Sri G Uday Bhaskar Rao

1 OF 9

1 C.C. No. 11384 OF 2020

IN THE COURT OF IX ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, HYDERABAD.

PRESENT:: SRI. G. UDAY BHASKAR RAO

IX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Hyderabad.

DATED THIS THE 26 th DAY OF APRIL, 2024

C.C. No. 11384 OF 2020

Between:

The State through The Sub Inspector of Police Chikkadpally Police Station Hyderabad. … Complainant

A N D

A1 Kadudas Rajesh S/o. Purushotham Aged – 52 Yrs., Occ – Business R/o. H.No. 2-2-1136/8, 2nd Floor, New Nallakunta Hyderabad

A2 Kadudas Sudha W/o – K.Rajesh Aged – 49 Yrs., Occ – Business R/o. H.No. 2-2-1136/8, 2nd Floor, New Nallakunta Hyderabad … A1 & A2

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri D.Narender Naik, Leaned Counsel for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad has filed chargesheet against the

A1 and A2 for the offence under Sections 406, 420 of Indian penal Code ( in short “IPC”), in

Cr.No.37/2020.

2. The brief facts of the case is as follows:

(i) That accused being the partners of M/s Maitri Developers entered into

Development agreement cum GPA DtL 20-7-2013 vide Doc No. 11636 of 2013 in respect of Plot No.9 Sy No. 209 admeasuring 904.44 Sq Yards at Gopannapally

Village, Sherlingampally, RR District with its owners Mamatha and Others. Later A1 and A2 approached the Complainant/S.Sreedhar at his Office and induced him to 2 OF 9 C.C. No. 11384 OF 2020 purchase flats in complex proposed to be built by them in above property and he agreed to purchase Flat No. 101 admeasuring 2015 Sft and Flat No,. 102

Admeasuring 2005 Sft for sale consideration of Rs 50,00,000/- each and received

Rs. 25,00,000/- from complainant and executed agreement of sale Dt: 17-6-2015 in respect of flat No.101 and Rs. 15,00,000/- in respect of flat No.102 and executed agreement of sale Dt: 8-8-2015 and balance shall be paid at the time for registration, and accused agreed to complete entire construction work and deliver the said flats within 10 Months from the date of agreements which expired in June 2016.The work was very slow and accused has not completed the construction , A1 and A2 colluded with said Land owners and executed sale deeds Doc Nos. 9143 of 2016 in respect of Flat NO. 101 in favour of Sama Malleshwari and Doc No. 15719 of 2016 in respect of Flat NO. 102 infavour of P.Seshu Kumar and Anantha Govinda

Charyulu with them by showing lessor sale consideration of Rs. 30,23,000/- and 31,00,000/- for their wrongful gain and that A1 and A2 thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 406, 420 of IPC. Hence, the complaint.

3 Basing on the contents of the complaint LW9, Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No. 37/2020 under Sec 406, 420 IPC. LW10 Sub Inspector of Police examined and recorded the statement of witnesses, he visited scene of offence, conducted scene observation panchanama and also drawn rough sketch. On 30-1-2020 A1 and A2 voluntarily surrendered before him, and admitted their guilt, he collected the documents from LW8 , he issued 41A Cr.P.C. Notice to Accused and after completion of investigation he filed the chargesheet against A1 and A2 for the offence under Secs. 420, 406 of IPC.

4 This court took cognizance for the offence under Sec. 420, 406 of IPC. against A1 and A2.

5.On appearance of the A1 and A2 copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

3 OF 9 C.C. No. 11384 OF 2020 6 A1 and A2 were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. The substance of charge for offence under Sec. 420, 406 of IPC was framed, read over and explained to Accused for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7In this case prosecution examined as PW1 to 6 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.10 in support of the case.

8 After closure of prosecution evidence, A1 and A2 were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. they denied the incriminating material evidence found in the testimonies of PW1 to 6 and reported no defence on their behalf.

9 Heard arguments of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Defence Counsel.

10 Now the point for determination is

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of Accused for the offence under Secs. 420, 406 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

. Point :

11.To substantiate the case of the prosecution, prosecution examined PW1 to 6, Ex.P.1 to P.10 were marked in support to his case. PW1 is the Defacto Complainant, PW2, 3, 4 are the circumstantial witnesses, PW5 is the panch witness and PW6 is the Investigating officer.

