G. Aparna

CC 1970/2018-1-I JMFC, Knl

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, KURNOOL.

Present:Smt. T. Jyothsna Devi, I Addl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool.

Monday, this the 19th day of August, 2024

CC.No.1970/2018

Between :

K. Sashikala, D/o Sunkanna, Hindu, aged 45 years, H.No.170/82,

Shareen Nagar, Kurnool....Complainant.

Vs.

B. Siromani, age 48 years, Jr. Assistant, Quality Control Sub Division, Jalamandali compound, R.S. Road,

Kurnool.... Accused.

This case is coming on 13.08.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Sri G.P. Shyam Sunder, Advocate for the complainant and Sri

Kapu Ramakrishna Reddy and C. Jasmine, Advocates for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a private complaint filed by the complainant u/s.200 of

Cr.P.C. against the accused for the offence under Sec.138 and 142 of

Negotiable Instruments Act (for short N.I. Act).

02.The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:

Accused borrowed an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- for her family necessities in the month of March 2018 as a hand loan and she promised to repay the said amount within a month. Thereafter, accused failed to repay the amount as agreed upon. On persistent demands by the complainant, in discharge of said liability, accused had issued a cheque bearing No.525423 drawn on Andhra Bank, Kurnool branch in favour of complainant dated 05.08.2018. The complainant presented said cheque for collection through her account in State Bank of Hyderabad, Kurnool branch, but the Bank

CC 1970/2018-2-I JMFC, Knl

authorities returned that cheque with an endorsement as “Account blocked” along with a memo dated 20.08.2018. The complainant immediately after receiving the memo from the Bank authorities, he issued a legal notice to the accused dated 30.08.2018 by demanding to repay the cheque amount.

The said notice was served on accused on 04.09.2018, but accused did not come forward to pay the cheque amount or respond to her notice. Hence, she approached this Court and filed complaint for the offence u/s.138 of N.I.

Act.

03.After perusing sworn affidavit, complaint was taken on file

U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act against the accused. The accused after receipt of summons before this Court and copies of documents are furnished to the accused as contemplated under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

04.The accused is examined under Sec.251 of Cr.P.C. and she denied all the allegations in the complaint and claimed to be tried.

05.On behalf of complainant, PW1 was examined and Ex.P1 to P4 were marked. Ex.P1 is original cheque bearing No.525423, dated 05.08.2018, Ex.P2 is cheque return memo dated 20.08.2018, Ex.P3 is office copy of legal notice, dated 30.0.2018 and Ex.P4 is postal acknowledgment.

06.Upon closure of complainant’s side evidence, accused was exam- ined u/s.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence levelled against her from the complainant’s witnesses for which she denied the same and re- ported defence evidence. On behalf of accused, DW1 was examined and marked Ex.D1.

07.Heard arguments on both sides and perused the material on record.

CC 1970/2018-3-I JMFC, Knl

08.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the complainant has proved the guilty of the accused

for the offence u/s.138 of N.I. Act, 1881 beyond reasonable

doubt or not?

Point:

09.The evidence of PW1 is nothing but replica of the contents of complaint. To prove the case against the accused u/s.138 of N.I. Act, the oral testimony of PW1 is that accused borrowed an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- in the last week of March 2018 from her, but she failed to repay the amount.

Subsequently, after repeated demands made by PW1, accused had issued

Ex.P1 cheque for a sum of Rs.1,10,000/-. When the said cheque was presented for collection, the Bank authorities returned the said cheque with an endorsement of “Account blocked”. Ex.P2 cheque return memo shows the same. PW1 further testified that she issued legal notice to the accused under Ex.P3 dated 30.08.2018 demanding to make payment within 15 days from the date of receipt of said notice. The same was served on the accused on 04.09.2018. But, the accused failed to pay the amount within stipulated time. So, she filed the present complaint and prayed the Court to punish the accused u/s.138 of N.I. Act.

10.To prove the guilt of the accused u/s.138 of N.I. Act, the complainant needs to prove

1. Whether the cheque issued by the accused was presented for collection within a period of its validity.

2. Whether cheque was dishonoured by Bank authorities for one of the reasons which attracts the offence u/s.138 of N.I.Act.

3. That the drawee issued notice u/s.138 of N.I. Act within statutory period.

4. That the drawer received said notice but failed to make any payment covered by dishonoured cheque within stipulated time as mentioned in

Sec.138 of N.I. Act.

CC 1970/2018-4-I JMFC, Knl

5. Whether the complaint was filed within the time of limitation before the

Court having jurisdiction.

6. Prima-facie proof whether the cheque was issued in discharge of any legally enforceable subsisting debt.

If the all the ingredients were proved by the complainant, the presumption u/s.139 of N.I. Act comes into play and the burden of proving the case shifts to the accused and she has to rebut the presumption arises u/s.139 of N.I. Act in favour of the complainant.

11.To prove all the ingredients and to attract the provisions under 138 of N.I. Act, complainant adduced his evidence and same is discussed herein under:

(1) Whether the cheque issued by the accused was presented for collection within a period of its validity:

As per the evidence of PW1, she deposed that accused issued

Ex.P1 cheque bearing No.525423, dated 05.08.2018 drawn on Andhra Bank,

Nandyal road branch, Kurnool, but there is no mention about the date when the accused was given that cheque and when it was presented before Bank.

PW1 further testified that on the date of cheque, she presented and Bank authorities returned Ex.P1 cheque with an endorsement “Account blocked”,

dated 20.08.2018. In the cross examination of PW1, she admitted that Ex.P1

cheque was given by the accused in the month of August 2018 which was drawn for Rs.1,10,000/-. PW1 categorically admitted in her cross examination that she did not mention the date, month and year in her complaint as well as in her chief affidavit and Ex.P3 notice that accused issued Ex.P1 cheque in her favour. For that, complainant stated since she did not remember the date and hence she could not mention those details in the above papers. Here, I observed PW1 at the time of her evidence also not

CC 1970/2018-5-I JMFC, Knl

able to tell on which date Ex.P1 cheque was drawn in favour of complainant by the accused, but as per her, in the month of March, it was executed and on 05.08.2018, the same was presented before the Bank. Since the date was mentioned as 05.08.2018 and on the same day, she presented before the Bank for collection, the Bank authorities not returned cheque for the reason of cheque was not in time. But as per the complainant, it was returned as “Account blocked”. Since the date was not clearly established with the evidence of PW1 that when said cheque was executed by the accused, it cannot say that the complainant presented said cheque for collection within the limitation period. Accordingly, the point is answered.

(2)Whether cheque was dishonoured by Bank authorities for one of the reasons which attracts the offence u/s.138 of N.I.Act:

12.In the present case, the complainant presented the cheque for collection through her Bank i.e., State Bank of Hyderabad, Kurnool branch, but the cheque was returned with an endorsement as “Account blocked”. The nomenclature mentioned in cheque return memo placed vital role to make out the offence u/s.138 of N.I. Act. On plain and literal meaning of Sec.138 of N.I. Act, it becomes clear that section refers to dishonor of cheque on two grounds. Firstly one is due to insufficiency of funds in the account to honour the cheque and secondly the amount of cheque exceeds the amount arrange to be paid from that account by an agreement made with the Bank. Here, in this case, Ex.P1 cheque was returned within endorsement of “Account blocked”. On perusing the evidence of PW1 and documents, there is no clarity whether Ex.P1 cheque was issued by the accused before blocking the account or accused intentionally block the account after issuance of cheque to the complainant because the complainant did not mention the specific date when it was executed. But the Bank authorities returned the cheque as mentioned in Ex.P2 as “Account blocked”. It is a settled law that mere

CC 1970/2018-6-I JMFC, Knl

issuance of cheque is not an offence but it becomes punishable when the said cheque is dishonoured. Mere fact that the record of the drawer Bank shows a particular name as account holder would not be sufficient to establish that account is being maintained by the account holder unless the said account holder holds the authorities and control over the said account.

