Smt. G.harika

Page 1 of 13 CC No.71 /2018 PJCJ -cum-JMFC

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MEDCHAL-

MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT, AT KUSHAIGUDA.

PRESENT: SMT. J. PRASANTHI FACPrl. Junior Civil Judge-cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

At Kushaiguda.

Tuesday, the 16 thday of December, 2025.

CALENDAR CASE NO.71 OF 2018

Between:

The State of Telangana through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Malkajgiri Police Station Rachakonda Commissionerate. ……….Complainant.

A N D

A1) Syed Ali Quasim Imad @Hamad@Makususi S/o.Syed Kareemuddin @ Karishma age 26 years, Occ: LLB student, Pendakanti Law college, Chikkadapalli, Hyderabad, R/o.H.No.42-873, Habg-e-Hydri, Maula-Ali, Malkajgiri. ……….Accused no.1.

A2) Syed Noor Mohammad, S/o.Syed Nizamuddin, Age 19 years, Occ: Degree 1st year student at St.Frances Degree College, Barkatpura, Hyderabad, R/o.H.No.42-873, Habg-e-Hydri, Maula-Ali, Malkajgiri. ……….Accused no.2.(split up

vide orders in Criminal Petition no.7095/2025, dated 17.06.2025

by Hon’ble High court vide CC No.1400/ 2025)

Page 2 of 13 CC No.71 /2018 PJCJ -cum-JMFC

A3) Mohammad Almas, S/o.Muktar Khadri, Age 20 years, Occ: Student, R/o.H.No.41-2, Hanuman Nagar, Moula-Ali, Malkajgiri, cell no.7013246693

A4) Mohammad Iliyas, S/o.Mohd.Farooq Ali, Age 25 years, Occ: AC Repairer, R/o.H.No.41-2, Hanuman Nagar, Moula-Ali, Malkajgiri, cell no.9391319029 ……….Accused nos.3 and 4.

A5) Fayaz Shareef, S/o.Ahmed Shareef, Age 40 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.41-30, Moula-Ali, Malkajgiri, Cell no.9666569876 ……….Accused no.5. (split up

vide orders in Criminal Petition no.7095/2025, dated 17.06.2025

by Hon’ble High court vide CC No.1400/ 2025)

A6) Syed Yousuf, S/o.Syed Khareemuddin @Karishma, age 31 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.42-873, Habg-e-Hydri, Moula-Ali, Malkajgiri, cell no.9700459159 ……….Accused no.6.

This case came before me on 09.12.2025 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of M/s.A.S.Shankar Goud Advocates for accused persons upon hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Malkajgiri filed charge sheet against the accused persons in crime No.514 of 2017 for the offence punishable under sections 447, 427, 186, 188 r/w.34 of IPC.

Page 3 of 13 CC No.71 /2018 PJCJ -cum-JMFC

2. T he Brief facts of the prosecution case as follows:

On 14-07-2017 at around 17:00 hours, a complaint was received from Sri K. Venugopal, Deputy Commissioner, Malkajgiri Circle- 17, GHMC, Hyderabad, stating that one Sri Hamad and others were creating nuisance and had erected an unauthorized shed to conduct a dharna opposing the road widening near Moula-Ali Kaman (Arch). He submitted that GHMC had already approved the road widening and development plan, identified 33 affected properties, and forwarded proposals to the L.A.O., GHMC for verification of ownership and preparation of compensation, which are under process pending approval of higher authorities. Meanwhile, Sri Hamad and others, without GHMC permission, conducted a dharna and erected an unauthorized shed.

Hence, the report.

3.Basing on the above report, the LW-7/S. Janaki Reddy,

Inspector of Police, PS Malkajgiri, registered a case in Crime

No.514/2017 for the offence punishable U/Sec.447, 427, 186, 188 r/w 34 IPC and entrusted the investigation to LW-8/C.Srinivas Reddy.

During the course of investigation, LW-8 have examined PW-1 to PW-3 and LW-3 and recorded their detailed statements and further visited the scene of offence, where conducted a scene of offence

Page 4 of 13 CC No.71 /2018 PJCJ -cum-JMFC panchanama and drawn rough sketch in presence of two mediators i.e.,

LW5 and PW4. On 14-07-2017 a notice U/Sec.41(A) Cr.P.C have been served to accused no.1 to 6. After completion of entire investigation

PW-5 filed charge sheet against the accused persons.

4.The Court took cognizance for the offenses punishable under

Sections 447, 427, 186, 188 r/w 34 IPC against accused no.1 to 6.

5.On appearance of the accused no.1 to 6, copies of all the documents were furnished to them as required U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for A1 to A6 is present and filed the order in Criminal

Petition No. 7095/2025. Wherein, the Honble High Court vide Criminal

Petition No. 7095/2025, Dated: 17-06-2025 permitted to split up and dispose the case bearing CC No. 71/2018 preferably within six (06) from the date of next adjournment. NBW is pending against A2 and A5 since 19-04-2024. Hence, the case was split up against A2/Syed Noor

Mohammed and A5/Fayaz Shareef vide CC No.1400 of 2025.

6. The accused no.1, 3, 4 and 6 were examined by my learned predecessor in office U/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C, and they denied the same, read over and explained to the accused persons in their vernacular language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Page 5 of 13 CC No.71 /2018 PJCJ -cum-JMFC

7.To prove the guilt of the accused no.1, 3, 4 and 6, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to 5. The evidence of LW-3, LW-5 was closed basing on report as the police failed to produce before the court. Thereafter the evidence of LW-7 and LW-8 are also given up by learned APPO and reported no further evidence, hence prosecution’s evidence is closed.

8.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused no. 1, 3, 4 and 6 were examined by my learned predecessor in office U/Sec.313

Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

9.Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused persons.

10.P oint for determination is : “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused nos.1, 3, 4 and 6 beyond reasonable doubt for the offenses punishable under Sections 447, 427, 186, 188 r/w 34 IPC”?

11.Point:

During the course of trial, to prove the case the prosecution got examined PW-1 to PW-5. PW-1 is the complainant. PW-2 and PW3

Page 6 of 13 CC No.71 /2018 PJCJ -cum-JMFC are the witnesses, PW4 is panch for scene of offence. PW5 is

Investigation officer.

12.The evidence of prosecution witnesses in brief:

PW1 testified that on 14-07-2017, when he was serving as the Deputy Commissioner for Malkajgiri Circle, J. Kistopher Raj,

Assistant City Planner of Malkajgiri Circle, lodged a complaint on his behalf regarding the unauthorized erection of a shed on the road meant for road widening at Moula Ali Khamman. He stated that the accused persons created a nuisance by staging a dharna.

13.PW2 testified that on 14-07-2017, when he was working as a

Section Officer in the Malkajgiri office, he stated that his officers had given him orders to take care of the road widening at Moula Ali

Khamman, Malkajgiri. He further stated that some people gathered at

Moula Ali Khamman, erected a shed, and started protesting against the road widening proposal, upon which the ACP lodged a complaint with the police.

14.PW3 and PW4 have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and deposed that they does not know anything about the case of this case.

Page 7 of 13 CC No.71 /2018 PJCJ -cum-JMFC

15.The investigation Officer is examined as PW-5. He nevertheless deposed the chronological order of events occurred during course of his investigation i.e., from receiving complaint to till filing of charge sheet.

16. Now coming to the appreciation of evidence:

In order to establish the guilt of accused persons the prosecution had examined total five witnesses, of them PW1 is

additional commissioner, PW2 is Section officer in GHMC office, PW3 and

PW4 are the witnesses for CDF. PW5 is the investigation officer who filed charge sheet against the accused persons.

17.PW1, Additional commissioner filed a complaint through Asst.

City planner regarding accused persons causing nuisance, staging dharna at Moulali kamman over road widening issues. During cross- examination he acknowledged that he knew of incident through Asst.

commissioner of police report, but he did not witness the contents of it, he doesn’t know the accused persons names in this case, also not filed documents regarding road widening proposal, notices are also not issued in this case and also not filed photographs of accused erecting alleged sheds on road, he did not approach traffic police regarding public disturbance, his evidence is hearsay evidence.

