residing in Kodhada house bearing No.1-25 of Nalgonda district. Immediate after knowing that, the

LW-11 intimated the petitioner to appear before SHO PS Matwada to furnish relevant evidence connected to this case. Then the petitioner appeared before him and she stated that, she was ready to produce the witnesses and evidence before the police.

As the contents of the petition submitted by the petitioner on 14-05-2013 and its ingredients reveals a non cognizable offence i.e. 323, 506 IPC and made a

G.D. entry and submitted a petition to the Hon’ble Court with a pray to accord permission from Hon'ble Court to register it, as a case and to investigate into and the Hon'ble Court also issued proceedings accordingly.

C.C.No. 6047 of 2022

3.On receipt of the above petition and as per the Order of the Hon’ble Court on 21-04-2014 the LW-10/S.M.Ali, Inspector of Police has registered it, as a case in

Cr.No.208/2014 for the offence punishable U/Sec.323, 506 of IPC and entrusted FIR to LW-11/P.Nagababu, SI of Police and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, LW-11 examined and recorded the statement of witnesses, visited the scene of offence, conducted Crime Details form and drew rough sketch of the scene of offence in the presence of mediators.

4.LW-9 who treated the injured issued would certificate in which opined that the injured sustained injuries are as “simple in nature.”

5.On 27-05-2014 at about 1130-hours on credible information about the presence of accused persons, LW11 along with his staff rushed to the house of A-1 and apprehended A-1 to A-4 and interrogated them. On interrogation, they voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence. Later brought A1 to A4 to

P.S.Matwada at 1230-hours and affected their arrest by issuing arrest cards, informed grounds of arrest to them and to their relatives and made necessary entries in the relevant records and produced them before the Hon’ble Court to remand them for judicial custody. After completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused No’s.1 to 4 for the offence punishable U/Secs.323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

6.Cognizance was taken for the offences U/Secs.323, 506 r/w 34 IPC, against the accused No’s.1 to 4.

7.On the appearance of the accused, copies required under Section 207 of

Cr.P.C., were furnished and they were examined U/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C., substance of accusation is read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

C.C.No. 6047 of 2022

8.On behalf of prosecution, out of listed witnesses i.e., LW1 to LW11, PW1 to

PW9 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 are marked. Learned APP has given up the evidence of LW6 and LW7 (Kalvala Rambabu and Ranikuntla Ramaswamy).

9.After the closure of prosecution evidence, accused were examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating evidence appeared in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

10.Heard the Learned APP, and the Learned Defence counsel. Perused the material on record.

11.Now the point for determination is : “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for offences punishable U/Secs.323, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C., beyond all reasonable doubt ?”

POINT:

12.To establish the guilt of the accused No’s.1 to 4, the prosecution called the defacto-complainant as PW1 and testified and deposed that A-1 is her son and A-2 to A-4 are her daughters and LW-2 is younger daughter of defacto-complainant and stated that she is residing in her own house at Doctors’ Colony-II, Warangal, and wherein first floor A-1 residing, while herself along with LW-2/Radhika Rani are residing in ground floor and on 14-05-2013 at about 8:00 a.m. when she is slipping a cup of tea, accused A1 to A4 came to her house and abused her and beat indiscriminately by keeping previous family disputes with regard to the partition of said house and all the accused beaten by uttering words which effecting her character and LW-2. LW-2 was video-graphed the same incident. At that time

LW-5 and PW-2 were present, and further witness stated that not admitted the

C.C.No. 6047 of 2022 contents as in the contents therein, the complaint was not marked and further as per the orders in Crl.M.P.No.295/2022 PW-1 was recalled then the signature on complaint was marked.

During the course of cross-examination of PW-1 deposed that there are family disputes regarding to the Partition of the house in between her and accused

A-1 to A-4, and admitted that she did not stated before the police about the partition effected due to family disputes. PW-1 herself admitted that police never examined her and recorded her statement. PW-1 along with LW-2 residing in the ground floor, and accused residing first floor, and further admitted that she did not stated to the police that on seeing the said incident, her neighbour/LW5/Rama

Devi came there and tried to questioned the accused, and further PW-1 deposed that she did not know who is Rama Devi. Further more, PW-1 admitted that she did not stated to the police that LW-2 video graphed the said incident and A-4 pulled and thrown into the ground from the hands of LW-2. Further PW-1 deposed that she do not know the contents of her complaint and further deposed that she cannot state date when the alleged incident taken place, further denied the generic suggestion made the accused counsel.

13.PW-2 who is daughter of PW-1 deposed that on 14.05.2013 at 7:30 a.m.

Accused A1 to A4 came to PW-1 and beat her and she deposed that while the incident was going on, she recorded by the incident in herself and further deposed that A-2 intentionally beat and fisted indiscriminately while other accused beat

PW-1 all over her body. A-4 caught-hold PW-1 tuft and dragged her to some extent. While by the intervention of the neighbours the accused persons made adverse comments stating that PW-1 was doing prostitution and in that PW-1 lost her conscious and Accused A1 to A4 run away to their portion. Subsequently she

C.C.No. 6047 of 2022 deposed that she assisted PW1to wake up and when she tried to take the assistance of a car driver passing through the road, later she deposed that they approached to Police Station and the police advised them to visit the Doctor for treatment, and further through PW-2 MO.1 is marked which is a original mobile in which the incident was recorded. Further PW-2 deposed that they have given three complaints before the Police against the accused persons and also they went to H.R.C and Hon’ble High Court, the accused persons stated to gathered persons at the time of incident, and there they stated they have lodged a rape complaint against Venu Gopal and also further they stated that she was doing prostitution and her mother was supporting to PW-2, further deposed that the accused persons also threatened them with dire consequences and they will kill them.