In other words, if an account holder was deprive off his authority, controlled and domine over the Bank account, it cannot said that the account is being maintained by the said account holder as held by Hon’ble High Court Puinjab and Haryana in Rajesh Meena vs. State of Haryana. Here, in this case, account is in the name of accused, but accused account was blocked and there is no mention about the reason of blocking of the account and if the account was blocked, the account holder deprive off his authority controlled and domine over the Bank account. Hence, it is presumed that accused is out of control to pay the cheque amount under her account which was already blocked. In case, if accused issued Ex.P1 cheque before blocking of her account by the Bank authorities, then probably it presumes that accused intentionally issued Ex.P1 cheque to cheat the complainant, but here the specific date of issuance of cheque and specific date of account was blocked was not mentioned in either of the records. So, under that circumstances, it cannot be said that “Account blocked” make out the offence u/s.138 of N.I.

Act against the accused.

(3)That the drawee issued notice u/s.138 of N.I. Act within statutory period: (4) That the drawer received said notice but failed to make any payment covered by dishonoured cheque within stipulated time as mentioned in Sec.138 of N.I. Act:

13.In the present case, the evidence of PW1 shows that cheque was dishonoured on 20.08.2018 with an endorsement of “Account blocked” and after knowing the same, she has been issued legal notice to the accused

CC 1970/2018-7-I JMFC, Knl

dated 30.08.2018 demanding to make payment within 15 days from the date

of receipt of said notice and same was served on 04.09.2018, but the accused has failed to pay the amount within stipulated time. As per the documents Ex.P1 to P3, the cheque was returned on 20.08.2018 and within 30 days, PW1 issued a legal notice to the accused demanding to repay the cheque amount within 15 days. Ex.P4 postal receipt shows that the accused had received legal notice on 04.09.2018, but he failed to make payment covered by dishonoured cheque within 15 days from the date of receipt of legal notice by him as contemplated u/s.138 of N.I. Act. This point is answered in favour of complainant.

(5)Whether the complaint was filed within the time of limitation

before the Court having jurisdiction:

14.The complainant filed this complaint before this Court on 05.10.2018 within stipulated time as required under law as accused failed to pay the cheque amount within 15 days after sending notice from 04.09.2018 and within period after cause of action arose. Accordingly, this point is also answered in favour of complainant.

(6)Prima-facie proof whether the cheque was issued in discharge of any legally enforceable subsisting debt:

15.PW1 categorically testified that in her chief examination that in the first week of March 2018, accused borrowed an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- for her family necessities as a hand loan and promising to repay the same with interest within a month and subsequently, to discharge the said liability, accused had issued Ex.P1 cheque to her for Rs.1,10,000/-. In the cross examination, PW1 deposed that she is a house wife, her husband lent amount of Rs.2 lakhs to the mother of one John and he obtained pronote in

CC 1970/2018-8-I JMFC, Knl

her name and the case was also registered in respect of above transaction on her name and the same is pending on the file of this Court. Her husband is doing house keeping business on contract basis at Hyderabad, but she cannot say howmuch he is earning in a month. PW1 further stated that accused is working in Irrigation Department but she does not know whether she is getting Rs. 50,000/- to 60,000/- per month. PW1 categorically admitted that she did not obtain pronote in connection with Ex.P1 cheque transaction and also admitted that she did not mention the exact date of transaction between herself and accused. She also did not mention the specific date of transaction either in her evidence or Ex.P3 notice. It was also admitted by PW1 that she did not mention the date, month and year in her complaint as well as in her evidence affidavit and Ex.P3 that accused issued Ex.P1 cheque in her favour. PW1 stated that she cannot say the serial number of Ex.P1 cheque. Learned counsel for accused suggested to PW1 by confronting Ex.P1 cheque before her as ‘1’ was inserted infront of

Rs.10,000/- appearing on Ex.P1. Witness denied that suggestion. So, the plea was taken by defence counsel is that the accused took an amount of

Rs.10,000/- in the year 2019 and she repaid the said amount to the complainant, but complainant did not return the cheque which was obtained from her in the year 2009 and the cheque was fabricated by inserting ‘1’ in the place of Rs.10,000/- and changed as Rs.1,10,000/-. So, there is an alteration of amount on the cheque and the accused already discharged the debt towards the complainant for an amount of Rs.10,000/- in the year 2009 itself. Hence, this case is not maintainable and accused is not liable to pay any amount towards complainant and this is a false case.

16.To prove the contention of defence counsel, accused was examined as DW1 and she categorically testified that she had to pay only

CC 1970/2018-9-I JMFC, Knl

Rs.10,000/- to the complainant. She issued a cheque for Rs.10,000/- in the year 2009. She discharged that debt but the complainant did not return her chequen. She knows that the cheque was sent to the Expert opinion through the Court and Expert opinion was that “ there was a material alteration is occurred”. DW1 further testified that the complainant filed a false case against her likewise the complainant also filed three more false cases against her in the same manner by altering the cheques. DW1 also testified that she had paid Rs.1,15,000/- to the complainant in connection with one case vide

C.C.No.1697/2018 on the file of II Addl. Jr. Civil Judge Court, Kurnool. Even in that cheque, in respect to that case, there was a material alteration, even though she had paid amount to the complainant to pacify the matter. DW1 also testified that accused also altered the other cheques which is subject matter of this case and C.C.No.1698/2018. DW1 testified that writings on

Ex.P1 does not belongs to her and writings in Ex.P1 was materially altered.

This case and the case under C.C.1698/2018 are false cases. On further chief examination of DW1, Ex.D1 was marked through DW1. Ex.D1 is

Forensic Science Laboratory report subject to objection by the learned counsel for complainant as that document cannot be marked through DW1 since she is not the writer of that document.

17. U/sec.293 Cr.P.C. Reports of Certain Government Scientific experts:

(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a

Government Scientific expert to whom this section applies, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.

CC 1970/2018-10-I JMFC, Knl

(2) The Court may, if it thinks fit summon and examine any such expert as to the subject matter of the report.

If there is no doubt about genuineness of expert report, then such document may be used as evidence in the trial and can be marked through the person at whose instance that document was sent for analysis and report. It is not mandatory in all cases the writer of expert report should be called for marking in a trial. Therefore, in my opinion there is no wrong to mark the expert report through DW1.

18.The expert opined in the report as “so it shows the holder of the cheque has altered the cheque by inserting 1 in between 1 and 0 numbers of the cheque.

In Shreyas Agro Services (P) Ltd., Vs S.B.Chandrakumar (2008) 61

AIC 804 Hon’ble Apex Court held that “ In case of signed blank cheque, if the drawee dishonestly fills up any excess amount, drawer has no obligation to facilitate the encashment of cheque.

19.As per Ex.D1, the cheque Ex.P1 was materially altered. So, the accused has no obligation to discharge the amount covered and altered under Ex.P1.

Because the amount was altered without the notice and consent of the drawer. Apart from that it is an admitted fact that there is no specific date mentioned by the complainant when she lent amount to the accused and when Accused handed over the cheque to discharge the alleged debt. Under that circumstances, this Court forms an opinion that there is no prima facie proof that the cheque issued in discharge of any legally enforceable subsisting debt.