Page 8 of 13 CC No.71 /2018 PJCJ -cum-JMFC

18.PW2, section officer retired as GHMC Employee deposed that regarding road widening at Moulali kamman, people protested and laid the shed on road, during cross-examination he acknowledged that no personal complaint filed, he did not witness the incident, unaware of accused names and no documents filed. Police also not collected incriminating material in his presence against the accused persons and his evidence is hearsay evidence since he is not present at the time of alleged incident.

19.PW3 and PW4 are the witnesses for CDF turned hostile and offering no support to the prosecutions case.

20.The evidence of investigation officer/PW5 is procedural in nature, he admits no photos or videos of the accused persons at the scene of offence were collected and no incriminating material was gathered against the accused persons.

21.The prosecutions case hinges on testimonies of PW1

Additional commissioner and PW2 section officer, but both did not

witness the incident, their evidence is hearsay, lacking first hand knowledge of the incident. Hence, their evidence is weakening the prosecutions stance, and they were unaware of the accused names, no

Page 9 of 13 CC No.71 /2018 PJCJ -cum-JMFC documents were filed regarding the road widening proposal, this lack of direct knowledge impacts credibility of prosecutions case.

22.Panch witnesses turned hostile, did not support the prosecution, this hostile testimony weakens the prosecution’s case.

23.Investigation officer admits no photographs or videos of accused presence at scene of offence, no incriminating material was collected. This lack of objective evidence raise doubt about the prosecutions claim. The investigating officer also failed to collect the proofs regarding the road widening proposals, no photos and videographs of alleged erecting of sheds at place of scene of offence.

Prosecution also failed to produce notices regarding road obstruction.

Though PW1, Additional commissioner was examined by the prosecution as complainant, but he stated that he did not verify complaint lodged on his behalf by the Assistant city planner, to prove the contents the prosecution also failed to examine or produce said Assistant city planner. Hence, no proof of complaint contents before the court. As

PW1’s complaint lodged by Assistant city planner, PW1 and PW2 being a public officials don’t know the accused names. Prosecution fails to produce the independent witness LW3 before the court to prove their contentions against the accused persons.

Page 10 of 13 CC No.71 /2018 PJCJ -cum-JMFC

24.There is no corroboration of accused’s presence at the place of scene of offence. Prosecution utterly failed to collect the photographs or videographs of accused persons erecting sheds on roads, staging dharna at place of scene of offence. The prosecutions evidence lacks direct or corroborative proof. These gaps, the prosecution failed to establish the accused’s guilt, the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence, the accused are entitled for acquittal.

25.In the result, Accused nos.1, 3, 4 and 6 are found not guilty for the offence under section 447, 427, 186, 188 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted for the said offence u/sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused if any stands cancelled. After expiry of the appeal time, subject to section 437A Cr.P.C.

(Typed to my Dictation by stenographer directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16 thday of December, 2025.)

FAC Prl. Junior Civil Judge -cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Medchal- Malkajgiri District At Kushaiguda.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For P rosecution : For Defence:

P.W.1: K.Venu Gopal - None -

Page 11 of 13 CC No.71 /2018 PJCJ -cum-JMFC

P.W.2: Narsing Rao

P.W.3: Syed Vijarath Ali

P.W.4: Mir Razali

P.W.5: K.Sanjeeva Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 report

Ex.P2 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3

Ex.P3 signature of PW4 on Crime Details Form

Ex.P4 FIR

Ex.P5 Crime Details Form

For Defence:

- None -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

FAC Prl. Junior Civil Judge -cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Medchal- Malkajgiri District At Kushaiguda.

Page 12 of 13 CC No.71 /2018 PJCJ -cum-JMFC

F O R M No: 71

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District: Medchal- Malkajgiri : FAC Prl . Junior Civil Judge – cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Malkajgiri- Medchal District, At Kushaiguda.

Calendar case tried by:Smt. J.Prashanthi FAC Prl . Junior Civil Judge – cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Malkajgiri- Medchal District, At Kushaiguda.

Date of Offence :14.07.2017

Date of report or complaint:14.07.2017

Date of apprehension of accused : - (issued 41-A Cr.P.C.)

Date of commencement of trial : 16.09.2025

Date of closure of trial : 13.11.2025

Date of sentence of order : 16.12.2025

Judgment and calender case No.: CC 71 of 2018

Complainant : P.S. Malkajgiri

Name of the accused: A1) Syed Ali Quasim Imad @Hamad@Makususi A2) Syed Noor Mohammad (split up) A3) Mohammad Almas A4) Mohammad Iliyas A5) Fayaz Shareef (split up) A6) Syed Yousuf

Offence : U/Secs.447, 427, 186, 188 read with 34 of IPC.

Finding : Found not guilty and acquitted U/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C

Sentence: In the result, Accused no.1, 3, 4 and 6

Page 13 of 13 CC No.71 /2018 PJCJ -cum-JMFC are found not guilty for the offence under section 447, 427, 186, 188 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted for the said offence u/sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused if any stands cancelled. After expiry of the appeal time, subject to section 437A Cr.P.C.

FAC Prl. Junior Civil Judge -cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Medchal- Malkajgiri District At Kushaiguda.

Page 1 of 13 CC No.71 /2018 PJCJ -cum-JMFC

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MEDCHAL-

MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT, AT KUSHAIGUDA.

PRESENT: SMT. J. PRASANTHI FACPrl. Junior Civil Judge-cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

At Kushaiguda.

Tuesday, the 16 thday of December, 2025.

CALENDAR CASE NO.71 OF 2018

Between:

The State of Telangana through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Malkajgiri Police Station Rachakonda Commissionerate. ……….Complainant.

A N D

A1) Syed Ali Quasim Imad @Hamad@Makususi S/o.Syed Kareemuddin @ Karishma age 26 years, Occ: LLB student, Pendakanti Law college, Chikkadapalli, Hyderabad, R/o.H.No.42-873, Habg-e-Hydri, Maula-Ali, Malkajgiri. ……….Accused no.1.

A2) Syed Noor Mohammad, S/o.Syed Nizamuddin, Age 19 years, Occ: Degree 1st year student at St.Frances Degree College, Barkatpura, Hyderabad, R/o.H.No.42-873, Habg-e-Hydri, Maula-Ali, Malkajgiri. ……….Accused no.2.(split up

vide orders in Criminal Petition no.7095/2025, dated 17.06.2025

by Hon’ble High court vide CC No.1400/ 2025)

Page 2 of 13 CC No.71 /2018 PJCJ -cum-JMFC

A3) Mohammad Almas, S/o.Muktar Khadri, Age 20 years, Occ: Student, R/o.H.No.41-2, Hanuman Nagar, Moula-Ali, Malkajgiri, cell no.7013246693

A4) Mohammad Iliyas, S/o.Mohd.Farooq Ali, Age 25 years, Occ: AC Repairer, R/o.H.No.41-2, Hanuman Nagar, Moula-Ali, Malkajgiri, cell no.9391319029 ……….Accused nos.3 and 4.

A5) Fayaz Shareef, S/o.Ahmed Shareef, Age 40 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.41-30, Moula-Ali, Malkajgiri, Cell no.9666569876 ……….Accused no.5. (split up

vide orders in Criminal Petition no.7095/2025, dated 17.06.2025

by Hon’ble High court vide CC No.1400/ 2025)

A6) Syed Yousuf, S/o.Syed Khareemuddin @Karishma, age 31 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.42-873, Habg-e-Hydri, Moula-Ali, Malkajgiri, cell no.9700459159 ……….Accused no.6.

This case came before me on 09.12.2025 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of M/s.A.S.Shankar Goud Advocates for accused persons upon hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Malkajgiri filed charge sheet against the accused persons in crime No.514 of 2017 for the offence punishable under sections 447, 427, 186, 188 r/w.34 of IPC.