12PW1 Defacto Complainant has deposed that, he entered into agreement of sale for purchasing Flat No. 101, RK Hormony Residency, Gopenpally, Sherlingampally Mandal, which was constructed by A1 and A2, for sale consideration of Rs. 50,00,000/- out of which he paid Rs. 25,00,000/- as advance on 17-6-2015 and they promised to handover the possession within one year . He also deposed that, he entered into agreement of sale of Flat No. 102 on 8-8-2015 and he paid advance of Rs. 15,00,000/- and construction was stopped at slab stage and he enquired with accused several times but they did not start the construction. He also deposed that, A1 did not receive his calls from 2015 to 2019 and was also not available at his house as informed by A2. He also deposed that, in the month of January 2019 he again went to construction place and enquired with the watchman, where he was informed that both the flats might had sold to some other persons and they were continuing the unfinished construction by themselves. PW1 also deposed that he immediately obtained the Certified copies of Flat No. 101, 102 which were sold to Malleshwari and Govindrajulu. Hence, he lodged complaint Ex.P.1. Ex.P.2 is the certified copy of registered saledeed No. 15719/2016. Ex.P.3 is certified copy of registered sale deed No. 9143/2016 . Ex.P.4 is the original 4 OF 9 C.C. No. 11384 OF 2020 agreement of sale cum GPA Dt: 17-6-2015. Ex.P.5 is the original memorandum of Understanding dt: 30-1-2020. Ex.P.6 is the original sale agreement cum GPA dt: 8-8-2015.

13PW1 in his cross examination has deposed that, he entered into agreement with A1 and A2 and land owners vide Ex.P.4 and P.6. He also admitted that as per the agreement the construction has to be completed within (10) months. Witness adds that construction was stopped by A1 and A2 and so he did not offer to pay the remaining balance sale consideration amount but he was ready to pay the amount after completion of construction and on the date of registration. He also deposed that he did not take any legal steps from 2015 to 2019. Witness adds that in the year 2019 he came to know about purchase of flats by 3rd parties and till that time A1 was dragging the matter. He also deposed that MOU/EX.P.5 was entered on 30-5-2020.

14PW3 has deposed that, his wife purchased Flat No. 101 RK Hormony Residency, Gopenpally, Sherlingampally Mandal, in the year 2015 and the same is still standing in the name of his wife.

15PW4 purchaser of Flat No. 102 also deposed the same of purchasing Flat No. 102 RK Hormony Residency, Gopenpally, Sherlingampally Mandal, in the year 2015 alongwith his wife and son. He also deposed since 2016 they have been in possession of that flats.

16As seen from the evidence on record and also 313 Cr.P.C. examination of the accused, it is an admitted fact that PW1 entered into agreement of sale with A1 who was the GPA holder of Mamatha, Madhuri, Upender Reddy and Venkat Narayana Reddy and A1 is the Managing Partner of R.K. Mytri Developers who was the developer of the property. As seen from the agreement of sale they offered to salel Flat No. 102, 101 and Ex.p,.4 was also executed by the same parties i.e. A1 who is the Managing Partner of R.K. Mytri Developers and Developer of the property cum GPA Holder of the owners with regard to Flat No. 101 and 102. The accused also admitted of executing Ex.P.4 and P.6 to PW1.

17Here in this case, A1 and A2 were charged for the offence under Sec. 420 of IPC where the dishonest and fraudulent intention has to be present from the inception stage and accused must induce the complainant for delivering of some property. Here it is not the case of the complainant that A1 and A2 had dishonest and fraudulent intention at the inception stage. The complaint averments also does not reveal that the accused had dishonest intention from the inception stage to cheat the complainant.

18Further, A1 and A2 were also charged for the offence under Sec. 406 of IPC.

Section 406 of IPC – INGREDIENTS

i) Entrusting any person with proeprty or with any dominion over that property ; ii) The person entrusted (a) dishonestly misappropriating or converting to his own use that property ; or

(b) dishonestly using or disposing of that property or willfully suffering any other person so to do in violation 5 OF 9 C.C. No. 11384 OF 2020

i) of any direction or law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or ii) of any legal contract made touching the discharge of such trust 19To attract the offence under Sec. 406 of IPC, there must be entrustment of the property having dominion over it and the same having been misappropriated or converted to his own use by accused person as required to be proved.

20In this case PW6/Investigating officer deposed of Investigation. In his cross examination he deposed that he did not shown R.K. Mytri Developers as accused in this case.

21PW5 panch for scene of offence deposed of Police conducting scene of offence panchanama.

22The Learned counsel for the accused has relied on the decision of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court reportedin Criminal Appeal No. 1395 of 2018 (Arisng out of

SLP (Crl.) No. 3730 of 2016) between ANAND KUMAR MOHATTA AND OTHERS

Vs. STATE (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Department of Home and Others Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “ The essence of the offence lies in the use of the property entrusted to a person by that person, in violation of any direction of law or any legal contract which he had made during the discharge of such trust” “ having given our anxious consideration, we are of the view that assuming that there is a security deposit of Rs. One Crore and that he has misappropriated the dispute between the two parties can only be civil dispute”.