20.The points 2 and 6 are not proved and those points are against the complainant. So, the presumption u/s.139 of N.I. Act does not come into

CC 1970/2018-11-I JMFC, Knl

play in favour of complainant. Therefore, the burden of proof existence towards the complainant to prove that the transaction is a genuine transaction and Ex.P1 cheque was issued to discharge the debt existence prior to issuance of cheque. On perusing the entire evidence on record, I came to a considerable opinion that the complainant has failed to prove that

Ex.P1 cheque was issued to discharge the debt existence prior to issuance of cheque. Therefore, this Court is of the considerable opinion that the complainant has failed to prove the guilty of the accused for the offence u/s.138 of N.I. Act beyond all reasonable doubt.

21.In the result,accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and accordingly she is acquitted of the same U/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. Her bail bonds and surety bonds if any shall be in force for a period of 6 months as per Sec.437-A of

Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in open court, this the 19th day of August, 2024.

Sd/- T. Jyothsna Devi,

I Addl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kurnool.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For ComplainantFor Accused:

PW.1: K. ShashikalaDW1: B. Siromani

Exhibits Marked for

For Complainant

Ex.P1: Original cheque bearing No.525423, dated 05.08.2018. Ex.P2: Cheque return memo dated 20.08.2018. Ex.P3: Office copy of legal notice, dated 30.0.2018. Ex.P4: Postal acknowledgment.

CC 1970/2018-12-I JMFC, Knl

For Accused:

Ex.D1: Forensic Science Laboratory Report (subject to objection)

Material Object Marked

For Complainant: For Accused:

-Nil-

Sd/- T. Jyothsna Devi,

I Addl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kurnool.

CC 1970/2018-13-I JMFC, Knl

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: KURNOOL

Calendar Case No.1970/2018

Date of offence.:20.08.2018

Date of complaint.:05.10.2018

Date of apprehension of accused: --

Date of release on bail : --

Date of commencement of trial.:05.11.2019

Date of close of trial.:18.03.2024

Date of sentence or order.:19.08.2024

Complainant : K. Sashikala

S.Name ofFather’sReligionOccupationResidenceAge Noaccusedname/ Husband Name Quality control sub division, Shyam 1- B. SiromaniJr. AssistantJalamandali 48 Babu compound, RS road, Kurnool.

Offence: Dishonour of cheque

Section of Law: 138 of N.I. Act

Finding: Found not guilty.

Sentence or order:In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and accordingly she is acquitted of the same U/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. Her bail bonds and surety bonds if any shall be in force for a period of 6 months as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Sd/- T. Jyothsna Devi,

I Addl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kurnool.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-Cum-Prl. Asst.

Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

CC 355/21-1-IAJFCM, Knl

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, KURNOOL.

Present:Ms. G. Aparna, I Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Kurnool.

Tuesday, this the 25th day of February, 2025

C.C.No.355/2021

Between :

State Rep.by Sub-Inspector of Police,

Kurnool IV Town Police Station...Complainant.

Vs.

1. Gangireddy Jayamohan Reddy, aged 29 yars, S/o G. Sivareddy, H.No.132, Mahaveer Nagar, Bellary chowrasta, Kurnool town.

2. Gangireddy Manikyam Reddy, aged 33 years, S/o G. Sivareddy, H.No.132, Mahaveer Nagar, Bellary chowrasta, Kurnool town.

... Accused.

This case is coming on 06.02.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Sr. Asst. Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri M.

Srinivasulu and Sri G. Bhaskar, Advocates for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is an offence of criminal assault with intent to obstruct the official duties of public servant and outrage the modesty of a woman.

02.The brief facts of the prosecution is as follows:

The de-facto complainant E.Radhamma/LW1 is working as WPC- 3095 in Shakti Team of Mahila P.S. On 08.05.2020 on receipt of a complaint from one S. Anisha of Mahaveer Nagar, Kurnool town against the accused

Jayamohan Reddy and Manikyam Reddy of Mahaveer Nagar, Kurnool town and as per the instructions of Dy.S.P., Mahila P.S., LW1 along with her colleagues LW2/S. Uma Maheswari , WPC-159 and LW3/B. Sumalatha, WPC- 1936 left the police Station on 08.05.2020 at about 6.15 PM and reached the house of accused A1 and A2 situated at Mahaveer Nagar at about 07.00

P.M. and while they were causing enquiries with Siva Reddy the father of the

CC 355/21-2-IAJFCM, Knl

Accused, in the meantime the accused A1 and A2 came out of their house and picked up quarrel with LWs 1 to 3 as to why they have come there and when they were trying to convince them, that they came for equiry based on the complaint given by Anisha, the accused did not heed their words, abused them in filthy language and obstructed to their legitimate duties.

Then after informing about the incident to their higher officials, LWs 1 to 3 appeared in IV town P.S. and LW1 preferred the report for necessary action.

Basing on the report of LW1, Sub Inspector of Police, Kurnool IV town PS/LW6 registered a case in Cr.No.269/2020 under sec.353, 509 r/w 34 IPC of Kurnool IV town P.S. and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, LW6 examined and recorded the statements of LWS 1 to 3.

He visited the scene of offence, examined and recorded the statements of

LWs 4 and 5 and drafted a rough sketch of the scene of offence. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

03.This case was taken on file for the offence punishable U/Sec.353, 509 r/w 34 IPC against the accused. On appearance of the accused before this court, the copies of documents is furnished to the accused as contemplated under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

04.The accused were examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. Charges for the offence u/s.353, 509 r/w 34 IPC are framed against them. The substance of the accusation read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05.In order to prove the case of prosecution, PWs 1 to 4 are examined and got marked Ex.P1 to P3.

06.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused are examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. The incriminating evidence deposed by the prosecution

CC 355/21-3-IAJFCM, Knl

witnesses is read over and explained to them in Telugu, to which they denied the same as false and reported no defence evidence.

07.Heard arguments of both sides.

08. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the accused has committed the offence u/s. 353, 509

r/w 34 IPC or not?”

Point:

09.In order to establish their case against accused, prosecution had examined four witnesses and got Exs.P1 to P3 are marked. PW1, PW2, PW3 are victims and PW4 is investigating officer. Whereas, Ex.P1 is the complaint given by the PW1, Ex.P2 is FIR and Ex.P3 is rough sketch.

10.The learned counsel for accused argued that except PWs.1, 2, 3 and 4 who are interested witnesses, none of independent witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Hence PWs 1 to 4 evidence alone is not sufficient to find the guilty of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and as such the accused are entitled for acquittal.

11.PW1 is the victim and defacto complainant. She deposed that she saw A1 and A2 at the time of incident. She further deposed that on 08.05.2020, one Anisha resident of Mahaveer Colony, Kurnool lodged complaint in Mahila P.S. against A1 and A2 and on the instructions of Dy.S.P.,

Kurnool, she along with LW2/Uma Maheswaramma and LW3/Sumalatha started at 6.15 P.M from IV Town P.S., Kurnool and reached the house of accused situated at Mahaveer colony at 7 P.M. While, she was enquiring the father of A1 and A2 by Siva Reddy about the complaint given by Anisha, meanwhile, A1 and A2 came out and objected their enquiry and abused her in filthy language and also threatened them to do whatever they can, but they would not follow them to the police station. A1 and A2 shouted at them

CC 355/21-4-IAJFCM, Knl

and obstructed them to discharge their official duties. Then, she informed the same to their Dy.S.P. Mahila P.S. over phone and on the instructions of

Dy.S.P., they went to IV Town P.S. and lodged the report. S.I. of Police had examined and recorded her statement. Ex.P1 is her complaint.