Page 3 of 13 CC No.71 /2018 PJCJ -cum-JMFC

2. T he Brief facts of the prosecution case as follows:

On 14-07-2017 at around 17:00 hours, a complaint was received from Sri K. Venugopal, Deputy Commissioner, Malkajgiri Circle- 17, GHMC, Hyderabad, stating that one Sri Hamad and others were creating nuisance and had erected an unauthorized shed to conduct a dharna opposing the road widening near Moula-Ali Kaman (Arch). He submitted that GHMC had already approved the road widening and development plan, identified 33 affected properties, and forwarded proposals to the L.A.O., GHMC for verification of ownership and preparation of compensation, which are under process pending approval of higher authorities. Meanwhile, Sri Hamad and others, without GHMC permission, conducted a dharna and erected an unauthorized shed.

Hence, the report.

3.Basing on the above report, the LW-7/S. Janaki Reddy,

Inspector of Police, PS Malkajgiri, registered a case in Crime

No.514/2017 for the offence punishable U/Sec.447, 427, 186, 188 r/w 34 IPC and entrusted the investigation to LW-8/C.Srinivas Reddy.

During the course of investigation, LW-8 have examined PW-1 to PW-3 and LW-3 and recorded their detailed statements and further visited the scene of offence, where conducted a scene of offence

Page 4 of 13 CC No.71 /2018 PJCJ -cum-JMFC panchanama and drawn rough sketch in presence of two mediators i.e.,

LW5 and PW4. On 14-07-2017 a notice U/Sec.41(A) Cr.P.C have been served to accused no.1 to 6. After completion of entire investigation

PW-5 filed charge sheet against the accused persons.

4.The Court took cognizance for the offenses punishable under

Sections 447, 427, 186, 188 r/w 34 IPC against accused no.1 to 6.

5.On appearance of the accused no.1 to 6, copies of all the documents were furnished to them as required U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for A1 to A6 is present and filed the order in Criminal

Petition No. 7095/2025. Wherein, the Honble High Court vide Criminal

Petition No. 7095/2025, Dated: 17-06-2025 permitted to split up and dispose the case bearing CC No. 71/2018 preferably within six (06) from the date of next adjournment. NBW is pending against A2 and A5 since 19-04-2024. Hence, the case was split up against A2/Syed Noor

Mohammed and A5/Fayaz Shareef vide CC No.1400 of 2025.

6. The accused no.1, 3, 4 and 6 were examined by my learned predecessor in office U/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C, and they denied the same, read over and explained to the accused persons in their vernacular language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Page 5 of 13 CC No.71 /2018 PJCJ -cum-JMFC

7.To prove the guilt of the accused no.1, 3, 4 and 6, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to 5. The evidence of LW-3, LW-5 was closed basing on report as the police failed to produce before the court. Thereafter the evidence of LW-7 and LW-8 are also given up by learned APPO and reported no further evidence, hence prosecution’s evidence is closed.

8.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused no. 1, 3, 4 and 6 were examined by my learned predecessor in office U/Sec.313

Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

9.Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused persons.

10.P oint for determination is : “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused nos.1, 3, 4 and 6 beyond reasonable doubt for the offenses punishable under Sections 447, 427, 186, 188 r/w 34 IPC”?

11.Point:

During the course of trial, to prove the case the prosecution got examined PW-1 to PW-5. PW-1 is the complainant. PW-2 and PW3

Page 6 of 13 CC No.71 /2018 PJCJ -cum-JMFC are the witnesses, PW4 is panch for scene of offence. PW5 is

Investigation officer.

12.The evidence of prosecution witnesses in brief:

PW1 testified that on 14-07-2017, when he was serving as the Deputy Commissioner for Malkajgiri Circle, J. Kistopher Raj,

Assistant City Planner of Malkajgiri Circle, lodged a complaint on his behalf regarding the unauthorized erection of a shed on the road meant for road widening at Moula Ali Khamman. He stated that the accused persons created a nuisance by staging a dharna.

13.PW2 testified that on 14-07-2017, when he was working as a

Section Officer in the Malkajgiri office, he stated that his officers had given him orders to take care of the road widening at Moula Ali

Khamman, Malkajgiri. He further stated that some people gathered at

Moula Ali Khamman, erected a shed, and started protesting against the road widening proposal, upon which the ACP lodged a complaint with the police.

14.PW3 and PW4 have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and deposed that they does not know anything about the case of this case.

Page 7 of 13 CC No.71 /2018 PJCJ -cum-JMFC

15.The investigation Officer is examined as PW-5. He nevertheless deposed the chronological order of events occurred during course of his investigation i.e., from receiving complaint to till filing of charge sheet.

16. Now coming to the appreciation of evidence:

In order to establish the guilt of accused persons the prosecution had examined total five witnesses, of them PW1 is

additional commissioner, PW2 is Section officer in GHMC office, PW3 and

PW4 are the witnesses for CDF. PW5 is the investigation officer who filed charge sheet against the accused persons.

17.PW1, Additional commissioner filed a complaint through Asst.

City planner regarding accused persons causing nuisance, staging dharna at Moulali kamman over road widening issues. During cross- examination he acknowledged that he knew of incident through Asst.

commissioner of police report, but he did not witness the contents of it, he doesn’t know the accused persons names in this case, also not filed documents regarding road widening proposal, notices are also not issued in this case and also not filed photographs of accused erecting alleged sheds on road, he did not approach traffic police regarding public disturbance, his evidence is hearsay evidence.

Page 8 of 13 CC No.71 /2018 PJCJ -cum-JMFC

18.PW2, section officer retired as GHMC Employee deposed that regarding road widening at Moulali kamman, people protested and laid the shed on road, during cross-examination he acknowledged that no personal complaint filed, he did not witness the incident, unaware of accused names and no documents filed. Police also not collected incriminating material in his presence against the accused persons and his evidence is hearsay evidence since he is not present at the time of alleged incident.

19.PW3 and PW4 are the witnesses for CDF turned hostile and offering no support to the prosecutions case.

20.The evidence of investigation officer/PW5 is procedural in nature, he admits no photos or videos of the accused persons at the scene of offence were collected and no incriminating material was gathered against the accused persons.

21.The prosecutions case hinges on testimonies of PW1

Additional commissioner and PW2 section officer, but both did not

witness the incident, their evidence is hearsay, lacking first hand knowledge of the incident. Hence, their evidence is weakening the prosecutions stance, and they were unaware of the accused names, no

Page 9 of 13 CC No.71 /2018 PJCJ -cum-JMFC documents were filed regarding the road widening proposal, this lack of direct knowledge impacts credibility of prosecutions case.

22.Panch witnesses turned hostile, did not support the prosecution, this hostile testimony weakens the prosecution’s case.

23.Investigation officer admits no photographs or videos of accused presence at scene of offence, no incriminating material was collected. This lack of objective evidence raise doubt about the prosecutions claim. The investigating officer also failed to collect the proofs regarding the road widening proposals, no photos and videographs of alleged erecting of sheds at place of scene of offence.

Prosecution also failed to produce notices regarding road obstruction.

Though PW1, Additional commissioner was examined by the prosecution as complainant, but he stated that he did not verify complaint lodged on his behalf by the Assistant city planner, to prove the contents the prosecution also failed to examine or produce said Assistant city planner. Hence, no proof of complaint contents before the court. As

PW1’s complaint lodged by Assistant city planner, PW1 and PW2 being a public officials don’t know the accused names. Prosecution fails to produce the independent witness LW3 before the court to prove their contentions against the accused persons.

Page 10 of 13 CC No.71 /2018 PJCJ -cum-JMFC

24.There is no corroboration of accused’s presence at the place of scene of offence. Prosecution utterly failed to collect the photographs or videographs of accused persons erecting sheds on roads, staging dharna at place of scene of offence. The prosecutions evidence lacks direct or corroborative proof. These gaps, the prosecution failed to establish the accused’s guilt, the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence, the accused are entitled for acquittal.

25.In the result, Accused nos.1, 3, 4 and 6 are found not guilty for the offence under section 447, 427, 186, 188 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted for the said offence u/sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused if any stands cancelled. After expiry of the appeal time, subject to section 437A Cr.P.C.

(Typed to my Dictation by stenographer directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16 thday of December, 2025.)