23As per the above decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reported that the essence of the offence lies in the use of the property entrusted by the Defacto complainant to A1 in this case. As per the evidence it was the advance paid. It is his evidence that the property was sold by that itself he cannot say that the accused has misappropriated the amount. As discussed above this complainant has failed to issue any legal notice for asking the accused to register the property till 2019, even the possession was handedover by the accused to PW3 and PW4 family members in the year 2016 itself. Hence the above decision is applicable to the case on hand of the accused. Further in this case there was no entrustment of amount to A2 as her name was not referred in agreement of sale Ex.P.4 and P.6. However, the A2 name was reflected in MOU which was entered inbetween the parties of this case in which 6 OF 9 C.C. No. 11384 OF 2020 it was mentioned that A1 and A2 undertaken that they will settle the entire claim of 2nd party/Defacto complainant herein, In pursuance of above mentioned agreement within (80) days from the date of this MOU. The MOU was entered on 301-2020 where as this private complaint was filed on 30-8-2019 and it was received by the police on 25-1-2020 and FIR was issued. As per this MOU, this was subsequently executed after lodging complaint. Hence MOU is not helpful to the case of the complainant. Even the pleadings of MOU are taken into consideration it was mentioned that they will take steps to settle the claim within (80) days and in the same MOU it is also mentioned that 2nd party i.e. Complainant herein filed suit vide

OS No. 310/2019 on the file of XV ADJ, RR District for specific performance but there

is no document filed by the defacto complainant herein.

24The Learned counsel for the accused has also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reportedin Criminal Appeal No. 2060 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 39 of 2022), Criminal Appeal No. 2061 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) 4813 of 2022) and Criminal Appeal No. 2062 of 2022 (Arising out of

SLP (Crl.) No.7052 of 2022) between RAMESH CHANDRA GUPTA Vs. STATE OF

U.P. and OTHERS Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “ What it appears is that the defacto complainant has implicated the present Appellant being members of the family to put pressure for obtaining possession of the subject property and to settle the civil dispute which is pending between Vinod Kumar Gupta, Shravan

Kumar Gupta and the defacto complainant in original suit No. 91 of 2015”.

25The above decision is applicable to the case of the accused as A2 is not the party to this agreement of sale but she is party to MOU which is subsequent to the date of complaint. Hence there is no case made out against this A2 as she is not being the party to agreement of sale.

26The Learned counsel for the accused has also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reportedin Criminal Appeal No. 581 of 2023 between SARABJIT KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB and ANOTHER Wherein the

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “ A breach of contract does not give rise to

criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction”.

27The above decision is applicable to the case on hand as there is no evidence of cheating by accused from inception stage.

7 OF 9 C.C. No. 11384 OF 2020 28As seen from the evidence of PW1, PW1 has stated that they entered into agreement of sale in the year 2015, he lodged complaint in the year 2020 vide

Ex.P.1. He has deposed that, accused stopped the construction, as he tried to contact them several times, but A1 did not lift his calls from 2015 to 2019 and not available at his house, except the oral evidence there is no other corroborating evidence to the version of PW1.

29 It is also evident from the cross examination of PW1 that, he did not take any steps from 2015 to 2019 where he volunteers that in the year 2019 3rd parties purchased the Flat and he was informed by the watchman that purchasers were completing with the remaining unfinished work when they visited the site till then

A1 was dragging the matter. Where as PW4, one of the purchaser of Flat No,. 102 has deposed that they came into possession of Flat No. 102 in the year 2016. The sale deed marked through PW1 also shows that, sale deed was executed in 2016.

PW1 did not take any steps to establish his case by issuing any legal notice to A1 with regard to non completion of construction work within (10) Months as per the agreement. PW1 kept silent for (3) years. PW1 did not issue legal notice to the accused stating that, he was ready and willing to pay the remaining sale consideration as per the agreement of sale Ex.P.5 and P.6 immediately after completion of construction work. PW1 in his evidence simply stated that accused did not lift his calls. Moreover, PW4 stated that they came into possession of the flat in the year 2016 which proves through sale deeds marked by PW1 himself, it raises doubt with regard to the verasity of PW1. The purchasers after registration of the flat in their names they will come into the possession on the date of registration.

Ex.P.2 and P.3 contents also reveals that PW3 and 4 families came into the possession of the purchased flats , if the version of Pw1 was true, then definitely he could had seen PW3 and 4 in possession of the said flats in the year 2016 itself. The version of PW1 that A1 is not available, does not seems to be reliable as flats were occupied by PW3 and 4 in the year 2016. It is also not his complaint that PW3 and 4 occupied the flats in the year 2016. The complaint was lodged in the year 2019, then how come PW1 was silent from 2016 to 2019. it is also un reliable that he is unaware of these facts till 2019 till he was informed by the watchman.