12.During the cross examination of PW1, she deposed that she went to the house of accused prior to the registering of the case based upon the complaint lodged by Anisha. She also testified that generally, prior to registering of case, they called the accused to police station, but the accused did not lift their phone and hence they went to the house of accused to bring them to the police station. She also admitted that at the time of their visit to the house of accused, there was no quarrel taken place between accused and complainant Anisha. She also admitted that accused had not assaulted her and not used physical force upon them. But, they abused them in filthy language and obstructed them to discharge their official duties.

13.The other victim was examined as PW2. She deposed that she does not know LW4/G. Ramamani and LW5/P. Gurumurthy. She further deposed that on 08.05.2020, one Anisha presented a complaint against

Manikya Reddy and Jayamohan Reddy before Mahila P.S., Kurnool and as per the directions of Dy.S.P., she, PW1 and LW3 went to the house of accused for enquiry with respect to the complaint of Anisha. While they were enquiring with Siva Reddy who is father of A1 and A2, meanwhile, A1 and A2 came out and started shouting at them and they tried to convince them that they came to enquire as per the directions of Dy.S.P., but A1 and A2 did not heed their words and stated to do whatever they can, but asked as to leave the place and not cooperated with their enquiry and told they would not come to police station even if they informed to Dy.S.P. or S.P. Then, they informed the same to their Dy.S.P., over phone and PW1 lodged complaint. She and LW3

CC 355/21-5-IAJFCM, Knl

accompanied PW1 in lodging the complaint. Police examined her and recorded her statement. She also testified that she can identify those persons and as such identified A1 and A2 in the Court hall.

14.In the cross examination, PW2 testified that they did not call the accused over phone. She was also testified that they lodged complaint for obstructing their official duties by the accused.

15.PW3 who is one of the victims, deposed that on 08.05.2020, one

Anisha presented a complaint against one Manikya Reddy and Jayamohan

Reddy before Mahila P.S. Kurnool and as per the directions of their Dy.S.P., along with PWs 1 and 2, she went to the house of father of A1 and A2 at 7

P.M. situated at Mahaveer Nagar colony, Kurnool for enquiry. While, they were enquiring the father of A1 and A2, meanwhile A1 and A2 came out from the house and asked why they came there and shouted at them and they informed that they came for enquiry about the complaint of Anisha. But, A1 and A2 not listened their words and told them do complaint to anyone but they do not come to the police station. She further deposed that A1 and A2 abused them in filthy language and also commented them as they came as

Indira Gandhi. Later, they informed the same to their Dy.S.P., over phone and as per the directions of him, PW1 lodged complaint against A1 and A2. She and PW2 accompanied PW1. Police examined her and recorded her statement.

16.During the cross examination, PW3 testified that they made a complaint against A1 and A2 for obstruction of their official duties.

17.PW4 is the investigating officer and he deposed that on 08.05.2020 at 20:00 hours, while he was present in the police station, PW1 came to the police station and gave written report and basing on the same,

CC 355/21-6-IAJFCM, Knl

he registered a case in Cr.No.269/2020 u/s.353 and 509 r/w 34 IPC and issued FIR to all the concerned officials. Ex.P2 is the FIR. Later, he visited the scene of offence, drafted Ex.P3/rough sketch of scene of offence, examined and recorded the statements of PWs 1 to 3, and LW4/G.Ramamani and LW5/Gurumurthy. Thereafter, he issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notices to A1 and A2 and they complied the same. He further deposed that after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

18.In the cross examination PW4 deposed that he does not know whether PWs 1 to 3 went to the house of accused after registering the case basing upon the complaint lodged by one Anisha or before the registering the case. He further deposed that if any assault or criminal force occurred and that came to their knowledge, being a police officer, they should immediately attend to remove the assault.

19.At this juncture, it is relevant to extract Sec.353 and Sec.509

IPC:

Section 353 IPC : Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty— “Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”

Section 509 IPC: Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman- “Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any words, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, 1 [shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine”

CC 355/21-7-IAJFCM, Knl

20.In order to establish a case u/Sec.353 IPC, the prosecution has to prove that assault or criminal force was used with an intention to obstruct the public servant from discharging their official duties by the accused. But,

PW1 in her cross examination, she admitted that no assault or criminal force was used against them. In the evidence of PWs 2 and 3, there was no whisper about the assault or criminal force with intent to prevent them from discharging from their official duties. PWs 1 to 3 stated in their chief examination that when they were enquiring the father of A1 and A2 with regard to a complaint given by Anisha, A1 and A2 came there and shouted at them and not cooperated with the enquiry and refused to come to the police station. Mere refusal to come to the police station by the accused, do not attract Sec.353 IPC against the accused. Moreover, the investigating officer/PW4 also not deposed that if assault or criminal force occurred and if such instance came to their knowledge being a police officer they should immediately attend to remove the same. But, in this case, no such action has taken place. So, it is clear that accused have not assaulted Pws 1 to 3 and not obstructed to do their official duties as such, Sec.353 IPC is not attracted against A1 and A2.

21.With regard to Sec. 509 IPC, the prosecution has to establish that the accused intended to insult the modesty of a woman. For ascertaining whether, prima facie, the provision of section 509 IPC was attracted, it is essential to first understand the meaning off the term “modesty”, to determine whether modesty has been insulted. Modesty is not explicitly defined in the IPC. In Ramkripal S/O Shyamlal Charmakar VS. State of

Madhya Pradesh on 19 March, 2007(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5881 of 2006) Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the essence of woman’s modesty is her sex.

CC 355/21-8-IAJFCM, Knl

22.In this case, PW1 to 3 stated in their evidence that A1 and A2 used “filthy language” against them while they were enquiring the father of accused. For ascertaining whether mere stating that the accused used filthy language would attract the provision of section 509 IPC, it is essential to refer judgment of MADHUSHREE DATTA vs State of Karnataka in

Criminal Appeal No.4884/2024 wherein it is held that “28. The term "filthy language," when examined in isolation, and without any contextual framework or accompanying words, indicating an intent to insult the complainant's modesty, does not fall within the purview of Section 509 of the IPC. Had there been references to specific words used, contextual details, or any gestures—whether preceding, succeeding, or accompanying these words—that could demonstrate a criminal intent to insult the modesty, and it might have assisted the prosecution in establishing the case against the appellants”.

In the present case, from the complaint and in the evidence of

PWs 1 to 3, there is no sufficient material to establish the intention of A1 and

A2 is to insult the modesty of the complainant. Hence, in view of the above, the prosecution has failed to establish the offence u/s.509 IPC against the accused.

23.During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the accused argued that PWs 1 to 3 went to the house of accused after registering of FIR based on the complaint by one Anisha. In support of his case, he filed copy of FIR in Cr.No.25/2020 lodged by one Anisha. On perusal of said FIR, it appears police have registered the said FIR at 6 PM on 08.05.2020. As per the prosecution evidence, PWs 1 to 3 started from IV

Town P.S. at 6.15 PM and reached to the house of accused at 7 P.M. So it is evident that the police went to the house of accused for enquiry after registering FIR. PW1 categorically stated in her cross examination that they went to the house of accused before registering of case, based upon the complaint lodged by Anisha. Moreover, there were contradictions in the

CC 355/21-9-IAJFCM, Knl

statements of PWs 1 and 2. In the cross examination of PW1, she deposed that she made phone call to the accused and they had not lifted their phone call and hence they went to the house of accused. Whereas, PW2 deposed that they did not call the accused over phone. Hence, the evidence of Pws 1 to 3 is not believable and not trustworthy to connect the case with the accused.

24.Moreover, PWs 1 to 3 are police officials and prosecution has failed to examine the independent witnesses LWs 4 and 5 who are alleged to be eyewitness to the alleged incident and in whose presence the alleged accused have assaulted and abused the PWs 1 to 3 in filthy language, for the reasons best known to them. So, in the absence of evidence of independent eye witnesses, it is not safe to rely on the evidence of PWs 1to 4 who are police officials and interested witnesses to the case.