FAC Prl. Junior Civil Judge -cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Medchal- Malkajgiri District At Kushaiguda.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For P rosecution : For Defence:

P.W.1: K.Venu Gopal - None -

Page 11 of 13 CC No.71 /2018 PJCJ -cum-JMFC

P.W.2: Narsing Rao

P.W.3: Syed Vijarath Ali

P.W.4: Mir Razali

P.W.5: K.Sanjeeva Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 report

Ex.P2 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3

Ex.P3 signature of PW4 on Crime Details Form

Ex.P4 FIR

Ex.P5 Crime Details Form

For Defence:

- None -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

FAC Prl. Junior Civil Judge -cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Medchal- Malkajgiri District At Kushaiguda.

Page 12 of 13 CC No.71 /2018 PJCJ -cum-JMFC

F O R M No: 71

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District: Medchal- Malkajgiri : FAC Prl . Junior Civil Judge – cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Malkajgiri- Medchal District, At Kushaiguda.

Calendar case tried by:Smt. J.Prashanthi FAC Prl . Junior Civil Judge – cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Malkajgiri- Medchal District, At Kushaiguda.

Date of Offence :14.07.2017

Date of report or complaint:14.07.2017

Date of apprehension of accused : - (issued 41-A Cr.P.C.)

Date of commencement of trial : 16.09.2025

Date of closure of trial : 13.11.2025

Date of sentence of order : 16.12.2025

Judgment and calender case No.: CC 71 of 2018

Complainant : P.S. Malkajgiri

Name of the accused: A1) Syed Ali Quasim Imad @Hamad@Makususi A2) Syed Noor Mohammad (split up) A3) Mohammad Almas A4) Mohammad Iliyas A5) Fayaz Shareef (split up) A6) Syed Yousuf

Offence : U/Secs.447, 427, 186, 188 read with 34 of IPC.

Finding : Found not guilty and acquitted U/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C

Sentence: In the result, Accused no.1, 3, 4 and 6

Page 13 of 13 CC No.71 /2018 PJCJ -cum-JMFC are found not guilty for the offence under section 447, 427, 186, 188 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted for the said offence u/sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused if any stands cancelled. After expiry of the appeal time, subject to section 437A Cr.P.C.

FAC Prl. Junior Civil Judge -cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Medchal- Malkajgiri District At Kushaiguda.

Page 1 of 13 CC No.71 /2018 PJCJ -cum-JMFC

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MEDCHAL-

MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT, AT KUSHAIGUDA.

PRESENT: SMT. J. PRASANTHI FACPrl. Junior Civil Judge-cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

At Kushaiguda.

Tuesday, the 16 thday of December, 2025.

CALENDAR CASE NO.71 OF 2018

Between:

The State of Telangana through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Malkajgiri Police Station Rachakonda Commissionerate. ……….Complainant.

A N D

A1) Syed Ali Quasim Imad @Hamad@Makususi S/o.Syed Kareemuddin @ Karishma age 26 years, Occ: LLB student, Pendakanti Law college, Chikkadapalli, Hyderabad, R/o.H.No.42-873, Habg-e-Hydri, Maula-Ali, Malkajgiri. ……….Accused no.1.

A2) Syed Noor Mohammad, S/o.Syed Nizamuddin, Age 19 years, Occ: Degree 1st year student at St.Frances Degree College, Barkatpura, Hyderabad, R/o.H.No.42-873, Habg-e-Hydri, Maula-Ali, Malkajgiri. ……….Accused no.2.(split up

vide orders in Criminal Petition no.7095/2025, dated 17.06.2025

by Hon’ble High court vide CC No.1400/ 2025)

Page 2 of 13 CC No.71 /2018 PJCJ -cum-JMFC

A3) Mohammad Almas, S/o.Muktar Khadri, Age 20 years, Occ: Student, R/o.H.No.41-2, Hanuman Nagar, Moula-Ali, Malkajgiri, cell no.7013246693

A4) Mohammad Iliyas, S/o.Mohd.Farooq Ali, Age 25 years, Occ: AC Repairer, R/o.H.No.41-2, Hanuman Nagar, Moula-Ali, Malkajgiri, cell no.9391319029 ……….Accused nos.3 and 4.

A5) Fayaz Shareef, S/o.Ahmed Shareef, Age 40 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.41-30, Moula-Ali, Malkajgiri, Cell no.9666569876 ……….Accused no.5. (split up

vide orders in Criminal Petition no.7095/2025, dated 17.06.2025

by Hon’ble High court vide CC No.1400/ 2025)

A6) Syed Yousuf, S/o.Syed Khareemuddin @Karishma, age 31 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.42-873, Habg-e-Hydri, Moula-Ali, Malkajgiri, cell no.9700459159 ……….Accused no.6.

This case came before me on 09.12.2025 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of M/s.A.S.Shankar Goud Advocates for accused persons upon hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Malkajgiri filed charge sheet against the accused persons in crime No.514 of 2017 for the offence punishable under sections 447, 427, 186, 188 r/w.34 of IPC.

Page 3 of 13 CC No.71 /2018 PJCJ -cum-JMFC

2. T he Brief facts of the prosecution case as follows:

On 14-07-2017 at around 17:00 hours, a complaint was received from Sri K. Venugopal, Deputy Commissioner, Malkajgiri Circle- 17, GHMC, Hyderabad, stating that one Sri Hamad and others were creating nuisance and had erected an unauthorized shed to conduct a dharna opposing the road widening near Moula-Ali Kaman (Arch). He submitted that GHMC had already approved the road widening and development plan, identified 33 affected properties, and forwarded proposals to the L.A.O., GHMC for verification of ownership and preparation of compensation, which are under process pending approval of higher authorities. Meanwhile, Sri Hamad and others, without GHMC permission, conducted a dharna and erected an unauthorized shed.

Hence, the report.

3.Basing on the above report, the LW-7/S. Janaki Reddy,

Inspector of Police, PS Malkajgiri, registered a case in Crime

No.514/2017 for the offence punishable U/Sec.447, 427, 186, 188 r/w 34 IPC and entrusted the investigation to LW-8/C.Srinivas Reddy.

During the course of investigation, LW-8 have examined PW-1 to PW-3 and LW-3 and recorded their detailed statements and further visited the scene of offence, where conducted a scene of offence

Page 4 of 13 CC No.71 /2018 PJCJ -cum-JMFC panchanama and drawn rough sketch in presence of two mediators i.e.,

LW5 and PW4. On 14-07-2017 a notice U/Sec.41(A) Cr.P.C have been served to accused no.1 to 6. After completion of entire investigation

PW-5 filed charge sheet against the accused persons.

4.The Court took cognizance for the offenses punishable under

Sections 447, 427, 186, 188 r/w 34 IPC against accused no.1 to 6.

5.On appearance of the accused no.1 to 6, copies of all the documents were furnished to them as required U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for A1 to A6 is present and filed the order in Criminal

Petition No. 7095/2025. Wherein, the Honble High Court vide Criminal

Petition No. 7095/2025, Dated: 17-06-2025 permitted to split up and dispose the case bearing CC No. 71/2018 preferably within six (06) from the date of next adjournment. NBW is pending against A2 and A5 since 19-04-2024. Hence, the case was split up against A2/Syed Noor

Mohammed and A5/Fayaz Shareef vide CC No.1400 of 2025.

6. The accused no.1, 3, 4 and 6 were examined by my learned predecessor in office U/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C, and they denied the same, read over and explained to the accused persons in their vernacular language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Page 5 of 13 CC No.71 /2018 PJCJ -cum-JMFC

7.To prove the guilt of the accused no.1, 3, 4 and 6, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to 5. The evidence of LW-3, LW-5 was closed basing on report as the police failed to produce before the court. Thereafter the evidence of LW-7 and LW-8 are also given up by learned APPO and reported no further evidence, hence prosecution’s evidence is closed.

8.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused no. 1, 3, 4 and 6 were examined by my learned predecessor in office U/Sec.313

Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

9.Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused persons.

10.P oint for determination is : “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused nos.1, 3, 4 and 6 beyond reasonable doubt for the offenses punishable under Sections 447, 427, 186, 188 r/w 34 IPC”?