During the cross-examination of PW-2 deposed that her statement was recorded after one year of the said incident and she did not remember the date when the police was recorded her statement. Further she denied that she did not stated to the police that alleged incident was recorded in her mobile phone and also denied that A-2 beat on nape and fisted indiscriminately while other accused beat PW-1 all over the body and further denied when the formal suggestions were put it, she denied the said suggestions. PW-2 admitted that they are civil disputes in this regard and also voluntarily stated that PW-1 filed a eviction suit against the accused persons. Further admitted that police have recorded her statement in the police station.

14.PW-3 who is eye-witness to the incident deposed that Eight years ago where was a galata in the night and also alteration took place in between them and persons gathered there. Accused A-1 to A-4 beat PW-1 with regard to the property disputes. During the cross examination of PW-3 stated that his statement was

C.C.No. 6047 of 2022 recorded after one year of the alleged incident and admitted that he did not stated to the police that there was altercation taken place in the night between the accused and PW-1, and also reasons for such altercation taken place prior to the said incident.

[

15.PW-4 who is another eye witness to the incident deposed in his chief examination Eight years ago in the night time there was an altercation took place, on the next day in between 7:00 a.m to 8:00 a.m there was altercation taken place and deposed that three persons beat PW-1 and PW-2 and he deposed that she do not know the three persons, he cannot identify them. During the cross examination of PW-4 stated that his statement was recorded after one year of the incident and he do not know who recorded his statement.

16.PW-5 who is one more eye-witness to the alleged incident, she deposed that she did not know anything about the offence and also facts of the incident, she did not witness the incident directly, and also deposed that neither police never examined her nor recorded her statement. At this stage, the counsel for prosecution sought permission to PW-5 resiled from her previous statement, as such the learned APP sought permission of this court to cross examine PW-5 and

Section 154 (1) of Indian Evidence Act permission was accorded. The learned APP cross-examined PW-5, but nothing was elicited from the mouth of PW-5 to prove the case of the prosecution.

17.PW-6 who is panch witness for crime detail form deposed that in the year 2014 police came to near the house of Ramaswamy and conducted scene observation panchanama and drawn rough sketch in his presence and in the presence of LW-7 obtained signatures on it, through him Ex.P5 scene of offence panchanama was marked and during his cross-examination he deposed that he do

C.C.No. 6047 of 2022 not know the contents in CDF and also deposed that police have obtained the signatures in Police Station.

18.PW-7 who is a Medical Officer, she deposed that on 14.05.2013 at 10:25 a.m.

Sri Ramoju Ramamani came to MGM Hospital, Warangal station that at about on the same day at about 7:15 a.m. beaten by known persons, she deposed that she examined for her injuries and referred to X-Ray. As per X-Ray report she has given the opinion that the nature of injury is in simple in nature through PW-7. Ex.P-5 is

MLC report and X-Ray report of PW-1 was marked on the same day. P.Ramamani also came with complained that beaten by known persons at 7:15 a.m. on 14.05.2013 and also examined here and referred to X-Ray and PW-7 given an opinion that injuries are in simple-in-nature through her Ex.P6 is X-Ray report.

During the cross examination of PW-7 deposed and admitted that in Ex.P5 and

Ex.P6 was not mentioned about how the injuries were caused and also admitted by injuries may be caused if they fell down on a blunt object.

19.PW-8 who is first investigating officer deposed about the investigation done in his chief examination and during the course of cross examination of PW-8, he admitted that there is no signature of complainant on the FIR and Ex.P3 was received on 14-05-2013 and also admitted that he has not mentioned the reasons for delay in dispatch the FIR to the Court.

20.PW-9 who is second investigating officer deposed in his chief-examination about the investigation done by him and during the course of cross examination he deposed that Accused A-1 to A-4 are family members of PW-1 and further admitted that a complaint registered on 14-05-2013 and the statements recorded after one year of the incident i.e. 21-04-2014, and further admitted that PW-1 and

C.C.No. 6047 of 2022

PW-2 did not stated in their statement about PW-3 to PW-5 were present at the time of alleged incident, and further admitted that as per the statement of PW-1 directly incident occurred 19-05-2013 and further deposed that PW-1 did not stated in her 161 statement specifically A-2 was dragged her and twisted her and also PW1 and PW2 were not stated in their statement that LW5 questioned

Accused A1 to A-4 about the alleged incident, and also deposed that PW-1 & PW-2 did not stated in 161 statement about the abused words in the persons and also overacts. Further PW-9 admitted that PW-2 did not given cell-phone to show that incident was recorded in the phone and further deposed that CD was collected from PW-2, and further admitted that in CDF house numbers of neighbours were not mentioned, and further PW-9 deposed that he did not referred PW-1 and PW-2 to the hospital for their treatment, and further denied the generic suggestions put-forth by the learned counsel for the accused.