25.In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the offence u/s.353, 509 r/w 34 IPC against the accused and thereby the accused are entitled for acquittal.

26.In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty of the offence punishable U/Sec.353, 509 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted of the same

U/sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds and surety bonds if any shall be in force for a period of 6 months as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed directly to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 25th day of February, 2025.

Sd/-G. Aparna,

I Addl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kurnool.

CC 355/21-10-IAJFCM, Knl

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Complainant: For Accused:

PW1: E. Radhamma -None PW2: S. Uma Maheswaramma PW3: B. Sumalatha PW4: G. Peddaiah Naidu

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: Complaint of PW1. Ex.P2: FIR. Ex.P3: Rough sketch.

For Accused:

-Nil-

Material Objects Marked

For Prosecution:For Accused: -Nil-

Sd/-G. Aparna,

I Addl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kurnool.

CC 355/21-11-IAJFCM, Knl

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: KURNOOL

Calendar Case No.355/2021

Date of offence.:08.05.2020

Date of complaint.:08.05.2020

Date of apprehension of accused: --

Date of release on bail : --

Date of commencement of trial.:11.07.2023

Date of close of trial.:24.07.2024

Date of sentence or order.:25.02.2025

Complainant: Sub-Inspector of Police, Kurnool IV Town P.S. S.Name ofFather’sReligionOccup-ResidenceAge Noaccusedname/ation Husband Name G. Jayamohan G. Siva 1Hindu -Kurnool29 ReddyReddy G. Manikyam G. 2Hindu -Kurnool35 ReddySivaReddy

Offence: Criminal assault with intent to obstruct official duties, insulting modesty of a woman.

Section of Law: 353, 509 r/w 34 IPC

Finding: Found not guilty.

Sentence or order:In the result, In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty of the offence punishable U/Sec.353, 509 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted of the same U/sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds and surety bonds if any shall be in force for a period of 6 months as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Sd/-G. Aparna,

I Addl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kurnool.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-Cum-Prl. Asst.

Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

JCC 149/2023-1-JJ Board, Knl

BEFORE THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD:: KURNOOL

Present: Ms. G. Aparna,

I Addl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kurnool-cum- Principal Magistrate,

Juvenile Justice Board, Kurnool

Smt. S.Madhavi and Smt.A.Suneetha

Members of JJB, Kurnool.

Dated Friday, 28h day of February, 2025

J.C.C.No.149 /2023

Between:

State Represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Nandikotkur Urban Police Station. … Complainant - And - Shikari Siva, aged 17 years, S/o Shikari Surendra, B.S.S.R. Nagar, Shikaripeta, Nandikotkur Town, Nandyal District. … Child in Conflict with law

This case is coming up on 14.02.2025 for final hearing in the presence of A.P.P. for prosecution and of Sri B. Lakshminarayana, Advocate for CCL, and upon having perused the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till today the Board passed the following:

:: FINAL ORDER ::

Nandikotkur Urban Police filed information report against CCL in

Cr.No.164/2023 registered U/sec.366 IPC and Sec.11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act.

02.The nutshell of the information report, is as follows:-

The defacto complainant Y. Srilakshmi/LW1 and the victim Y.

Bhavya/LW2 are residents of Nandikotkur town and they were mother and daughter respectively. The CCL also resident of Nandikotkur town. The vic- tim girl is aged about 14 years and studying 10th class in Kota High School.

Since one year, the victim girl is having acquaintance with CCL and on know- ing that, the mother of victim girl i.e., defacto complainant/LW1 admonished

JCC 149/2023-2-JJ Board, Knl the victim girl. Then, the victim girl left her house on 30.09.2023 at about 8

A.M. When her mother/LW1 searched for victim girl in and around surround- ing places, but in vain. On 02.10.2023 the defacto complainant along with her brother Ravi Kumar/LW3 came to police station and reported the inci- dent. In turn, the police have registered a case. On 05.10.2023, at 11 A.M., the victim girl returned to the house and when defacto complainant ques- tioned the victim girl where she was gone, the victim girl stated that CCL in- formed to her that he will marry her and with his deceitful words, CCL took her to the house of CCL’s brother Shikari Mallaiah, Shikaripeta, Anantapur town forcibly without her consent, but the victim girl did not interested to marry CCL, due to which she escaped from their clothes and came to the house of her parents. Basing upon report of defacto complainant, the S.I. of

Police/LW10 altered the section of law from Girl Missing to Sec.366 IPC in

Cr.No.164/2023 and investigated into. During the course of investigation,

LW10 examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene of offence and drafted rough sketch. The Sub Inspector of Police/LW10 dur- ing his investigation, took the CCL into custody on 07.10.2023 and sent him to Juvenile Justice Board, Kurnool for detention. After completion of investi- gation, he filed information report against CCL u/s.366 IPC and Sec.11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act.

03.On perusal of averments of information report as well as the con- tents of documents filed along with it, this case was taken on file by taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Sec.366 IPC and Sec.11 r/w 12 of

POCSO Actand accordingly notice was ordered to CCL.

04.On receipt of notice issued by this board, the CCL appeared and received copies of case documents supplied in due compliance of Sec.207 of

Cr.P.C.

JCC 149/2023-3-JJ Board, Knl 05.Thereafter, the CCL was questioned U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C., by explaining the sum and substance of the offence punishable under Sec.366

IPC and Sec.11 r/w 12 of POCSO Acton that he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06.During course of enquiry, prosecution examined PW1 to PW6 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. The learned APP given up the evidence of LWs 4 to 6 stating that the witnesses turned hostile accordingly, prosecution evidence was closed. The examination of CCL U/sec.313 of Cr.P.C is dispensed with for want of incriminating material against him.

07.I have heard on both sides and perused the material available on record.

08.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether prosecution proved the offence punishable U/Sec.366 IPC and Sec.11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act against CCL beyond reasonable doubt or not?

Point:

09.In order to bring home the guilt of CCL, prosecution examined

PW1 to PW6 and got marked Ex.P1 to P12. PW1 is mother of victim, PW2 is the victim, PW3 is relative of PWs 1 & 2, PWs 4 and 5 are the panchaytdars in whose presence the alleged CCL was arrested by police and PW6 is the investigating officer.

10.The defacto complainant was examined as PW1. She testified that one year back on one day she went to the coolie work and returned back to home at about 7 P.M. She noticed that her daughter LW2/Bhavya is missing and that she informed the same to his brother LW3/Ravi Kumar and made search in and around, but in vain. Later they approached the police and lodged Ex.P1 complaint. She further testified that after three days of her missing she came to her home and informed her that she went to her senior

JCC 149/2023-4-JJ Board, Knl mother’s home at Kurnool as PW1 reprimanded LW2 not discharging her house hold duties. Police not examined her and not recorded her statement.

After her daughter returning to home she never went to the police station and gave another report. She further testified that police obtained her signature on a blank paper/Ex.P2 but she does not know the contents in it.

The victim was examined as PW2. She testified that about one year back on one day her mother went to coolie work and return back to home at about 7

P.M. Since her mother reprimanded her for not attending the house hold duties, without informing her mother, she went to her senior mother’s house at Kurnool. After three days later she returned to the house and informed the same to her mother. Police never examined her and never recorded her statement. PW3 who is brother of PW1 deposed that he does not know anything about the facts of the case. He came to know through PW1 that

PW2 went to her elder sister’s house at Kurnool as PW1 reprimanded her for not doing house hold duties.