11.Point:

During the course of trial, to prove the case the prosecution got examined PW-1 to PW-5. PW-1 is the complainant. PW-2 and PW3

Page 6 of 13 CC No.71 /2018 PJCJ -cum-JMFC are the witnesses, PW4 is panch for scene of offence. PW5 is

Investigation officer.

12.The evidence of prosecution witnesses in brief:

PW1 testified that on 14-07-2017, when he was serving as the Deputy Commissioner for Malkajgiri Circle, J. Kistopher Raj,

Assistant City Planner of Malkajgiri Circle, lodged a complaint on his behalf regarding the unauthorized erection of a shed on the road meant for road widening at Moula Ali Khamman. He stated that the accused persons created a nuisance by staging a dharna.

13.PW2 testified that on 14-07-2017, when he was working as a

Section Officer in the Malkajgiri office, he stated that his officers had given him orders to take care of the road widening at Moula Ali

Khamman, Malkajgiri. He further stated that some people gathered at

Moula Ali Khamman, erected a shed, and started protesting against the road widening proposal, upon which the ACP lodged a complaint with the police.

14.PW3 and PW4 have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and deposed that they does not know anything about the case of this case.

Page 7 of 13 CC No.71 /2018 PJCJ -cum-JMFC

15.The investigation Officer is examined as PW-5. He nevertheless deposed the chronological order of events occurred during course of his investigation i.e., from receiving complaint to till filing of charge sheet.

16. Now coming to the appreciation of evidence:

In order to establish the guilt of accused persons the prosecution had examined total five witnesses, of them PW1 is

additional commissioner, PW2 is Section officer in GHMC office, PW3 and

PW4 are the witnesses for CDF. PW5 is the investigation officer who filed charge sheet against the accused persons.

17.PW1, Additional commissioner filed a complaint through Asst.

City planner regarding accused persons causing nuisance, staging dharna at Moulali kamman over road widening issues. During cross- examination he acknowledged that he knew of incident through Asst.

commissioner of police report, but he did not witness the contents of it, he doesn’t know the accused persons names in this case, also not filed documents regarding road widening proposal, notices are also not issued in this case and also not filed photographs of accused erecting alleged sheds on road, he did not approach traffic police regarding public disturbance, his evidence is hearsay evidence.

Page 8 of 13 CC No.71 /2018 PJCJ -cum-JMFC

18.PW2, section officer retired as GHMC Employee deposed that regarding road widening at Moulali kamman, people protested and laid the shed on road, during cross-examination he acknowledged that no personal complaint filed, he did not witness the incident, unaware of accused names and no documents filed. Police also not collected incriminating material in his presence against the accused persons and his evidence is hearsay evidence since he is not present at the time of alleged incident.

19.PW3 and PW4 are the witnesses for CDF turned hostile and offering no support to the prosecutions case.

20.The evidence of investigation officer/PW5 is procedural in nature, he admits no photos or videos of the accused persons at the scene of offence were collected and no incriminating material was gathered against the accused persons.

21.The prosecutions case hinges on testimonies of PW1

Additional commissioner and PW2 section officer, but both did not

witness the incident, their evidence is hearsay, lacking first hand knowledge of the incident. Hence, their evidence is weakening the prosecutions stance, and they were unaware of the accused names, no

Page 9 of 13 CC No.71 /2018 PJCJ -cum-JMFC documents were filed regarding the road widening proposal, this lack of direct knowledge impacts credibility of prosecutions case.

22.Panch witnesses turned hostile, did not support the prosecution, this hostile testimony weakens the prosecution’s case.

23.Investigation officer admits no photographs or videos of accused presence at scene of offence, no incriminating material was collected. This lack of objective evidence raise doubt about the prosecutions claim. The investigating officer also failed to collect the proofs regarding the road widening proposals, no photos and videographs of alleged erecting of sheds at place of scene of offence.

Prosecution also failed to produce notices regarding road obstruction.

Though PW1, Additional commissioner was examined by the prosecution as complainant, but he stated that he did not verify complaint lodged on his behalf by the Assistant city planner, to prove the contents the prosecution also failed to examine or produce said Assistant city planner. Hence, no proof of complaint contents before the court. As

PW1’s complaint lodged by Assistant city planner, PW1 and PW2 being a public officials don’t know the accused names. Prosecution fails to produce the independent witness LW3 before the court to prove their contentions against the accused persons.

Page 10 of 13 CC No.71 /2018 PJCJ -cum-JMFC

24.There is no corroboration of accused’s presence at the place of scene of offence. Prosecution utterly failed to collect the photographs or videographs of accused persons erecting sheds on roads, staging dharna at place of scene of offence. The prosecutions evidence lacks direct or corroborative proof. These gaps, the prosecution failed to establish the accused’s guilt, the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence, the accused are entitled for acquittal.

25.In the result, Accused nos.1, 3, 4 and 6 are found not guilty for the offence under section 447, 427, 186, 188 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted for the said offence u/sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused if any stands cancelled. After expiry of the appeal time, subject to section 437A Cr.P.C.

(Typed to my Dictation by stenographer directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16 thday of December, 2025.)

FAC Prl. Junior Civil Judge -cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Medchal- Malkajgiri District At Kushaiguda.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For P rosecution : For Defence:

P.W.1: K.Venu Gopal - None -

Page 11 of 13 CC No.71 /2018 PJCJ -cum-JMFC

P.W.2: Narsing Rao

P.W.3: Syed Vijarath Ali

P.W.4: Mir Razali

P.W.5: K.Sanjeeva Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 report

Ex.P2 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3

Ex.P3 signature of PW4 on Crime Details Form

Ex.P4 FIR

Ex.P5 Crime Details Form

For Defence:

- None -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

FAC Prl. Junior Civil Judge -cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Medchal- Malkajgiri District At Kushaiguda.

Page 12 of 13 CC No.71 /2018 PJCJ -cum-JMFC

F O R M No: 71

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District: Medchal- Malkajgiri : FAC Prl . Junior Civil Judge – cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Malkajgiri- Medchal District, At Kushaiguda.

Calendar case tried by:Smt. J.Prashanthi FAC Prl . Junior Civil Judge – cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Malkajgiri- Medchal District, At Kushaiguda.

Date of Offence :14.07.2017

Date of report or complaint:14.07.2017

Date of apprehension of accused : - (issued 41-A Cr.P.C.)

Date of commencement of trial : 16.09.2025

Date of closure of trial : 13.11.2025

Date of sentence of order : 16.12.2025

Judgment and calender case No.: CC 71 of 2018

Complainant : P.S. Malkajgiri

Name of the accused: A1) Syed Ali Quasim Imad @Hamad@Makususi A2) Syed Noor Mohammad (split up) A3) Mohammad Almas A4) Mohammad Iliyas A5) Fayaz Shareef (split up) A6) Syed Yousuf

Offence : U/Secs.447, 427, 186, 188 read with 34 of IPC.

Finding : Found not guilty and acquitted U/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C

Sentence: In the result, Accused no.1, 3, 4 and 6

Page 13 of 13 CC No.71 /2018 PJCJ -cum-JMFC are found not guilty for the offence under section 447, 427, 186, 188 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted for the said offence u/sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused if any stands cancelled. After expiry of the appeal time, subject to section 437A Cr.P.C.

FAC Prl. Junior Civil Judge -cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Medchal- Malkajgiri District At Kushaiguda.

Page 1 of 13 CC No.71 /2018 PJCJ -cum-JMFC

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MEDCHAL-

MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT, AT KUSHAIGUDA.

PRESENT: SMT. J. PRASANTHI FACPrl. Junior Civil Judge-cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

At Kushaiguda.

Tuesday, the 16 thday of December, 2025.

CALENDAR CASE NO.71 OF 2018

Between:

The State of Telangana through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Malkajgiri Police Station Rachakonda Commissionerate. ……….Complainant.

A N D

A1) Syed Ali Quasim Imad @Hamad@Makususi S/o.Syed Kareemuddin @ Karishma age 26 years, Occ: LLB student, Pendakanti Law college, Chikkadapalli, Hyderabad, R/o.H.No.42-873, Habg-e-Hydri, Maula-Ali, Malkajgiri. ……….Accused no.1.