21.On meticulous and scanning of the entire record, it is observed that PW-5 who is eye-witness to the incident turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case and more over PW-1 who is defacto-complainant and injured did not speak either in Ex.P1 or in her earlier 161 statement about the abused words used by the accused persons, and further it is noticed that PW-1 has refused her contents in her compliant and herself admitted that police had never examined her and previous statement by the informant casts a dark cloud on the manner in which the investigation was conducted by the agency of prosecution and it may lead to a conclusion that the entire charge sheet may be sham document and it leads to draw an inference against the conduct of PW-1 as per Section 114 of

Indian Evidence Act and she tried to improvise the case and also PW-2 who is daughter of PW-1 did not speak in her earlier statement about the specific about

C.C.No. 6047 of 2022 the acts used by the accused persons and the same was admitted by PW-8 in his cross-examination. Though the cell-phone marked and SIM card was marked but nothing was there in the alleged incident of PW-1 and PW-2 regarding to the alleged offence and also the CD which was taken from PW-2 was also marked clear regarding to the alleged incident. Though this CD was sent for expert opinion and the expert opined that the same was not clearly visible for identification of the same. PW-2 for the first time she deposed that she recorded the alleged incident in her cell-phone. Hence, it is clear that there is improvement in her version, it does not stated in her previous statement in her evidence.

22.Furthermore the accused persons and PW-1 and PW-2 are the family members and there are previous disputes in between them, which is admitted by the PW-1 and PW-2 and more over the PW-2 has produced the mobile phone and

SIM card along with CD which is also sent for expert opinion the the alleged incident was not clear and more over the lot of omissions and contradictions in the statements given by PW-1 and PW-2 and also PW-3 to PW-6, hence the prosecution failed to prove on whose overact the alleged incident took place, as per the version of PW-1, at the time of alleged incident PW-5 was present, but she did not support the prosecution version and she turned hostile, and there is no corroborative evidences of PW-1 and PW-2 who are being the family members as there is improvements in the version of PW-1 and PW-2 for the first time she deposed

before the Court “on 14-05-2014 at 7:30 a.m A-1 to A-4 used to uttering words and

beaten by hands, A-2 caught hold of PW-1 tuff and dragged out of the house and started fisting her over face and neck and A-1, A-3 & A-4 kicked and fisted her indiscriminately all over her body to PW-1 and PW-2 stated on that time their neighbours namely Bixapathi, Raju, Ramadevi and Rambabu were present” and saw

C.C.No. 6047 of 2022 the incident how the Accused A-1 to A-4 threatened the PW-1 and PW-2 and also

PW-2 deposed that after giving the complaint on the advise of Police she visited

MGM Hospital, Warangal for treatment, but the PW-9 admitted that she has not referred PW-1 and PW-2 for hospital and also PW-7 has admitted that for reason for injuries was not mentioned in her report. Hence the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

23.Considering these circumstances, it is evident that the prosecution has not been successfully established the guilt of the Accused A1 to A4 for the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt. The court may consider the lack of credible evidence and the adverse turn of the events with respect to key evidence as a ground for the acquittal of the Accused A1 to A4.

24. IN THE RESULT, Accused No’s.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence

U/Secs.323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused, if any shall be in force for the period of six months as prescribed U/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The un-marked and also marked property, if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

[ (Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 26th day of June, 2025.)

Sd/-

III-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

WARANGAL.

C.C.No. 6047 of 2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1/LW1: Sriramoju Rama Mani, Complainant/Victim - None - PW2/LW2: Panuganti Radhika Rani, Circumstantial witness, daughter of LW-1 PW3/LW3: Tinglikar Bixapathy, Eyewitness to the incident. PW4/LW4: Pasunoori Raju, – do – PW5/LW5: Siripuram Ramadevi, – do – PW6/LW8: Namindla Ramesh, Panch witness for CDF. PW7/LW9: Dr.Asha Devi, CAS MGM, Issued Wound Certificate. PW8/LW10: S.M.Ali, Inspec. of Police Issued FIR. PW9/LW11: P.Nagababu, S.I of Police I.O., arrested the accused and filed charge sheet.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: F.I.R by PW8. - Nil - Ex.P2: Compact Disk by PW-1 Ex.P3: Police report by PW1. Ex.P4: S.161 CrPC statement by PW5. Ex.P5: Crime Detail Form by PW-5. Ex.P6: MLC report and X-ray report of Radhika & Ramamani. MATERIAL OBJECTS: MO1: Sony Mobile phone with Sim-card by PW-2.

Sd/-

III-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

WARANGAL.

C.C.No. 1005 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF III-ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

AT WARANGAL.

Present: Ms. E. Harika,

III-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Warangal

Dated, this the 26th day of June, 2025.

C.C.No.1005 of 2024

OLD C.C.No. 503 of 2014

Between The State, through Inspector of Police,

Women PS, Warangal Urban..... Complainant.

And

A1)Sulthan Anil, S/o.Saraiah, Age:37 years, Caste:Yerukala, Occ:Coolie, A2)Smt.Sulthan Sammakka, W/o.Saraiah, age: 68 years, Caste: Yerukala, Occ: Coolie A3)Sulthan Saraiah. S/o.Komuraiah, Age: 75 years, Caste: Yerukala, Occ: Coolie. All are R/o.Panthini Village, Wardhannapet Madal, Warangal district.

A4)Smt.Ambi Rajitha, W/o.Swamy, Age: 48 years, Caste:Yerukala, Occ: Coolie, R/o.Kantathmakur village of Parkal Mandal Now at Begumpet, Hyderabad. A5)Smt.Rayapuram Sharada, W/o.Sammaiah, Age: 45 years, Caste:Yerukala, Occ: Coolie, Ro.Sangem V & M of Warangal district. …. Accused No’s.1 to 5.

This case is coming up before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence ofLearned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri Ravula Srinivas Reddy, Advocate for the Accused, and upon hearing on both sides, stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1)The Inspector of Police, WPS, Warangal Urban filed charge sheet in Crime No.49/2014, for the offences punishable U/Secs.498-A of I.P.C. and

Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, against the accused A1 to A5.