11.PWs 4 and 5 are the panchyatdars for alleged arrest panchanama of CCL deposed that they do not know anything about the facts of the case and in their presence police never arrested any person and never seized any incriminating material from his possession. They further deposed that at the request of police, they put their signatures on some written papers, but they do not know the contents therein.

12.PW6/investigating officer deposed that on 02.10.2023, while

LW10/SI of Police was present in the police station, PW1 came to police station and lodged complaint and basing on the same, LW10 registered a case in Cr.No.164/2023 under girl missing and later he examined and recorded the statements of PWs 1 to 3. She further deposed that on 05.10.2023, the missing girl was traced and basing on the statement of

JCC 149/2023-5-JJ Board, Knl missing girl, the section of law was altered from girl missing case to Sec.366

IPC under Ex.P7, and recorded her statement on 05.10.2023. Later, LW10 examined remaining witnesses, visited the scene of offence and drafted rough sketch under Ex.P8. On 07.10.2023, on the requisition of LW10, the

Hon’ble JFCM., Spl. Mobile Court, Kurnool recorded the statement of victim

girl u/s.164 Cr.P.C. under Ex.P9. On 07.10.2023 at about 8.15 A.M., LW10 arrested the CCL in the presence of PWs 4 and 5 under arrested-cum- confession panchanama/Ex.P10 and after completion of investigation, LW10 laid information report before the JJB, Kurnool.

13.On perusal of evidence of PWs 1 to 6, except evidence of PW6 who is none other than investigating officer, remaining witnesses i.e., PWs 1 to 5 are turned hostile without supporting the case of prosecution. PWs 1 to 3 who are defacto complainant, victim and relative to the victim respectively, they categorically deposed that when PW1 reprimanded PW2 for not discharging house hold duties, PW2 went to her senior mother’s home at

Kurnool and later she came to her house. Except that nothing was elicited against CCL that CCL promised PW2 that he would marry her and with his deceitful words eloped the victim forcibly to Ananthapur. PWs 4 and 5 who are alleged to be panchayatdars for confession cum arrest of the CCL, turned hostile without supporting the case of prosecution. PW6/investigating officer evidence speaks about information report contents, and his evidence do not disclose about involvement of CCL in the occurrence of offence. Hence, basing on the sole testimony of PW6, this Court is not in a position to believe his evidence without corroborating evidence of other witnesses/independent witnesses. Therefore, prosecution has failed to establish the offence against the CCL as alleged by the prosecution.

JCC 149/2023-6-JJ Board, Knl 14.In the result, CCL is found not guilty of the offence punishable

U/sec.366 IPC and Sec.11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act. He is acquitted of the same under Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. His parental bonds and surety bonds if any shall stands cancelled after a period appeal as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pro- nounced by me in open court, this the 28th day of February,2025.

Sd/-G. Aparna,

PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE,

JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD,

KURNOOL.

1.

2. Members Juvenile Justice Board, Kurnool. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For Prosecution:For Defence: P.W.1: Srilakshmi-None- P.W.2: Y. Bhavya P.W.3: P. Ravi Kumar P.W.4: K. Jayanna P.W.5: S. Sudhakar P.W.6: G. Mary Jayanthi, ASI of Police. Exhibits Marked For Prosecution:For Defence: Ex.P.1: Complaint of PW1.-Nil- Ex.P.2: Signature of PW1 on second complaint, dated 05.10.2023. Ex.P.3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1. Ex.P.4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2. Ex.P.5: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3. Ex.P.6: Signature of PW4 in the arrest panchanama. Ex.P.7: Signature of PW5 in the arrest panchanama. Ex.P.8: FIR. Ex.P.9: Altered FIR. Ex.P.10: Rough sketch. Ex.P.11: Sec.164 statement of victim girl/PW2. Ex.P.12: Arrest panchanama, dated 07.10.2023. Material Objects -Nil-

Sd/-G.Aparna,

PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE,

JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD,

KURNOOL.

1.

2. Members, Juvenile Justice Board, Knl.

JCC 149/2023-7-JJ Board, Knl

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

BEFORE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD:: KURNOOL

Juvenile Calendar Case No.149/2023

Date of offence:30.09.2023

Date of complaint:02.10.2023

Date of apprehension of CCL:07.10.2023

Date of release on bail:20.10.2023

Date of commencement of trial.:04.10.2024

Date of close of trial.:14.02.2025

Date of sentence or order.:28.02.2024

Explanation.: ---

Complainant: State: Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Nandikotkur Urban P.S.

S. Name of Father’s name/ReligioOccupa AgeResidence NoaccusedHusband Namention 1Shikari SivaShikari SurendraNandikotkur 17Hindu

Offence:: Kidnap, sexual assault

Section of Law :Sec. 366 IPC, Sec.11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act

Finding. : CCL found not guilty

Sentence or order: In the result, CCL is found not guilty of the offence punishable U/sec.366 IPC and Sec.11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act. He is acquitted of the same under Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. His parental bonds and surety bonds if any shall stands cancelled after a period appeal as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Sd/-G.Aparna,

PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE,

JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, KURNOOL.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-Prl. Asst. Sessions

Judge, Kurnool.

CC 1251/2021-1-I JMFC, Knl

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, KURNOOL.

Present: Smt. T. Jyothsna Devi,

I Addl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool.

Monday, the 19th day of August, 2024.

CC.No.1251/2021

Between :

State: Rep. By the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Disha Women P.S., Kurnool. ...Complainant

Vs.

1. Shaik Shali Pailwan, age 30 years, S/o late Shali Miah @ S.K. Ali Miah, Electrical Inspector, H.No.4-363, Putandoddi village, Kondapuram mandal, Gadwal district, Telangana State.

2. Shaik Saleema Bee, age 61 years, W/o late Shali Miah @ S.K. Ali Miah, Electrical Inspector, H.No.4-363, Putandoddi village, Kondapuram mandal, Gadwal district, Telangana State.

3. Shaik Parveen, age 25 years, D/o late Shali Miah @ S.K. Ali Miah, Electrical Inspector, H.No.4-363, Putandoddi village, Kondapuram mandal, Gadwal district, Telangana State.

4. Shaik Farzana, age 23 years, D/o late Shali Miah @ S.K. Ali Miah, Electrical Inspector, H.No.4-363, Putandoddi village, Kondapuram mandal, Gadwal district, Telangana State.

5. Shaik Raheem @ Abdul Raheem, age 26 years, S/o late Shali Miah @ S.K. Ali Miah, Electrical Inspector, H.No.4-363, Putandoddi village, Kondapuram mandal, Gadwal district, Telangana State.

6. Shaik Ajas, age 28 years, S/o late Shali Miah @ S.K. Ali Miah, Electrical Inspector, H.No.4-363, Putandoddi village, Kondapuram mandal, Gadwal district, Telangana State.

... Accused

This case is coming on 14.08.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Sr. Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri

M.Narasing Rao and Sri B.S.S. Prasad, Advocates for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a case of harassment by husband and his relatives against a married woman for demanding of additional dowry.