A2) Syed Noor Mohammad, S/o.Syed Nizamuddin, Age 19 years, Occ: Degree 1st year student at St.Frances Degree College, Barkatpura, Hyderabad, R/o.H.No.42-873, Habg-e-Hydri, Maula-Ali, Malkajgiri. ……….Accused no.2.(split up

vide orders in Criminal Petition no.7095/2025, dated 17.06.2025

by Hon’ble High court vide CC No.1400/ 2025)

Page 2 of 13 CC No.71 /2018 PJCJ -cum-JMFC

A3) Mohammad Almas, S/o.Muktar Khadri, Age 20 years, Occ: Student, R/o.H.No.41-2, Hanuman Nagar, Moula-Ali, Malkajgiri, cell no.7013246693

A4) Mohammad Iliyas, S/o.Mohd.Farooq Ali, Age 25 years, Occ: AC Repairer, R/o.H.No.41-2, Hanuman Nagar, Moula-Ali, Malkajgiri, cell no.9391319029 ……….Accused nos.3 and 4.

A5) Fayaz Shareef, S/o.Ahmed Shareef, Age 40 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.41-30, Moula-Ali, Malkajgiri, Cell no.9666569876 ……….Accused no.5. (split up

vide orders in Criminal Petition no.7095/2025, dated 17.06.2025

by Hon’ble High court vide CC No.1400/ 2025)

A6) Syed Yousuf, S/o.Syed Khareemuddin @Karishma, age 31 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.42-873, Habg-e-Hydri, Moula-Ali, Malkajgiri, cell no.9700459159 ……….Accused no.6.

This case came before me on 09.12.2025 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of M/s.A.S.Shankar Goud Advocates for accused persons upon hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Malkajgiri filed charge sheet against the accused persons in crime No.514 of 2017 for the offence punishable under sections 447, 427, 186, 188 r/w.34 of IPC.

Page 3 of 13 CC No.71 /2018 PJCJ -cum-JMFC

2. T he Brief facts of the prosecution case as follows:

On 14-07-2017 at around 17:00 hours, a complaint was received from Sri K. Venugopal, Deputy Commissioner, Malkajgiri Circle- 17, GHMC, Hyderabad, stating that one Sri Hamad and others were creating nuisance and had erected an unauthorized shed to conduct a dharna opposing the road widening near Moula-Ali Kaman (Arch). He submitted that GHMC had already approved the road widening and development plan, identified 33 affected properties, and forwarded proposals to the L.A.O., GHMC for verification of ownership and preparation of compensation, which are under process pending approval of higher authorities. Meanwhile, Sri Hamad and others, without GHMC permission, conducted a dharna and erected an unauthorized shed.

Hence, the report.

3.Basing on the above report, the LW-7/S. Janaki Reddy,

Inspector of Police, PS Malkajgiri, registered a case in Crime

No.514/2017 for the offence punishable U/Sec.447, 427, 186, 188 r/w 34 IPC and entrusted the investigation to LW-8/C.Srinivas Reddy.

During the course of investigation, LW-8 have examined PW-1 to PW-3 and LW-3 and recorded their detailed statements and further visited the scene of offence, where conducted a scene of offence

Page 4 of 13 CC No.71 /2018 PJCJ -cum-JMFC panchanama and drawn rough sketch in presence of two mediators i.e.,

LW5 and PW4. On 14-07-2017 a notice U/Sec.41(A) Cr.P.C have been served to accused no.1 to 6. After completion of entire investigation

PW-5 filed charge sheet against the accused persons.

4.The Court took cognizance for the offenses punishable under

Sections 447, 427, 186, 188 r/w 34 IPC against accused no.1 to 6.

5.On appearance of the accused no.1 to 6, copies of all the documents were furnished to them as required U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for A1 to A6 is present and filed the order in Criminal

Petition No. 7095/2025. Wherein, the Honble High Court vide Criminal

Petition No. 7095/2025, Dated: 17-06-2025 permitted to split up and dispose the case bearing CC No. 71/2018 preferably within six (06) from the date of next adjournment. NBW is pending against A2 and A5 since 19-04-2024. Hence, the case was split up against A2/Syed Noor

Mohammed and A5/Fayaz Shareef vide CC No.1400 of 2025.

6. The accused no.1, 3, 4 and 6 were examined by my learned predecessor in office U/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C, and they denied the same, read over and explained to the accused persons in their vernacular language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Page 5 of 13 CC No.71 /2018 PJCJ -cum-JMFC

7.To prove the guilt of the accused no.1, 3, 4 and 6, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to 5. The evidence of LW-3, LW-5 was closed basing on report as the police failed to produce before the court. Thereafter the evidence of LW-7 and LW-8 are also given up by learned APPO and reported no further evidence, hence prosecution’s evidence is closed.

8.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused no. 1, 3, 4 and 6 were examined by my learned predecessor in office U/Sec.313

Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

9.Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused persons.

10.P oint for determination is : “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused nos.1, 3, 4 and 6 beyond reasonable doubt for the offenses punishable under Sections 447, 427, 186, 188 r/w 34 IPC”?

11.Point:

During the course of trial, to prove the case the prosecution got examined PW-1 to PW-5. PW-1 is the complainant. PW-2 and PW3

Page 6 of 13 CC No.71 /2018 PJCJ -cum-JMFC are the witnesses, PW4 is panch for scene of offence. PW5 is

Investigation officer.

12.The evidence of prosecution witnesses in brief:

PW1 testified that on 14-07-2017, when he was serving as the Deputy Commissioner for Malkajgiri Circle, J. Kistopher Raj,

Assistant City Planner of Malkajgiri Circle, lodged a complaint on his behalf regarding the unauthorized erection of a shed on the road meant for road widening at Moula Ali Khamman. He stated that the accused persons created a nuisance by staging a dharna.

13.PW2 testified that on 14-07-2017, when he was working as a

Section Officer in the Malkajgiri office, he stated that his officers had given him orders to take care of the road widening at Moula Ali

Khamman, Malkajgiri. He further stated that some people gathered at

Moula Ali Khamman, erected a shed, and started protesting against the road widening proposal, upon which the ACP lodged a complaint with the police.

14.PW3 and PW4 have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and deposed that they does not know anything about the case of this case.

Page 7 of 13 CC No.71 /2018 PJCJ -cum-JMFC

15.The investigation Officer is examined as PW-5. He nevertheless deposed the chronological order of events occurred during course of his investigation i.e., from receiving complaint to till filing of charge sheet.

16. Now coming to the appreciation of evidence:

In order to establish the guilt of accused persons the prosecution had examined total five witnesses, of them PW1 is

additional commissioner, PW2 is Section officer in GHMC office, PW3 and

PW4 are the witnesses for CDF. PW5 is the investigation officer who filed charge sheet against the accused persons.

17.PW1, Additional commissioner filed a complaint through Asst.

City planner regarding accused persons causing nuisance, staging dharna at Moulali kamman over road widening issues. During cross- examination he acknowledged that he knew of incident through Asst.

commissioner of police report, but he did not witness the contents of it, he doesn’t know the accused persons names in this case, also not filed documents regarding road widening proposal, notices are also not issued in this case and also not filed photographs of accused erecting alleged sheds on road, he did not approach traffic police regarding public disturbance, his evidence is hearsay evidence.

Page 8 of 13 CC No.71 /2018 PJCJ -cum-JMFC

18.PW2, section officer retired as GHMC Employee deposed that regarding road widening at Moulali kamman, people protested and laid the shed on road, during cross-examination he acknowledged that no personal complaint filed, he did not witness the incident, unaware of accused names and no documents filed. Police also not collected incriminating material in his presence against the accused persons and his evidence is hearsay evidence since he is not present at the time of alleged incident.

19.PW3 and PW4 are the witnesses for CDF turned hostile and offering no support to the prosecutions case.

20.The evidence of investigation officer/PW5 is procedural in nature, he admits no photos or videos of the accused persons at the scene of offence were collected and no incriminating material was gathered against the accused persons.