2) The brief facts of the prosecution case is that :

LW-2 & LW-3/Rayapuram Swaroopa and Rayapuram Komuraiah are parents of defacto-complainant/LW-1/victim. A-1 is her husband and A2 and A3 are her in-laws and A4 and A-5 are her sister in-laws.

C.C.No. 1005 of 2024

The parents of victim/LW1/Sulthan Sandhya’s marriage performed with A-1 on 22-05-2011 at her parent house, as per tradition prevailed in their community.

At the time of marriage, as per the demand of Accused persons, net cash of

Rs.3,00,000/- towards dowry, 3-tulas gold, 10-tulas silver leg chains and other house-hold articles worth about Rs.50,000/- to them before the marriage elders.

After marriage LW-1 went to in-laws for conjugal life and lead happy conjugal life for about (2) months. Later accused persons harassed her mentally and physically with a demand to bring a motor-cycle towards additional dowry otherwise A-1 threatened to go for Second marriage with the instigation of his above family members. In addition to that accused persons have also harassed her mentally and physically for not issuing children. Due to unbearable tortures, she narrated the above facts to her parents, who placed before the elders got conducted a panchayath on 09-03-2014, in which accused persons promised to look her well in future and take back her to their society, but there was no change in the attitude of accused persons and dragged away her gold ornaments from her and necked her out from their house. As such, she requested to take necessary action against the above persons as-per-law. Hence, the complaint.

3)On receipt of the above complaint from LW-1,

LW8/Smt.K.Sujatha, S.I of Police, WPS Warangal Urban, registered a case in Crime

No.49/2014, U/Sec.498-A I.P.C., Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act issued FIR and took up investigation. During the course of investigation LW-8 examined complainant/victim/LW-1 and her parents/LW’s.2 & 3, and recorded their statements. Later, she visited the scene of offence and secured the presence of witnesses and examined them and recorded their statements.

C.C.No. 1005 of 2024

4)On 31.05.2014 on the instruction of LW8, the HC-937 was proceeded to Panthini Village. Wardhannapet Mandal, Warangal district, where he apprehended A-1 at his house at 10.30 hours and brought him to WPS Warangal

Urban and produced him before LW8 at 12.00 hours. As such LW8 interrogated him thoroughly and systematically. During the course of interrogation the accused voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence. Hence the LW8 affected his arrest by issuing arrest card and the accused was sent to the Hon’ble Court for judicial remand.

5)The LW-9/P.Venkateshwarlu, Inspector, WPS, Warangal Urban collected the C.D file from LW-8 and verified investigation done by LW-8 found it on correct lines. In this case, absconding accused A-2 to A-5 were got Anticipatory bail vide Crl. M.P No. 827/2014 and they surrendered in the Police Station. Effected their arrest by issuing arrest forms, later they produce sureties and released and released on bail and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet.

6)Cognizance was taken for the offences U/Sec.498-A I.P.C, Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, against the accused A1 to A5.

7)On the appearance of the accused, copies required under

Section 207 of Cr.P.C., were furnished and they were examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C., charges framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8)On behalf of prosecution, out of listed witnesses i.e., LW1 to

LW9, PW1 to PW6 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 are marked. Learned APP has given up remaining listed witnesses i.e. LW2, LW-6 and LW-9(Rayapuram Swaroopa,

Bolleboina Shiva Kumar and P.Venkateshwarlu).

C.C.No. 1005 of 2024

9)After the closure of prosecution evidence, accused were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating evidence appeared in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

10)Heard the Learned APP, and the Learned Defence counsel.

Perused the material on record.

11)Now the point for determination is : “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for offences punishable U/Sec.498-A IPC & Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, beyond all reasonable doubt ?” POINT:

12)In order to prove its case, the prosecution must placed on record to that effect the PW-1 was subjected to cruelty or harass to meet the unlawful demand for dowry any property of valuable said by the accused persons at relevant date and time.

13)PW-1 who is defacto-complainant basing upon the report presented by PW-1, she deposed that on 22-05-2011, her marriage was performed with A-1, at the time of marriage, as per the demand of A-1 to A-5, the parents of

PW-1 given cash of Rs.3,00,000/-, (3) tulas of gold, 10-tulas of silver and house-hold articles worth of Rs.50,000/- in the presence of LW-4/Rayapuram Saraiah, and after two months of their marriage A-1 with the aid of A-2 to A-5 harassed her mentally and physically for additional dowry and motorcycle and used to her mentally and physically and the same was informed to her parents and a panchayath was condcuted on 09-03-2014 in the presence of LW-5 and sent to by admonished the accused persons and to her in-laws house, but the accused started harassing PW-1 and took her gold and necked out of the house, she could not bear their harassment she lodged a complaint i.e. Ex.P1 and she further deposed that police examined her and recorded her statement.

C.C.No. 1005 of 2024

During her cross examination by the counsel for accused, she admitted that she filed DVC against her husband and deposed that at the time of engagement Rs.1,50,000/- was given and she admitted that A-4 and A-5 marriage was performed prior to her marriage and A-5 residing in her village and she did not know the residence of A-4. Further she admitted that except her marriage and other details of her marriage. Further deposed that Rs.3,00,000/- other items were given at the time of marriage, but there are no photographs to show the presentation of dowry. Witness stated that Ex.P1 was scribed by the police upon her incident, and she deposed that she did not know when Ex.P1 it was mentioned with regard to the panchayath was conducted on 09-03-2014 and also did not remember when the date of Ex.P1 was given. Further admitted that she did not mentioned in Ex.P1 that the date, time and particulars were not mentioned regarding to the dowry given to the accused persons, and she when the generic suggestion was put here she denied the same. On perusal of the evidence deposed by the PW-1 it transpires that she made lot of omissions in upon Court depositions which was not stated in her previous statements i.e. Police report lodged by her and the statements recorded by the police. She further did not stated about any dowry transactions which has happened prior to the marriage with the accused and she did not specifically stated when the resolution made by accused persons hence her evidence cannot be look up to arrive at a finding of accused has committed the offence.