02. The nutshell of the charge sheet are as follows:-

The defacto complainant Shaik Reshma Amber/LW1 is resident of

Kurnool and her marriage was performed with A1 on 06.07.2018 at Golkonda function hall, Kurnool in the presence of elders according to Muslim customs

CC 1251/2021-2-I JMFC, Knl

and rituals. During the marriage, on the demand of accused family members, the parents of defacto complainant gave cash of Rs.5 lakhs, 17 tulas of gold and Rs.1 lakh for bike to A1 as dowry. To meet the marriage expenses, her parents raised loans on interest. After the marriage, LW1 joined at her in-laws house. On the first day itself, A1 informed her that she is not beautiful and he does not like her. A1 to A6 alleged that her parents failed to give dowry as they demanded and abused her in filthy language and harassed her physically and mentally. A1 to A6 deprived LW1 even from food and cloths and they did not allow her to talk with her parents. A1 is working as an Electrical Inspector in Electrical Section, Govt. ITI, Shameerpeta,

Hyderabad and used to stay in Hyderabad itself and come to Putandoddi village once in a week or 15 days. When defacto complainant informed the harassment of A2 to A6 to A1, he took her to Hyderabad for two days. A3 and A6 started to live at A1 in Kapra,Hyderabad. LW1 was suffered without sleep for several nights and without rest for several days. The accused did not take her to the doctor though her health condition was deteriorated and blamed her as insane. During the marriage, father of defacto complainant presented a cell phone to her. Anticipating that she may inform the happenings toher parents, accused had taken away phone of LW1 and kept with them. Thereafter, whenever her family members contacted her over phone, the accused forced her her to switch on the speaker while talking to them. When LW1 informed her sufferings to her father, he asked her to come to their house and that LW1 came to her parental house and informed the matter for which her father contacted A1 over phone, but A1 talked improperly and abused him in filthy language and insulted him. When LW1 and her parents approached Khaji who called A1, A1 denied to lead marital life with LW1. There is no physical contact between LW1 and A1. Since the

CC 1251/2021-3-I JMFC, Knl

1st night till to four months, they were in copulation only for three times. A1 used to get LW1 sleep in the hall and he sleeps in the bedroom. When LW2 informed A1 that she was getting afraid and would sleep in bedroom along with A1, A1 and his brother beat her with cricket bat. The accused used to get all their works done by LW1 such as washing their cloths, cooking, etc.

They never treated her as their family member any day and accused used to harass her always for additional dowry. Accused stated that if she dies, they would perform the marriage of A1 again and get sufficient dowry and subjected her to mental torture. So, defacto complainant approached the police station and lodged complaint. Basing upon her complaint, this case was registered and filed charge sheet.

03.This case was taken on file for the offence punishable U/Sec.

498-A r/w 34 IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P. Act against the accused. On appearance of the accused before this court, the copies of documents is furnished to the accused as contemplated under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

04.Accused were examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. Charge are framed for the offence punishable U/Sec. 498-A r/w 34 IPC, Sec.3 and 4 of

D.P. Act and charges are read over and explained to the accused for which, they denied the commission of the offence and claimed to be tried.

05.In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PW1 and PW2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P3. Since, there is no incriminating material appeared in the evidences of prosecution witnesses, the examination of accused u/s.313 is dispensed.

06.I have heard on both sides and perused the material available on record.

07.Now the point for determination is:

CC 1251/2021-4-I JMFC, Knl

“Whether prosecution proved the guilt of accused of the

offence punishable U/s. 498-A r/w 34 IPC, Sec.3 & 4 of D.P. Act

beyond reasonable doubt or not?

POINT:

08.In order to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence referred supra prosecution examined PW1 and PW2 and got marked Ex.P1 to

P3. The defacto complainant was examined as PW1. She testified that on 06.07.2018, her marriage was solemnized with A1 at Golkonda Function Hall,

Kurnool. At the time of marriage, no dowry was given. After her marriage, she joined with A1 at Putandoddi village and lead marital life amicably, thereafter some disputes arose between them. She further stated that at the instance of elders, she put her signature on some papers at police station, but she does not know the contents of it and police not examined her in respect to this case. So, PW1 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Even in the cross examination by learned APP, nothing was elicited from her.

09.The mother of PW1 was examined as PW2. She was also stated similar lines as deposed by PW1. PW2 also turned hostile without supporting the prosecution case. The other witnesses evidence was given up by the learned APP since defacto complainant was turned hostile.

10.On perusing the record, it is clear that there is no substantive evidence produced by the prosecution to prove the offence u/s.498-A r/w 34

IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P. Act against the accused. The victim as well as defacto complainant was turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Under that circumstances, this Court forms an opinion that prosecution utterly failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

CC 1251/2021-5-I JMFC, Knl

11.In the result, A1 to A6 are found not guilty of the offence punishable U/Sec.498-A r/w 34 of IPC, Sec.3 and 4 of D.P. Act and they are acquitted of the same U/sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds and surety bonds if any shall be in force for a period of 6 months as per Sec.437-A of

Cr.P.C.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 19th day of August, 2024.

Sd/-T. Jyothsna Devi,

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined For Prosecution For Defence:

PW.1: Shaik Reshma Ambar-None- PW.2: Shaik Noorjahan

Exhibits Marked For Prosecution

Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on complaint. Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1. Ex.P3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2.

For Defence:

-Nil-

Material Object Marked For Prosecution: For Defence:

-NIL-

Sd/-T. Jyothsna Devi,

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool.

CC 1251/2021-6-I JMFC, Knl

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF I Addl.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I

CLASS:KURNOOL.

C.C.No.1251/2021

1Date of OffencePrior to 11.01.2021 2Date of Complaint11.01.2021 3Date of apprehension of the accused-- 4Date of release on bail-- 5Date of Commencement of Trial14.08.2024 6Date of Close of Trial14.08.2024 7Date of Judgment19.08.2024

ComplainantStation House Officer, Disha Women P.S. in Cr.No.5/2021 Accused1. Shaik Shali Pailwan, age 30 years, S/o late Shali Miah @ S.K. Ali Miah, Electrical Inspector, H.No.4-363, Putandoddi village, Kondapuram mandal, Gadwal district, Telangana State.

2. Shaik Saleema Bee, age 61 years, W/o late Shali Miah @ S.K. Ali Miah, Electrical Inspector, H.No.4-363, Putandoddi village, Kondapuram mandal, Gadwal district, Telangana State.

3. Shaik Parveen, age 25 years, D/o late Shali Miah @ S.K. Ali Miah, Electrical Inspector, H.No.4-363, Putandoddi village, Kondapuram mandal, Gadwal district, Telangana State.

4. Shaik Farzana, age 23 years, D/o late Shali Miah @ S.K. Ali Miah, Electrical Inspector, H.No.4-363, Putandoddi village, Kondapuram mandal, Gadwal district, Telangana State.

5. Shaik Raheem @ Abdul Raheem, age 26 years, S/o late Shali Miah @ S.K. Ali Miah, Electrical Inspector, H.No.4-363, Putandoddi village, Kondapuram mandal, Gadwal district, Telangana State.

6. Shaik Ajas, age 28 years, S/o late Shali Miah @ S.K. Ali Miah, Electrical Inspector, H.No.4-363, Putandoddi village, Kondapuram mandal, Gadwal district, Telangana State.

Offenceharassment by husband and his relative against a married woman, for demanding of additional dowry Section of LawU/Sec.498-A r/w 34 of IPC, Sec.3 & 4 of D.P. Act FindingAccused are found not guilty Sentence of In the result, A1 to A6 are found not guilty of the offence Order punishable U/Sec.498-A r/w 34 of IPC, Sec.3 & 4 of D.P. Act and they are acquitted of the same U/sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds and surety bonds if any shall be in force for a period of 6 months as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Sd/-T. Jyothsna Devi,

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief-Judicial Magistrate-Cum-

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, KURNOOL.

Present: Ms. G.Aparna,

I Addl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool FAC Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Dhone.

Monday, this the 3rd day of November, 2025.