21.The prosecutions case hinges on testimonies of PW1

Additional commissioner and PW2 section officer, but both did not

witness the incident, their evidence is hearsay, lacking first hand knowledge of the incident. Hence, their evidence is weakening the prosecutions stance, and they were unaware of the accused names, no

Page 9 of 13 CC No.71 /2018 PJCJ -cum-JMFC documents were filed regarding the road widening proposal, this lack of direct knowledge impacts credibility of prosecutions case.

22.Panch witnesses turned hostile, did not support the prosecution, this hostile testimony weakens the prosecution’s case.

23.Investigation officer admits no photographs or videos of accused presence at scene of offence, no incriminating material was collected. This lack of objective evidence raise doubt about the prosecutions claim. The investigating officer also failed to collect the proofs regarding the road widening proposals, no photos and videographs of alleged erecting of sheds at place of scene of offence.

Prosecution also failed to produce notices regarding road obstruction.

Though PW1, Additional commissioner was examined by the prosecution as complainant, but he stated that he did not verify complaint lodged on his behalf by the Assistant city planner, to prove the contents the prosecution also failed to examine or produce said Assistant city planner. Hence, no proof of complaint contents before the court. As

PW1’s complaint lodged by Assistant city planner, PW1 and PW2 being a public officials don’t know the accused names. Prosecution fails to produce the independent witness LW3 before the court to prove their contentions against the accused persons.

Page 10 of 13 CC No.71 /2018 PJCJ -cum-JMFC

24.There is no corroboration of accused’s presence at the place of scene of offence. Prosecution utterly failed to collect the photographs or videographs of accused persons erecting sheds on roads, staging dharna at place of scene of offence. The prosecutions evidence lacks direct or corroborative proof. These gaps, the prosecution failed to establish the accused’s guilt, the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence, the accused are entitled for acquittal.

25.In the result, Accused nos.1, 3, 4 and 6 are found not guilty for the offence under section 447, 427, 186, 188 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted for the said offence u/sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused if any stands cancelled. After expiry of the appeal time, subject to section 437A Cr.P.C.

(Typed to my Dictation by stenographer directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16 thday of December, 2025.)

FAC Prl. Junior Civil Judge -cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Medchal- Malkajgiri District At Kushaiguda.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For P rosecution : For Defence:

P.W.1: K.Venu Gopal - None -

Page 11 of 13 CC No.71 /2018 PJCJ -cum-JMFC

P.W.2: Narsing Rao

P.W.3: Syed Vijarath Ali

P.W.4: Mir Razali

P.W.5: K.Sanjeeva Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 report

Ex.P2 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3

Ex.P3 signature of PW4 on Crime Details Form

Ex.P4 FIR

Ex.P5 Crime Details Form

For Defence:

- None -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

FAC Prl. Junior Civil Judge -cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Medchal- Malkajgiri District At Kushaiguda.

Page 12 of 13 CC No.71 /2018 PJCJ -cum-JMFC

F O R M No: 71

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District: Medchal- Malkajgiri : FAC Prl . Junior Civil Judge – cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Malkajgiri- Medchal District, At Kushaiguda.

Calendar case tried by:Smt. J.Prashanthi FAC Prl . Junior Civil Judge – cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Malkajgiri- Medchal District, At Kushaiguda.

Date of Offence :14.07.2017

Date of report or complaint:14.07.2017

Date of apprehension of accused : - (issued 41-A Cr.P.C.)

Date of commencement of trial : 16.09.2025

Date of closure of trial : 13.11.2025

Date of sentence of order : 16.12.2025

Judgment and calender case No.: CC 71 of 2018

Complainant : P.S. Malkajgiri

Name of the accused: A1) Syed Ali Quasim Imad @Hamad@Makususi A2) Syed Noor Mohammad (split up) A3) Mohammad Almas A4) Mohammad Iliyas A5) Fayaz Shareef (split up) A6) Syed Yousuf

Offence : U/Secs.447, 427, 186, 188 read with 34 of IPC.

Finding : Found not guilty and acquitted U/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C

Sentence: In the result, Accused no.1, 3, 4 and 6

Page 13 of 13 CC No.71 /2018 PJCJ -cum-JMFC are found not guilty for the offence under section 447, 427, 186, 188 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted for the said offence u/sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused if any stands cancelled. After expiry of the appeal time, subject to section 437A Cr.P.C.

FAC Prl. Junior Civil Judge -cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Medchal- Malkajgiri District At Kushaiguda.

Page 1 of 8 OS No.1017 of 2025 PJCJ -cum-JMFC.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

-CUM- JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT , AT KUSHAIGUDA.

Present: Sri L.Raju FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class ,

Medchal-Malkajgiri District, At Kushaiguda.

Thursday, the 16 thday of April, 2026.

Original Suit No.1017 of 2025

Between:

1. Meenampally Sairam S/o. M. Narsimha, Age: 38 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o. 2-4-123/1, Street No.10, Padmavathi Colony, Uppal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District - 500039

2. Ch. Lavanya W/o. Mallesh, Age: 41 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. P-34, Rampally, Keesara Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District-501301

3. Ch. Sravani D/o. Ch. Dass Goud, Age: 26 years, Occ: Pvt. Job, R/o. 16-1-40, Kareemguda, Rampally, Keesara Mandal. Medchal-Malkajgiri District-501301

4. Ch. Balraj Goud S/o. Ch. Dass Goud, Age: 23 years, Occ: Pvt. Job, R/o. 16-1-40, Kareemguda, Rampally, Keesara Mandal. Medchal-Malkajgiri District - 501301

…..Plaintiffs.

A N D

1. The Tahsildar, Keesara Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

2. All concerned

....Defendant nos.1 and 2.

Page 2 of 8 OS No.1017 of 2025 PJCJ -cum-JMFC.

This suit came before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.S.Malleswara Rao, Counsel for Plaintiffsand of Defendant nos.1 and 2 are set exparte and upon having hearing the and on perusal of the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs no.1 to 4 seeking to declare them as legal heirs of late Smt.Meenampally Vijayalaxmi who died on 15-02-2022 (hereinafter referred to as deceased) in respect of schedule property.

2. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief is that, plaintiff no.1 is the son, plaintiff no.2 is the daughter, one Late Smt.Ch. Mangamma is daughter and one Late Sri Meenampally Narsimha is the husband of the deceased. The deceased died intestate on 15-02-2022. Further, the husband of the deceased one Late Sri Meenampally Narsimha expired on 07-02-2018. The daughter of deceased one Smt.Ch. Mangamma also expired on 20-05-2023, leaving behind the plaintiff nos.3 and 4 i.e., her daughter and son as legal heirs. Thus, plaintiffs no.1 to 4 are the surviving legal heirs of the deceased. It is further submitted that during the lifetime of deceased she purchased the property i.e., all that the plot bearing no.34, admeasuring 250 square yards or 209 square meters in survey no.765, situated at Rampally village, Keesara Mandal,

Page 3 of 8 OS No.1017 of 2025 PJCJ -cum-JMFC.

Ranga Reddy district, which comes under the Grampanchayath

Rampally, Sub-District Shamirpet, under the registered Sale deed doc.no.1262/2001 dated 15.03.2001, registered before the office of

Sub-Registrar, Shamirpet. As such, the plaintiffs herein have approached defendant no.1 for issue of legal heirs certificate, he has expressed his inability to issue the same. As such, the plaintiffs herein have no other option except to seek the intervention of this Hon’ble court for issue of legal heir certificate in respect of the deceased.

Hence, this suit.

3. The defendant no. 1 did not appear before the court inspite of service of summons and hence defendant no.1 was set exparte. No objections received for the paper publication and hence defendant no. 2 was set exparte.

4. The plaintiff no.1 is examined as PW1 and Exs.A1 to A9 are marked in support of case of the plaintiffs.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs.

6. Now the point for determination is “whether the suit can be decreed as prayed for”?

Page 4 of 8 OS No.1017 of 2025 PJCJ -cum-JMFC.

P O I N T:

7. The plaintiff no.1 as PW1 has filed chief affidavit in lieu of his chief-examination wherein he has reiterated the averments of the plaint. He got marked the death certificate of the deceased as Ex.A1 to prove the death of the deceased Smt.Meenampally Vijayalaxmi stating that he died on 15-02-2022. Also, the plaintiff has gotten marked

Exs.A3 and Ex.A4 to prove the death of late Ch.Mangamma, the daughter of deceased and late Meenampally Narsimha the husband of deceased, who died on 20-05-2023 and 07-02-2018 respectively.