30There is no allegation in the complaint of any mis appropriation of entrustment amount. Further the case facts reveals that there was agreement between the parties and it was not complied in terms of the agreement. There is also no evidence to establish that PW1 was ready with remaining sale consideration amount and it is his evidence that the construction was stopped at slab stage, There is no 8 OF 9 C.C. No. 11384 OF 2020 documentary evidence to prove the same. Even the registered sale deed executed in favour of PW3 and 4 also reflects that semi finishing in 2016. However the construction of flats depends on understanding inbetween the parties, with regard to unfinished work. It is not elicited or question was not put to PW3 and PW4 of that unfinished work.

31As seen from the evidence on record, there is no evidence of any mis appropriation or converting the same, as it is legal contract between the parties, both parties have to comply the agreement. Whereas PW1 has failed to show of having sale consideration amount and PW1 also failed to show that he had issued

Legal notice asking the accused for registration from 2016 to 2019. As per the complaint avements in the year 2019 also PW1 did not issue any Legal Notice of his readyness to pay the balance sale consideration amount. In these circumstances, prosecution has literally failed to prove the case against the accused for the offence under Sec. under Secs. 420, 406 of IPC , beyond all reasonable doubt.

32In the result, the A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence under Sec. 420, 406 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted under Sec. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of the appeal time as per Sec. 437 of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in

the open Court on this the 26 th day of April, 2024 .

IX ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

WITNESSES EXAMINED:

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1 : S.Sridhar PW2 : Venkateshwarlu PW3 : Sudhakar Reddy PW4 : Govinda Chary PW5 : D.Ravi Kuamr PW6 : V.Kishore

FOR DEFENCE: NIL 9 OF 9 C.C. No. 11384 OF 2020

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1 Complaint Ex.P.2 Certified copy of registered saledeed No. 15719/2016 Ex.P.3 Certified copy of registered sale deed No. 9143/2016 Ex.P.4 Original agreement of sale cum GPA Dt: 17-6-2015 Ex.P.5 Original memorandum of Understanding dt: 30-1-2020 Ex.P.6 Original sale agreement cum GPA dt: 8-8-2015 Ex.P.7 61 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW2 Ex.P.8 Panchanama Ex.P.9 Rough Sketch Ex.P.10 First Information Report

FOR DEFENCE:

NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Nil

IX ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.

1 of 13 CC NO.111/2016

IN THE COURT OF THE XV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT:- SRI. G.UDAY BHASKAR RAO,

XV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

DATED THIS THE 21 st DAY OF MARCH, 2025

CC.No.111 OF 2016

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

AND

A1 : B Sumanth Goud, S/o.B.Jaya Shankar, Age : 30 years, Occ : Physiotherapist,

A2 : B Rajasree, W/o.B.Jaya Shankar, Age: 52 years, Occ : Household,

A3 : B Jaya Shankar, S/o.Venkata Swamy, Age : 62 years, Occ : Retired Employee,

All above are R/o.H.No.4-8-8/4, Manjeera Nagar, Sanga Reddy (Tq), Medak District. …… Accused No.1 to 3

This case coming before me for final hearing on 20-03-2025 in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State and M.S.Khan, Advocate, learned counsel for the accused and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

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

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, WPS, South Zone, Hyderabad, filed charge sheet in Cr.No.11 of 2016 for the offences punishable under secs.

498-A, 406, 509 of IPC, Sec 4 and 6 of DP Act against the accused.

2 of 13 CC NO.111/2016

2. The brief facts of the cases are as follows:--

(i) The case of the prosecution is that the marriage of B Deepika / Defacto complainant/LW1 was held with A1. The LW-1 parents fulfilled all the demands of A-1 and his family members. Soon after marriage A-1 to A-3 started harassing LW-1 physically and mentally and pickup quarrels with

LW-1 on petty issues and beat LW-1 mercilessly and blamed her character and A1 openly stated that, he is not interested on LW-1 and insulted and quarreling with her on many occasions and further did not allowed LW1 to use her cell phone and further accused demanded additional dowry and necked LW1 to her parents house. Hence, requested to take action against the accused.

(ii) Basing on the above report, the LW-5/P Rukmini, Sub Inspector of

Police, WPS, South Zone, Hyderabad registered this case in Cr. No.11 of 2016 under section 498-A, 406, 509 of IPC, Sec 4 and 6 of DP Act. During the course of investigation, caused enquiries and recorded the statements of witnesses, collected relevant documents and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet.

3.This court took cognizance for the offences under sections 498-A, 406, 509 of IPC, Sec 4 and 6 of DP Act against the Accused.

3 of 13 CC NO.111/2016

4.The copies of the documents were furnished to Accused as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Accused were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C. for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the offences under section 498-A, 406, 509 of IPC, Sec 4 and 6 of DP Act. Hence, charges for aforesaid offence were framed and its contents read over and explained to Accused in vernacular language.