14)PW-2 who is father of PW-1 deposed that PW-1 marriage was performed with A-1 (12) years ago at their residence and on the demand of A-1 to

A-7in the presence of LW-4/R.Saraiah at the time of Varapooja he had given

Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- was given at the time of marriage and 3-tulas of

C.C.No. 1005 of 2024 gold, 10-tulas of silver anklets and other house-hold articles worth of Rs.50,000/- and after two months of marriage accused demanded for motorcycle otherwise if they fail to give the same, he will get second marriage with another woman and further harassed to PW-1 physically, mentally and psychologically on instigation of

A-2 to A-5, in this regard panchayath was conducted in the presence of elders,

LW-4/G.Ramchander and advised the accused to look after and joint the conjugal society of PW-1, but the accused continue to harass the PW-1.

During the cross-examination of PW-2 admitted that A-5 marriage was performed prior to the marriage of the PW-1, further admitted that panchayath was conducted in their village and both side elders were present on 09-03-2014 and also panchayath written resolution was made out in the panchayath, and further PW-2 deposed that he did not know the contents of the panchayath resolution confronted with one copy of the panchayath and admitted to the extent of signature, and further denied that PW-1 is having health issues, due to which she is unable to join the conjugal society of A-1, and also denied the suggestion regarding the demand of dowry by A1 to A4 in the presence of LW-4, and on perusal of evidence of PW-2 with transpires that he made a lot of omissions in this open Court deposition which was not stated his previous statement to the police, and further admitted that PW-1 did not stated specific dates when the accused had harassed PW-1 for additional dowry in his 161 statement, and also admitted that he did not stated specific date when he given dowry to the accused and when generic suggestions was put forth by the counsel for the accused he denied the same.

15)PW-3 who is marriage elder deposed that about (10) ten years ago, PW-2 approached him and stated A-1 and his family members are harassing

C.C.No. 1005 of 2024

PW-1, on his request they have conducted panchayath along with some elders and in the panchayath accused accepted his guilt further, on the advise of panchayath elders accused join conjugal society of PW-1 and also passed written resolution and signed on it both parties, but the accused was not changed his attitude continue to harassment to PW-1.

During the cross examination of PW-3 deposed that he previously came to depose in DVC and MC, and witness is confronted a copy of panchayath resolution and admitted that the same and also admitted the contents in Ex.D1.

PW-3 deposed that he did not know after passing the resolution whether accused send notices to PW1, and further PW-3 denied the generic suggestion put forth by the counsel for the accused.

16)PW-4 who is neighbour of PW-1 deposed that after the marriage of PW-1 and A-1 lived happily for some period. Later there were some disputes arose between them, and deposed that all the accused harassed PW-1 for

additional dowry and PW-2 arranged some amounts, after that they were happy

for some, later accused persons beat PW-1 and sent her to her parents house.

During the cross-examination of PW-4 admitted that A4 and A5 resided at their in- laws house and prior to the marriage of PW1, A4 and A5 are residing in her in-laws house and also admitted that A2 and A3 are resided separately from A-1. He further deposed that he did not attended to the panchayath which was conducted by the elders, and further admitted that he did not mention in his 161 statement from whom he received information regarding to the disputes between PW-1 and

A1 and denied the generic suggestions put-forth by the counsel for the accused.

17)PW-5 is the investigating officer, who deposed about the investigation done by her chief-examination. During the cross-examination of

C.C.No. 1005 of 2024

PW-5 admitted that she did not conducted counsel prior to the registering the FIR, and admitted that she did not collected panchayath resolution from PW-1 and also admitted that an Ex.P1 was not mentioned in whose presence the dowry was given to the accused persons by PW-1, and also in Ex.P1 was not mentioned about the specific dates when the harassment made by the accused persons physically and mentally and also the specific date when the accused persons necked out the PW-1 from their house, and further admitted that PW-3 is not acted as marriage elder.

PW-5 admitted that she did not visited the scene of offence, and further admitted that PW-3 and PW-6 did not stated in their 161 statements that prior to the marriage and at the time of Varapooja Rs.1,50,000/- was given and another

Rs.1,50,000/- was given at the time of marriage, and also admitted that PW-6 did not stated in his statement after three months of their marriage PW-1 and A-1 have disputes between them and panchayath was conducted regarding the same, and further admitted that all the witnesses submitted that date and place when the panchayat was conducted and also admitted he did not stated almost dowry was given to accused persons by PW-1, and further denied the generic suggestions put-forth by the counsel for the accused.

18)PW-6 who is the marriage elder deposed in his chief examination that PW-1 marriage was performed with A-1 (11) years ago, at the time of marriage accused persons demanded 5 to 6 lakhs of dowry and negotiated to 3-lakhs. At the time of engagement for Rs.1,50,000/- was given to the accused family and again Rs.1,50,000/- at the time of marriage and also deposed that he attended to the PW1’s marriage, in his presence the dowry was given and 3-tulas of gold, 10-tulas of silver and Rs.50,000/- worth of house-hold articles given to the accused family as per their demand, and after three months of their marriage

C.C.No. 1005 of 2024 accused started harassment to PW-1 for additional dowry, in this regard panchayath was conducted for two to three times and as per the advise of panchayath elders A1 joined PW-1 to his conjugal society. During the cross examination of PW-6 admitted that he did not stated to the police that at the time of engagement Rs.1,50,000/- was given to the accused family and again

Rs.1,50,000/- was given at the time of marriage and that further PW-6 admitted that he did not stated to the police that 3-tulas of gold and 10-tulas of silver given to the accused family, and after three months of their marriage disputes arose between PW1 and A-1 and also panchayath was conducted in his presence, he came to know about the harassment for accused persons against PW-1 by the father of PW-1 and the panchayath was conducted in the year of 2014 and he was present and made a written resolution and he know the contents of the written resolution. Further denied the generic suggestions put forth by the counsel for the accused.