Further, Ex.A6 to A9 would support the case of the plaintiffs as regards their relationship with the deceased persons. Thus, from the oral evidence of PW1 and the documents Exs.A1 to A9 the plaintiffs could prove their case about the relationship of late Smt.Meenampally

Vijayalaxmi who died on 15-02-2022 with the plaintiffs. This evidence stood unrebbuted and unchallenged. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree as prayed for. The point is answered accordingly.

8.The next relief which is sought for by the plaintiffs is that they are entitled to be declare as successors to the estate i.e., suit schedule property which acquired by Late Smt.Meenampally

Vijayalaxmi. Further they have relied on Ex.A2 and Ex.A5, which are the certified copy of sale deed doc.no.1262/2001 dated 15.03.2001 and

Page 5 of 8 OS No.1017 of 2025 PJCJ -cum-JMFC.

Market Value certificate. The question now is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to be declared as successors of the suit schedule property. In this connection, it is pertinent to refer section 34 of specific relief act, which is extracted herein under

Section 34 of specific relief act which reads thus:

Section 34 : Discretion of court as to declaration of status or right: Any person entitled to any legal character, or any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interest to deny, his title to such character or right, and court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that they are so entitled, and the plaintiffs need not in such suit ask for any further relief.

Provided that no court shall make any such declaration were the plaintiffs being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so.

Explanation: A trustee of property is a “Person interested to deny” a title adverse to the title of someone who is not in existence and for whom, if in existence, they would be a trustee.

A plain reading of section 34 makes it abundantly clear that any person/s who is entitled to any legal character or to any right with respect to any property may institute a suit against any person who is denying their title to such character, or right by seeking the relief of

Page 6 of 8 OS No.1017 of 2025 PJCJ -cum-JMFC.

declaration of their title. The cause of action for filing of suit for declaration of title arises only when the defendants denies the title to such character or right of the plaintiffs and thus plaintiffs are entitled to file a suit for declaration only on the basis of such cause of action.

9.In the instant case, the plaintiffs are totally silent about any such denial of title to such character or right of the plaintiffs by the defendants or any other person. In the absence of any specific pleadings or any iota of evidence showing that the title to such character or right of the plaintiffs was either denied or disputed by the defendants or any other person or persons claiming through them, the other relief that the plaintiffs are entitled to be declared as successors of the suit schedule property of the deceased Late Smt.Meenampally

Vijayalaxmi as sought for by the plaintiffs are not maintainable in law and therefore, this court is not inclined to grant the same.

10.Hence, the court is not inclined to grant the relief that plaintiffs are entitled to be declared as they are the successors to the suit schedule property of the deceased Late Smt.Meenampally

Vijayalaxmi. Accordingly, this point is answered.

Page 7 of 8 OS No.1017 of 2025 PJCJ -cum-JMFC.

11. In view of the findings in above point, the suit is decreed in part declaring only the legal status of Plaintiffs that they are legal heirs of deceased Late Smt.Meenampally Vijayalaxmi.

In the result, the suit is decreed partly in favor of plaintiffs no.1 to 4 declaring them as legal heirs of late Smt.Meenampally

Vijayalaxmi who died on 15-02-2022 for the purpose of legal status only.

In the circumstances of the case there are no orders as to costs.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer, by stenographer Gr-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16 thday of April, 2026.

FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Medchal- Malkajgiri District, At Kushaiguda.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For plaintiff: For defendant:

None PW-1 : Meenampally Sairam

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Exhibit no. Document Marked Witness no.

Ex.A1: Death Certificate of Smt. MeenampallyPW-1

Page 8 of 8 OS No.1017 of 2025 PJCJ -cum-JMFC.

Vijayalaxmi dated 15.02.2022

Ex.A2: PW-1 Certifiedcopyofsaledeed doc.no.1262/2001 dated 15.03.2001

Ex.A3: PW-1 Death Certificate of late Ch.Mangamma dated 20.05.2023

Ex.A4: PW-1 Death Certificate of late Meenampally

Narsimha dated 07.02.2018

Ex.A5: PW-1 Market value certificate

Ex.A6: PW-1 Aadhar card of plaintiff no.1

Ex.A7: PW-1 Aadhar card of plaintiff no.2

Ex.A8: PW-1 Aadhar card of plaintiff no.3

Ex.A9: PW-1 Aadhar card of plaintiff no.4

For defendants:-Nil-

FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Medchal- Malkajgiri District, At Kushaiguda.

Page 9 of 8 OS No.1017 of 2025 PJCJ -cum-JMFC.

DECREE IN ORIGINAL SUIT

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

-CUM- JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MEDCHAL- MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT, AT KUSHAIGUDA.

Present : Sri L.Raju FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class ,

Medchal-Malkajgiri District, At Kushaiguda.

Thursday, the 16 th day of April, 2026.

Original Suit No.1017 of 2025

Between:

1. Meenampally Sairam S/o. M. Narsimha, Age: 38 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o. 2-4-123/1, Street No.10, Padmavathi Colony, Uppal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District - 500039

2. Ch. Lavanya W/o. Mallesh, Age: 41 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. P-34, Rampally, Keesara Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District-501301

3. Ch. Sravani D/o. Ch. Dass Goud, Age: 26 years, Occ: Pvt. Job, R/o. 16-1-40, Kareemguda, Rampally, Keesara Mandal. Medchal-Malkajgiri District-501301

4. Ch. Balraj Goud S/o. Ch. Dass Goud, Age: 23 years, Occ: Pvt. Job, R/o. 16-1-40, Kareemguda, Rampally, Keesara Mandal. Medchal-Malkajgiri District - 501301

…..Plaintiffs.

A N D

1. The Tahsildar, Keesara Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

Page 10 of 8 OS No.1017 of 2025 PJCJ -cum-JMFC.

2. All concerned

....Defendant nos.1 and 2.

CLAIM FOR:

This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs no.1 to 4 seeking to declare them as legal heirs of late Smt.Meenampally Vijayalaxmi who died on 15-02-2022 in respect of schedule property.

VALUATION OF THE SUIT AND COURT FEE:

That the suit is filed for declaration of the plaitniffs as legal heirs of

Smt.Meenampally Vijayalaxmi and the plaintiffs value the suit at

Rs.4,00,000/- and hence a court fee of Rs.6,426/- which is paid ehrewith and which is sufficient under Sec.24(d) of T.S.C.F & S.V. Act, which is sufficient.

CAUSE OF ACTION :

That the caue of action for filing the above suit arose on 15.02.2022 when Smt.Meenampally Vijayalaxmi died leaving behind the plaintiffs as her surviving legal heirs. Hence, the cause of action is still in existence.

Suit Presented on : 28.11.2025

Suit numbered on : 02.12.2025

This suit came before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.S.Malleswara Rao, Counsel for Plaintiffs and of Defendant nos.1 and 2 are set exparte and upon having hearing the and on perusal of the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree:

1That the suit of the plaintiff be and the same is hereby partly decreed in favour of the plaintiffs no.1 to 4 declaring them as legal heirs of late Smt.Meenampally Vijayalaxmi who died on 15-

Page 11 of 8 OS No.1017 of 2025 PJCJ -cum-JMFC.

02-2022 for the purpose of legal status only 2That there is an order as to no costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, on this the 16th day of April, 2026.

FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum -

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Medchal- Malkajgiri District, At Kushaiguda.

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANTS

1. Stamps on plaintRs. 6,426.00-

2. Stamps on power Rs. 02.00-

3. Stamps on process Rs. 35.00-

4. Stamps on petitionsRs. --

5. Publication chargesRs.--

6. Stamps on documentsRs.--

7. Advocate feeF.C and M.C not filed

8. Misc. & type chargesRs.-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Rs. 6,463.00- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, on this the 16th day of April, 2026.

FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum -

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Medchal- Malkajgiri District, At Kushaiguda.