6.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 3 and got marked the documents Exs.P1 to P22. The evidence of Lws.3 and 4 is closed. Exs.D1 to D4 are marked on behalf of the defence.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the Accused were examined under Section 313 (b) of Cr.P.C. They denied the evidence and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard the arguments of Learned APP and counsel for the accused.

Learned APP filed written arguments.

9.Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable

doubt for the offences punishable U/s 498-A, 406, 509 of IPC,

Sec 4 and 6 of DP Act against the Accused ?

4 of 13 CC NO.111/2016

POINT 10.In this case, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 3. PW1 is the defacto complainant, PW2 is the mother of PW1, and PW3 is the investigating officer.

11.PW1 deposed that she was married to A1 in May 2013. She further stated that during their engagement, the accused demanded dowry in the form of house construction, for which her father gave Rs.5 lakhs by cheque and Rs.5 lakhs in cash to A3 on 03.05.2013. She also testified that A1 demanded a Yamaha bike, for which her father gave Rs.90,000/- to A1 on 11.04.2013. Additionally, she claimed that her parents presented 25 tulas of gold, furniture, and household articles.

12.PW2 deposed similarly, stating that they gave Rs.10 lakhs—Rs.5 lakhs in cash and Rs.5 lakhs by cheque along with 25 tulas of gold and household items to A1.

13.During cross-examination, PW1 stated that she did not remember whether she had mentioned in her 161 Cr.P.C. statement that her parents had presented Rs.5 lakhs by cheque, furniture, household articles, a two- wheeler bike, 15 tulas of gold, Rs.1 lakh in cash, and one tula of

Adapaduchu Katnam, which was confronted to her as per Ex.D1.

5 of 13 CC NO.111/2016 14.PW3, the investigating officer, in his cross-examination, was referred to the same statement of PW1 concerning the presentation of dowry. He admitted that PW1 stated in her 161 Cr.P.C. statement as recorded in

Ex.D1. PW3 was also confronted with PW1’s deposition regarding dowry, where he stated that PW1 did not mention the same in her 161 Cr.P.C.

statement, which is contrary to what she deposed in chief examination.

15.Even otherwise, the prosecution has failed to substantiate any of its claims. There is no cogent or convincing evidence, as there is no documentary proof regarding the presentation of dowry. Furthermore,

PW1’s deposition contains contradictions when compared with her 161

Cr.P.C. statement (Ex.D1) regarding the alleged dowry. The prosecution has also failed to establish that the accused demanded dowry either for house construction or in relation to the marriage.

16.Moreover, there is no convincing evidence that the dowry was actually presented by PW1’s parents. Notably, PW1’s father—who allegedly gave the dowry—was not examined in this case. Therefore, the prosecution has clearly failed to prove the demand and presentation of dowry.

17.PW1 further deposed that the harassment started from the second day of their marriage due to the presentation of less dowry. She also claimed that she was not taken care of by the accused. It is also her 6 of 13 CC NO.111/2016 evidence that the accused harassed her by saying that they had received a marriage proposal from an MLA's family who were ready to offer Rs. 50 lakhs as dowry.

18.She further deposed that a panchayat was held within 10 days of their marriage regarding physical harassment, during which the accused made allegations that she was having an illegal relationship with another person.

19.During her cross-examination, PW1 stated that A2 and her father are own brother and sister. She also stated that her parents reside in

Hyderabad and she studied at Karuna School in Sangareddy. She further deposed that after A3's transfer to Siddipet, they shifted there, and she studied 6th and 7th classes in Siddipet. She also stated that A1 stayed in her house for one year to complete his graduation.

20.The evidence of PW1 clearly discloses that they are blood relatives and had a cordial relationship prior to their marriage. PW1's allegation that the accused harassed her by referring to a marriage proposal from an MLA who was ready to give Rs. 50 lakhs as dowry does not seem reliable.

Furthermore, this version is not corroborated by PW2. There is also no cogent and convincing evidence to establish the said fact.

7 of 13 CC NO.111/2016 21.She also deposed that a panchayat was held, but none of the panchayat elders were examined to substantiate her claim. Hence, the alleged claim of harassment over an earlier marriage proposal appears to be false.

22.PW1 also claimed that she was harassed due to the insufficient dowry and also attached of having an illicit relationship. In her cross- examination, PW1 stated that A1 informed her that he received a call from an unknown person asking him to cancel the marriage with PW1, alleging that he (Anish Reddy) had an affair with her. She also deposed that A1 informed her of the call and even showed her the contact number, but this was deposed by her only in the MC case. She further stated that she did not lodge any complaint against the unknown person. The witness added that A1 asked her not to reveal this to anyone.

23.PW2 also deposed that A1 harassed PW1 by suspecting her character.