19)On going through the evidence, this Court found that the prosecution has failed to file documentary evidence with regard to the given dowry in PW-1’s marriage and the receipts regarding same is not filed before the

Court and further found that PW-1 has failed to mention on which date the accused persons have bet her and neither mentioned whether the incident was witnessed by any of the independent witness to corroborated the statement of

PW-1, and it is further found that PW-2 and PW-3 deposed that they were informed by the PW-1 about the said dates. Hence the evidence of PW-2 to PW-4 and PW-6 are hear say evidence. Basing on hear say evidence there are lot of omissions in the statements given by the PW-2 to PW-4 and PW-6 and they have stated for the first time regarding to the dowry given to the accused persons prior

C.C.No. 1005 of 2024 to the marriage of PW-1 lot of omissions and contradictions in their statements.

Hence basing upon hear say evidence, this Court cannot proceed to convict the accused persons, and the evidence of PW-5 investigating officer holds no avail if not corroborative by the prosecution witnesses.

20)PW-4 deposed pertinent to the registration of FIR and he himself admitted that he has not visited the scene of offence. The evidence of

PW-5 hold no credence who are in at a conclusion that the accused persons have committed by the evidence given to the police persons during the investigation does not have anywhere.

21)Therefore, for forgoing reasons this Court is considerable gain the prosecution has failed to establish the guilty of the accused persons for the offence U/Sec.498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt.

22) To prove the offence under section 3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act - Now coming to the offence under sections Dowry Prohibition

Act. So far as the offence U/Secs.3 and 4 of DP Act is concerned, that the marriage of PW1 with accused No.1 took place three years back prior to the complaint and the case was filed in the year of 2014. But no documentary evidence produced by the prosecution to prove U/Sec. 3 of DP Act. Also demand the additional dowry by the accused persons are not establish by the prosecution. Hence the offence under section 4 of DP Act is also not made out against any of the accused.

23)Having regard to the evidence on record as whole it is not possible for this court to un hesitatley hold that the charge levelled against the accused A1 to A5 was proved beyond the reasonable doubt, as the prosecution

C.C.No. 1005 of 2024 witnesses given up by the learned APP and the evidence of the PW-2 to PW-4 and

PW-6 is found unreliable and non cogent and untrustworthy. The statement made by the material witnesses during the investigation were not supported the prosecution.

24) IN THE RESULT, Accused A-1 to A-5 are found not guilty for the offence U/Secs.498(A) I.P.C., Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand discharged after expiry of six months from the date of this judgment as contemplated U/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. Since no property is seized by the police, no order for disposal.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 26th day of June, 2025.)

Sd/-

III-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

WARANGAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1/LW1: Sulthan Sandhya – Defacto Complainant -None- PW2/LW3: Rayapuram Komuraiah – Father of PW-1 PW3/LW5: Gone Ramchandram – Marriage Elder PW4/LW7: Rayapuram Poshalu – Neighbour of PW-1 PW5/LW8: Smt.K.Sujatha – I.O. who arrest the A-1 PW6/LW4: Rayapuram Saraiah – Marriage elder.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: Police report by PW1. - Nil - Ex.P2: S.161 Statement by PW3. Ex.P3: First Information Report. MATERIAL OBJECTS: -NIL-

Sd/-

III-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

WARANGAL.

C.C.No. 156 of 2026

IN THE COURT OF III-ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

AT WARANGAL.

Present: Ms. E. Harika,

III-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Warangal

Dated, this the 06th day of April, 2026

C.C.No. 156 of 2026

Between The State, through Sub-Inspector of Police,

WPS-II, Subedari..... Complainant.

And

A-1)Chirra Kiran, S/o.Sudharshan, Age: 52 years, Caste:Gouda, Occ:Private Employee, R/o.H.No.181, Ramireddy Building, Dr.Raj Kumar Road, Sarjapur Road, Agara, Bagalore South, HSR Layout, Karnataka State Cell No.9886087360. A-2)Chirra Kishore, S/o.Late Sudharshan, Age: 42 years, Caste: Gouda, Occ:Bank Employee, R/o. Nagole, Uppal of Medchal Malkajgiri District. A-3)Smt. Sara Srujana, W/o. Sampath, Age: 49 years, Caste: Gouda, Occ: Housewife, R/o.H.No.3-14-270/A/1, Kothurjenda, Hanumakonda Cell No.9989923202. A-4)Smt.Verukonda Soujanya, W/o. Mohan Rao, Age: 46 years, Caste: Gouda, Осс:Private Employee, R/o.#2-12-119/1, Vayuputhra Colony, Hanumakonda Cell No.9492791050…. Accused.

This case is coming up before me on 30-03-2026 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri K.Sridhar, Learned Advocate for accused persons, and upon hearing on both sides, stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1)The Inspector of Police, WPS-II, Subedari filed charge sheet in

Crime No.51/2025, for the offences punishable U/s.85 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sec.3 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961, against the Accused A1 to A4.