MC.No. 21 of 2023

1. Shaik Shameena, W/o. Shaik Saleem Basha, D/o. Janab Bhuvaji Nabhi Saheb, Muslim, Aged about 30 years, Housewife.

2. Shaik Ramija, D/o. Shaik Saleem Basha, Aged about 13 years.

3. Shaik Fayaz, S/o. Shaik Saleem Basha, aged about 9 years.

Petitioners No.2 and 3 being minors Represented by their mother, natural guardian Petitioner No.1. All are

.... Petitioners

Muslims, all are R/o. Jaladurgam Village, Peapully Mandal, Nandyal District. - Versus –

Shaik Saleem Basha, S/o. Late Shaik Mabhu Saheb, aged about 32 years, Muslim, Business, R/o. Yapadinne Village, Dhone Mandal, Nandyal District..… Respondent

This petition is coming before me on 27.10.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri T. Krishna Moorthy, S. Bhaskar Naidu, Advocates for the petitioners; and Sri. M. Gopal Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent, and on hearing this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

1. This is the petition filed by the petitioners against the Respondent seeking maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the 1st petitioner, Rs.5,000/- per month to the 2nd petitioner and Rs. 5,000/- per month to the 3rd petitioner.

2. The averments of the petition are that:

The 1st petitioner submits that she got married to the Respondent on 17-10-2009 at Petitioner’s House ar Jaladurgam Village, Peapully Mandal

Kurnool District as per Muslim customs and sacraments. At the time of marriage the parents of Petitioner No.1 has given Rs. 1,00,000/- and 9 tulas of

Gold to the Respondent in the presence of elders by name Nabhi rasul,

Hadrasha, Lakshmanna and Pamilety of Jaladurgam towards dowry. After marriage Petitioner No.1 joined with the respondent’s house at Yapadinne village to lead marital life. The 1st petitioner and repondent and his mother, his elder brother and his brother’s wife were all living in the same house at

Yapadinne village, Dhone Mandal. The 1st Petitioner and the respondent lead matrimonial life happily for six years and got blessed with one female child i.e., petitioner No.2 on 05.09.2010. After delivery the Respondent and his family members started harassing the petitioner No.1 and the same was informed to her parents and elders of the 1st petitioner conducted panchayats and on the advice of elders the respondent and his family members agreed to lead matrimonial life with petitioner no.1. On 20.09.2014 1st petitioner gave birth to male child i.e., petitioner No.3. After some days the respondent and his family members again started harassing the 1st petitioner for want of additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-. The petitioner No.1 tolerated the harassment keeping in mind bright future of petitioner No.2 and 3. But the respondent and his family members did not change their attitude. The parents of the Petitioner No.1 unable to give

additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- due to old age and their poorness.

Respondent beat brutally and throw away Petitioner NO.1 from his house and the 1st petitioner fell unconscious outside of the respondent’s house, but the respondent and his family members did not take care in spite petitioner

No.1 was in unconscious state. The neighbours of respondent’s house called and intimated to the petitioner No.1 parents about the petitioner situation.

After receiving such information petitioner’s parents came with the support of Dhone Rural police and took away the petitioner to their house.

3. The Respondent suspected the chastity of the petitioner No.1 and not satisfying about the beauty of the Petitioner No.1 and says you look ugly. The

Respondent is working as polish cutter and for his work purposes visits to

Karnataka and Kerala as such in that places addicted to bad habits like alcohol and visiting red-light areas as such in the work places he is having illegal contacts with work women and spending huge amount to that women for continuing physical contact as such the Respondent neglected the

Petitioner No.1 and her children to maintain. The respondent did not even leave the Ammavadi amount. The petitioner and her parents waited with the hope that he would change his behavior but did not change. Finally she have given complaint to the police but police did not take any action against the respondent due to political influence and now the petitioner and her children are apprehending that there is a danger to them from respondent.

The petitioner was unable to maintain herself and her children due to insufficient earning. Parents of the petitioner are poor and suffering from ill-health due to old age and unable to do any work. The petitioner is unable to do any work due to pressures and harassment of Respondent and his family members. Further the petitioner is not having any kind of property or source of income to maintain herself and her two children. The petitioners became destitute. The Petitioners are unable to maintain themselves and due to unavoidable circumstances the petitioners are living in the house parents of Petitioner No.1. The Respondent is having one house worth about Rs. 5,00,000/- and house sites worth about Rs. 2,00,000/- and agricultural land A/C.3.00 cents and raise crops and earn nearly Rs.2,00,000/- income per year. The Respondent is also working as polish cutter and earning Rs.50,000/- per month but failed to provide maintenance. Hence the maintenance case.

4.After receipt of summons, the Respondent appeared before this

Court and reported no counter and posted for petitioner’s side evidence.

5. To substantiate her claim the 1st petitioner herself examined as

PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 and P2.

6.Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners. Perused the material available on record.

7.Now the point for consideration is :

“Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of maintenance from the Respondent as prayed for?” 8.P OINT:

The 1st petitioner herself examined as PW-1 and filed chief- affidavit and she reiterated all the facts which are stated in the petition. In support of her case got marked Ex.P1 and P2. Ex.P1 is marriage booklet.

Ex.P2 is photograph.

9.I have perused the evidence of PW-1 and also Exs.P1 and P2.

PW-1 is the 1st petitioner and she reiterated the facts of the petition in her chief-affidavit. PW-1 deposed that the 2nd petitioner and 3rd petitioner are her children through the respondent. The evidence of PW-1 coupled with

Ex. P1 and P2 shows that the 1st petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. The evidence of Pw.1 further shows that the respondent neglected them and refused to maintain them.

10. On perusal of the record, even after appearing before the court on receipt of notice, the respondent reported no counter on his behalf. The evidence of Pw-1 clearly establishes that the respondent deserted the petitioners 1,2 and 3 willfully and intentionally and harassed them without providing minimum necessities. The petitioners proved their claim by examining Pw.1 and marking Ex. P1 and P2. The evidence of PW-1 is remained unchallenged. So there is no any other evidence to disbelieve the evidence of PW-1. Hence the petitioners are entitled for maintenance from the respondent . PW-1 in her evidence deposed that she and her children are living in the house of parents of Petitioner No.1 and are unable to maintain themselves. The petitioner stated that the respondent is having one house worth about Rs. 5,00,000/- and house sites worth about Rs. 2,00,000/- and agricultural land A/C.3.00 cents and raise crops and earn nearly

Rs.2,00,000/-income per year. The Respondent is also working as polish cutter and earning Rs.50,000/- per month. To prove the same she has not filed any documents. But the evidence of PW-1 is unchallenged. Hence the petitioners established that the respondent is having means and capacity to maintain the petitioners by providing separate maintenance. The respondent who is the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioners 2 and 3 is bound to maintain the petitioners. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case, depending upon the present day cost of living, it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the 1st petitioner and Rs.5,000/- per month to the 2nd and 3rd petitioners each from the date of the order.

11.In the result, the petition is allowed and the respondent is directed to pay the maintenance of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) per month to the 1st petitioner and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to 2nd petitioner and 3rd petitioner each towards their monthly maintenance, from the date of the order. The respondent shall make the payment on or before 10th of every succeeding month. The 2nd and 3rd petitioners are entitled for the said maintenance till they attain majority.

The 1st petitioner is directed to furnish her Bank Account particulars so as to enable him to credit the monthly maintenance amount. Accordingly the petition is allowed.

Dictated to the Stenographer directly on Computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 3 rd day of November, 2025.

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Kurnool.

FAC Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

Dhone.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PETITIONERS : - RESPONDENT:-

PW1 : Shaik Shameena -- Nil --

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PETITIONER:-

Ex. P1 is the marriage booklet.

Ex. P2 is photograph.

RESPONDENT :- -- Nil --

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Kurnool.

FAC Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

Dhone.