PW1 also deposed that a panchayat was held, during which A1 raised allegations of her having an illicit relationship with another person. The matter was settled and she rejoined him. However, PW2 deposed that the panchayat was held because PW1 was sent out of the house due to a demand for additional dowry of Rs. 10 lakhs. PW2 did not mention that the accused made allegations of illicit relationships during the panchayat.

8 of 13 CC NO.111/2016 24.Further, PW2 consistently stated that the accused suspected PW1’s character. During cross-examination, PW2 said that after PW1's marriage, a panchayat was held regarding the issue of Avinash Reddy. She denied the suggestion that A1 had informed her of a phone call from Avinash Reddy

before the marriage.

25.According to the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, the panchayat was held immediately after the marriage. It is also an admitted fact that the issue of

Avinash Reddy was discussed. PW1 claimed that the accused alleged she had an illicit relationship with another person, and she did not deny having a relationship with Avinash Reddy. However, PWs 1 and 2 did not explain the outcome of the panchayat held over the issue of Avinash Reddy.

Moreover, the prosecution did not examine any of the panchayat elders to prove that PW1 was harassed for additional dowry or on allegations of an illicit relationship. As such, the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is not cogent or convincing regarding the alleged claims.

26.Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove that the panchayat was held solely due to harassment by the accused. Furthermore, PW1 also stated that she rejoined her husband after a settlement. It is not her case that A1 continued to harass her by alleging an illicit relationship with another person.

9 of 13 CC NO.111/2016

27.PW1 also deposed that in the month of June 2013, she went to the

Bonalu festival, and A1's family commented that she had gone to her parents' house to continue an illicit relationship. She also stated that her parents asked the accused to send her back, to which they replied that she might elope with someone and dropped her at her parents’ house.

28.During cross-examination, she was confronted with her 161 Cr.P.C.

statement, where these facts were not mentioned. Even though she denied the suggestion, the investigating officer (PW3) admitted that this was not referred to in her 161 Cr.P.C. statement or complaint. Therefore, this is considered a material omission elicited by the defence counsel.

29.PW1 further deposed that the accused used to make derogatory remarks, claiming that B.Tech students would conceive and abort their pregnancies. This statement was also brought up during cross examination, and it was pointed out that it was not mentioned in her 161

Cr.P.C. statement. Furthermore, PW3 confirmed that she had not mentioned this in her statement, which again amounts to a material omission.

30.She also deposed that in October 2023, she returned home, at which time her father-in-law remarked that the house was like a lodge, where people come and go. She stated that for four days she was not provided 10 of 13 CC NO.111/2016 proper food and was thrown out of the house, along with her paternal grandmother.

31.She also stated that a panchayat was held, during which her character was defamed by false allegations. She further deposed that she lodged a complaint in Sangareddy at Chatrinaka Police Station. As discussed, the panchayat elders were not examined, which is detrimental to the prosecution's case. If they had been examined, the real facts might have emerged.

32.PW1's evidence is neither cogent nor convincing regarding any of the allegations. Moreover, there are no independent witnesses to support her claims. During cross-examination, PW1 also admitted that she stayed in her matrimonial home for two months and thereon, she has been residing at her parents' house.

33.She stated in Exhibit P16, a complaint lodged at Sangareddy Police

Station, that she was expelled from her home 15 days prior to lodging the complaint. The documents relied on by PW1 (Exhibits P3 to P20) include:

Exs. P3, P4, and P5: related to divorce proceedings filed in 2017. Exs. P6,

P7: related to DVC appeal. Ex. P8: related to HMOP. Ex. P9: FCOP order.

Exs. P10, P11, P13: related to OP 966/2014. Exs. P14, P15: related to MC.

Ex. P5: divorce order where divorce was granted. Ex. P6: DVC appeal partly 11 of 13 CC NO.111/2016 allowed, Ex. P7: MOU entered by the parties, which also does not support the prosecution as it reflects a marital settlement. Ex. P14: MC order related to maintenance. Ex. P17: complaint to the Legal Services Authority.

Exs. P18, P19, P20: not supportive of the prosecution’s case. All these documents are not helpful to prosecution as discussed above.

34.PW3, the investigating officer, during cross-examination, admitted that he did not collect any receipts or documents proving the presentation of dowry. He was also confronted with Exhibits D1 to D3, which were said to have been mentioned by PW1 in her 161 Cr.P.C. statement.

35.The prosecution has failed to substantiate any of the claims. Despite serious allegations being made against the accused, the investigating officer conducted an improper investigation, as shown by his testimony—he neither visited the crime scene nor examined the neighbours. Relatives and neighbours of A1, as well as panchayat elders, who are material witnesses, yet they were not examined.

36.The evidence of PW1 and PW2 lacks corroboration from independent witnesses and is not cogent, convincing, or trustworthy with respect to any of the allegations. Hence, all the accused are entitled to acquittal.