2) The brief facts of the prosecution case is that :

i) Prior to 30-05-2025 at Patak Mohalla Street, Matwada, Warangal

District and the marriage of victim/LW1 was performed with A-1 on 05-12-2003.

At the time of marriage, on the demand of Accused A1 to A4 net cash of

Rs.5,00,000/-, 3-tulas gold ornaments, household articles, motorcycle and other

C.C.No. 156 of 2026 articles to them in the presence of elders i.e Chandragiri Ravindar/LW4 and

Chandragiri Madhavi/LW5, as dowry from the parents of LW1/Chirra Anitha. After the marriage, LW-1 along with A-1 have started their marital life at Bangalore, and

LW-1 also did the job. At that time mother-in-law of LW-1 was used to come to their house to see them. In the absence of A-1, her mother-in-law was used to abuse her stating that “How his son has married LW1, her daughters have seen good matches to A-1. LW-1 trapped A-1 with your optimistic words, you are in black complexion, lean and dwarf” and LW-1 used to act in good manner after arrival of her son/A1, and she also use to invite her daughters/A3 & A4, as and when she came to Bangalore, and all of them have subjected harassment mentally by making jokes over LW-1.

ii)Due to which LW-1 has informed the same to A-1, for which in some occasions, clashes have been aroused between them, and neighbours have used to convince them. Due to in sufficient salary of the accused/A-1, the LW-1 also done the job since 2004. During the year 2007 the father of A-1 was demised, and in the same year the LW-1 was blessed with a daughter. Further she taken rest for two months and continued her job by keeping her daughter at her parents. The LW- 1 along with accused/A1 have purchased a house plot to an extent of 300 Sq. Yards, belongs to family of mother-in-law of LW-1, situated at Pedda Amberpet, with the money saved from the salaries of the LW-1 and A-1. During the year 2018 the accused/A-1 was met with a major Road accident, and due to inability to look after him and her daughter at Bangalore, the LW-1 along with A-1, and daughter came to

Warangal, assuming that she will get support of her parents and relatives. The LW- 1 has extended her services to A-1 for a period of 9-months and run her house. She also purchased a Flat bearing No.104, in Srivari Vihar. Old Boinapally, at Hyderabad through LIC Housing loan and she paid the EMIs, regularly for a period of three

C.C.No. 156 of 2026 years. While she was paying the EMIs, the accused has started to abuse and beat her every day, stating to dispose off the said flat. He also use to inform the same to accused/A-2 to A-4 who are his siblings, and use to hear their suggestions. Due to unbearable harassment meted out by accused/A-1 she disposed off the said flat for lowest rate. She asked the accused/A-1, what he will do with the money came from selling of flat. Due to which accused/A-1 has told her that he will start a business after his recovery from ill-health and kept her in belief. While the matter was stood like this, one day in her absence, her husband/A-1 has left from the house along with the amount of Rs.14,00,000/- pertains to the sale amount of flat and Gold ornaments. Further she came to know that her husband has gone to her mother-in- law, and since he did not came to her and not taken any care against LW-1 and her daughter, with the optimistic words of his siblings A-2 to A-4. He did not respond to the phone calls of LW-1.

iii) During the year 2020 the father of the LW-1 was demised and she informed the facts to the elders and relatives/LWs-4 to 10 regarding the brought up and education of her daughter. Though accused/A-1 did not taken any care, by consuming alcoholic drinks and enjoying with luxuries, and he also told to LW-1 to continue her job. The LW-1 has caused enquiries with both side relatives including her mother-in-law and the A-2 to A-4 about the whereabouts of A-1, but none is informed. The accused/A-2 to A-4 have told to LW-1 that the A-1 did not came to them. They also abused and insulted LW-1 stating to see anyone and to tell to anyone in irresponsible manner. Due to which LW-1 has complained the same at

Local Police Station and made rounds to the Police Station but she did not came to know whereabouts of her husband/A-1. Again LW-1 has complained before the

Police at P.S. Matwada, on that her husband/A-1 came to Police Station admitted his guilt. Further he stated that he spent money taken by him, and there will be no

C.C.No. 156 of 2026 problems from his siblings/A-2 to A-4 in future. He also stated in the presence of elders/LWs-5 to 8 on 11.04.2021, that he is doing the job, paying chits and he will return money to LW-1 within a short period. He further added that he will take responsibility of their daughter and he will take back LW-1 and went away.

Afterwards she made efforts to contact A-1 but she did not came to know his whereabouts. On 26-1-2025 LW-1 has came to know through some others, that her mother-in-law was demised, but A-2 to A-4 did not informed about the death of her mother-in-law. Though she along with her relatives have gone to her in-laws house to see the dead body of her mother-in-law. On seeing them, the accused/A-1 has picked up a clash with LW-1 and her relatives stating as why they came to their house and informed the same to the Police, through Dial-100 toll free service.

On receiving the information the Police officials have came to the spot, convinced

LW-1 and her relatives sent from there stating to complaint before the Police, after completion of all formalities and get secure the presence of her husband/A-1.

Afterwards LW-1 has complained at Women Police Station against accused/A-1 to

A-4, but accused A-1 appeared before the Police, but he did not bring his family members for counseling, and there is no change came in his attitude. As such LW-1 has lodged a present petition against accused/ A-1 to A-4.

3)On receipt of the above complaint from LW-1, LW12/A.Suvarna,

Inspector of Police, WPS-II, Subedari, registered a case in Crime No.51/2025,

U/Sec.85 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sec.3 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961, and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, LW-12/

A.Suvarna, Inspector of Police examined complainant/victim/LW-1/Konda @ Chirra

Anitha, her mother Konda Padmavathi and her brother Konda Pavan Kumar/

LW’s.2 & 3, and recorded their statements on 30.05.2025 and collected the

Wedding card, Marriage photographs along with Pen Drive, Marriage Certificate

C.C.No. 156 of 2026 and land documents. Further on 31-05-2025, LW-12/A.Suvarna Inspector of Police,

WPS-II, Subedari has visited the residence of LW-2 and LW-3/Konda Padmavathi and Konda Pavan Kumar situated at Patak Mohalla, Matwada, Warangal, where the

LW-1 is residing, examined and recorded the statements of LW-4 to LW-10/

Chandragiri Ravindar, Chandragiri Madhavi, Konda Ravindar, Konda @ Yeragani

Padma, Thallapally Venkata Krishna, Thoka Ramu and Baswaraju Upendar and made effors to apprehend the accused, but in vain.

4) On 20-06-2025 Accused A1 and on 22-12-2025 accused A2 to

A4, have came to WPS-2, Subedari, surrendered before the LW-12/ and voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence. Hence, LW-12 has served the Notices

U/Sec.35(3) Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023, on them under proper acknowledgment, duly informing to attend the Hon’ble Court as and when his presence is required, and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet.

5)Cognizance was taken for the offences U/Sec.85 of Bharatiya

Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sec.3 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961, against the Accused

A1 to A4. Upon appearance of the Accused A-1 to A-4, copies required under

Section 207 of Cr.P.C., were furnished and they were examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C., substance of accusation is read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6)On behalf of prosecution, out of listed witnesses i.e., LW1 to

LW12, PW1 to PW3 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 are marked. Learned APP has given up the evidences of LW4 to LW-12 (Chandragiri Ravindar, Chandragiri

Madhavi, Konda Ravindar, Konda @ Yeragani Padma, Thallapally Venkata Krishna,

Thoka Ramu, Baswaraju Upendar, A.Sunil and A.Suvarna).

7)As there is no incriminating evidence against Accused persons, the examination U/Sec.313 is dispensed with.

C.C.No. 156 of 2026

8)Heard the Learned APP, and the Learned Defence counsel.

Perused the material on record.

9)Now the point for determination is : “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused persons for offence punishable U/Sec. 85 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sec.3 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961, beyond all reasonable doubt ?”

POINT:

10)It is the allegation of prosecution that the accused persons committed offence U/Sec.85 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sec.3 of Dowry

Prohibition Act 1961. To substantiate its case, Prosecution has examined PW1 to

PW3 and marked Exs.P1 to P4.

11)PW-1/victim/Anitha Konda, testified before this Court that A1 is her husband. A2 to A4 are family members of A-1. PW-1 marriage was performed with A-1 in the year of 2003. Due to some petty issues between PW-1 and accused persons, she went to P.S.Subedari Police obtained signature on white papers, but she did not know the contents of the complaint/Ex.P1. PW-1 turned hostile, then the Learned APP sought permission to declare her as hostile and cross examined her with the permission of the Court. During her cross-examination,

PW-1 admitted that she compromised the case with accused persons and she is not living together, and she did not want to proceed further in this case and she denied her 161 statement as in Ex.P2.

12)PW-1 is sister of PW-2 and PW-3 is mother of PW-1 and PW2,

PW-2 and PW-3 testified before this court that PW-1 marriage was performed with

A-1 in the year of 2003. Due to some petty issues in between PW-1 and her in-laws family, on that PW-1 went to PS:Subedari Police. They did not know the contents in the complaint. PW-2 and PW-3 turned hostile, then the Learned APP sought permission to declare them as hostile and cross-examined them with the permission of the Court. In the cross examination of PW-2 and PW-3 denied that

C.C.No. 156 of 2026 they stated before police as in Ex.P3 and Ex.P4, inspite of cross-examination nothing elicited from the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 to prove the allegations against the accused persons.

13)Learned APP has given up the evidences of LW4 to LW-12 (Chandragiri Ravindar, Chandragiri Madhavi, Konda Ravindar, Konda @ Yeragani

Padma, Thallapally Venkata Krishna, Thoka Ramu, Baswaraju Upendar, A.Sunil and

A.Suvarna).

14)Under the above circumstances, this Court feels that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the accused persons have committed an offence punishable U/Sec.85 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sec.3 of Dowry

Prohibition Act 1961, hence the accused persons deserves for acquittal.

15)Hence, it is a fit case to grant benefit of doubt to the accused persons and the prosecution failed to prove the guilty of the accused persons

U/Sec.85 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sec.3 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 beyond all reasonable doubt.

16) IN THE RESULT, Accused A-1 to A-4 are found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.85 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sec.3 of Dowry

Prohibition Act 1961 and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months from today as prescribed U/Sec.437-A CrPC. As no property is deposited, there is no such order with regard to property.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 06th day of April, 2026.)

Sd/-

III-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

WARANGAL.

C.C.No. 156 of 2026

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1/LW1 :: Konda @ Chirra Anitha – Defacto-Complainant/victim -None- PW2/LW2 :: Konda Padmavathi – Mother of PW-1 PW3/LW3 :: Konda Pavan Kumar – Brother of PW-1

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: Police report by PW1. - Nil - Ex.P2: S.161 Cr.P.C of PW.1. Ex.P3: S.161 Cr.P.C of PW.2. Ex.P4: S.161 Cr.P.C of PW.3.

MATERIAL OBJECTS: -NIL-

Sd/-

III-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

WARANGAL.