37. In the result, Accused Nos.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences under Sec. 498-A, 406, 509 of IPC, Sec 4 and 6 of DP Act. Accordingly, they 12 of 13 CC NO.111/2016 are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused shall be canceled after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 21 st day of March, 2025.

XV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

PW1 : Deepika- None- PW2 : Shyamala PW3 : P Rukmini

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 : Complaint Ex P2 : Wedding card. Ex P3 : CC of the divorce petition in OP 1636/17 Ex P4 : CC of counter in OP 1636/17 Ex P5 : CC of order in OP 1636/17 Ex P6 : CC of order in DVC appeal no.371/19 Ex P7 : CC of MOU dated 21-02-2015 in DVC appeal no.371/1 Ex P8 : CC of petition in HMOP 19/15 Ex P9 : CC of order FCOP 419/16 Ex P10 : CC of petition in OP 966/14 Ex P11 : CC of docket order in OP 966/14 Ex P12 : 65 B certificate Ex P13 : CC of Memo in OP 966/14 Ex P14 : CC of Order in MC 480/16 Ex P15 : CC of counter in MC 480/16 Ex P16 : CC of complaint filed before Inspector of Police Sangareddy Ex P17 : CC of complaint before Legal service Authority Ex P18 : CC of Memo filed by respondent in PLC.

13 of 13 CC NO.111/2016

Ex P19 : CC of docket order 30 Aug 2014 in PLC. Ex P20 : CC of counter and affidavit in OP 419/16 Ex.P21 : FIR Ex.P22 : Photograph

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

Exs.D1 to D3 : Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1. Ex.D4 : Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- NIL -

Sd/-

XV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

//True copy//

1C.C.No. 301 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF IX ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, HYDERABAD.

PRESENT:: SRI. G. UDAY BHASKAR RAO IX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

DATED THIS THE 25 th DAY OF APRIL, 2024

C.C.No. 301 of 2019

Between:

The State through The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Chikkadpally Hyderabad. ` … Complainant

AND

A1 Smt Andalu W/o D.Ashok Aged - 52 years, Occ: Vegetable Vendor R/o. 1-9-1113/27/366, Nagamaiah Kunta Hyderabad

A2 Anil @ Janu S/o – D.Ashok Aged - 27 years, Occ: Vegetable Vendor R/o. 1-9-1113/27/366, Nagamaiah Kunta Hyderabad … A1 & A2

This case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public prosecutor for the State and Sri A.Ramesh Babu, the learned Counsel for the Accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following .

J U D G M E N T

1The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad, filed charge sheet against the A1 and A2 in Cr.No. 233 of 2018 for the offence punishable under Section 324, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (in short “IPC”).

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

i) That LW3/Sai Kumar deposed in his statement in Cr.No. 191/2008 under

Sec 324 r/w 34 IPC registered against A1 and A2 and others on the complaint of

Venkatesh in Chikkadpally Police Station. As such on 17-6-2018 evening 1700 2 Of 8 C.C.No. 301 of 2019 hours while LW3 was present infront of his house, A2 abused him in filthy language by saying YOU DEPOSED STATEMENT AGAINST US and hold his testicals for which LW3 fell down, LW1 and 4 came there for rescue but A1 and A2 beat them with hands. In view of the above issue again on 18-6-2018 A1 and A2 picked up quarrel with LW2, 4 meanwhile LW1 came there, all of a sudden A1 beat him on his head with a stone for which LW1 ran away into

LW5/Sarojanamma house to rescue himself .Further LW4 went to rescue LW1 meanwhile A1 beat her with brick due to which they received injuries and that accused thereby committed offences under Sections 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

Hence the complaint.

ii) Basing on the contents of the complaint LW9/Sri Bala Raju, Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No. 233/2018 for the offence under Sec. 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. He examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, he referred LW1 and 4 to Gandhi Hospital. Later LW10/V.Eswara Rao, Sub Inspector of

Police visited scene of offence , he issued 41A Cr.P.C. Notice to accused, he collected Medical certificate of lW1 and 4 from LW8/Dr Madhukar who opined that the injuries sustained by LW1 and 4 are SIMPLE IN NATURE. In this case as the role of A3 D.Shiva was not established, as such his name was deleted from

Chargesheet. and after completion of investigation he filed the chargesheet against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence under Secs. 324, 506 r/w 34 of

IPC.

3. This court took cognizance for the offence under Sec. 324, 506 r/w 34 of

IPC against the A1 and A2.

4. On appearance of the A1 and A2 copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

3 Of 8 C.C.No. 301 of 2019

5. A1 and A2 were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. The substance of charge for offence under Section 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC was framed, read over and explained to Accused for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In this case PW1 to PW6 were examined and got marked Ex.P.1 to 7 , MO1 stone in support of the case of the prosecution.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, A1 and A2 were examined under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C. they denied the incriminating material evidence found in the testimonies of PW1 to PW6 and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8. Heard arguments of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Defence

Counsel.

9.Now the point for determination is

Whether the prosecution has proved that A1 and A2 have committed

an offence punishable under Sections 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC , beyond all reasonable doubt?

Point:

10.The A1 and A2 are charged for the offence under Secs. 324, 506 r/w 34 of

IPC. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 6, Ex.P.1 to P.7 and MO1 were marked in support to the case of the prosecution.

11PW1 is the Defacto complainant, PW2 is the eye witness, PW3 is the panch for scene of offence, PW4 is the Doctor and PW5 and 6 are the Investigating officers.

12PW1 has deposed that, LW2 to 4 are his family members and LW5 resides in their colony. PW1 has deposed that, on 17-6-2018 at 4.30 p.m. A1 caught hold 4 Of 8 C.C.No. 301 of 2019 the testicles of his brother Sai, as he came to know about the same he immediately rushed to that place, which is near to his house and rescued his brother. PW1 also deposed that, he alongwith his brother went to the Police

Station and lodged complaint. He further deposed that, on 18-6-2018 at 6.00 p.m.

as he reached his house he found all accused creating galata at his house and he was parking his vehicle. PW1 further deposed that, Shiva came to him by seeing him stating that “ you have lodged complaint against us, How dare are you “ and caught hold his collar. PW1 further deposed that, A2/Anil beat him with a stone on his head (Center part of head). PW1 further deposed that, he ran away from that place and hid himself in the house of Sarojanamma, all accused entered into her house saying that “ how she allowed Shekar/PW1 into the house and saying that they have broken the TV of LW5. PW1 further deposed that, he escaped from that house and went to Police station, Police referred him to hospital by seeing his bleeding injuries. PW1 further deposed that, A1 also beat his mother with a brick on her head.

13PW1 in his cross examination has deposed that, accused were into vegetable business and he do not know their business timings. PW1 was suggested that no such incident took place and there was no assault and the same was denied by him. The evidence of PW1 is totally cogent and convincing and there is no evidence to discredit his testimony.

14PW2 Brother of PW1 has deposed that on 17-11-2018 at about 5.30 p.m./ while he was standing infront of his house, A1 abused as LANJA

KODUKULU BADDUKOVLU and went infront of him by spitting, When he questioned as to whom she was scolding, for which she slapped him and squeezed his testicles. PW1 also deposed that, for that he, lodged complaint. He also deposed that, he was referred to Gandhi and returned home. PW2 further deposed that, on the same day A1 and A2 alongwith family members came to his house at 7.30 p.m. and abused “Why he lodged complaint” for which PW1 sent them from his house by threatening them. PW2 further deposed that, on the next day at 12.30 p.m. PW1 came to his house alongwith his son on bike, at that time

A2 hit with a flat stone on his head, due to which he received injury on his head and got fractured , as they were trying to hit him again, PW1 fled into the house of Sarojanamma. PW2 further deposed that, Shiva also pelted bricks at him.

Hence they lodged complaint.

15PW2 in his cross examination, has denied the suggestion that, in-sorder to extract the money, they filed false complaint and they denied the suggest that A1 and A2 did not assault PW1.

5 Of 8 C.C.No. 301 of 2019 16PW3 panch for scene of offence turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.

17PW4 has deposed, before this court that, on 18-6-2018 at 9.10 p.m. on requisition by police he examined Bhagyakka and found 1) Contusion 5x5 Cms over occipital scalp and injury is simple inflicted with blunt object and issued MC

Ex.P.3. He also examined Shekar at 10.04 p.m. and found 1) laceration on scalp 5x0, 5x0.5 Cms 2) Abration of 3x2 Cms over shin of right , simple in nature inflicted with Marble stone and issued MC Ex.P.4. The injuries of PW1 is tallying as deposed by PW1.

18PW5 deposed of investigation. In his cross examination he deposed that It is true the incident took place one day prior to lodging complaint. Witness adds that the incident took place at 18.30 hours and injured came to the Police station with the injuries in the night hours. PW1 also deposed that he was referred to hospital by the police by seeing his injuries, He also deposed the reasons for disputes is not mentioned in the complaint. Further in this case MO1 - Stone was marked through the Investigating officer.

19Further, PW6 another Investigating officer deposed that he did not mention in the chargsheet when the injured was referred to the hospital.

20As seen from the evidence on record, PW1 has deposed that A2 hit him with stone on his head and the same is corroborating with Medical Certificate. Further,

Investigating officer also deposed that the injured came to the Police Station in the night hours with injuries. PW1 also deposed that, he was referred to the hospital by the police by seeing his injuries. The evidence of PW2 brother of

PW1 is corroborating to the evidence of PW1.

21The Learned for the accused has failed to elicit any material omissions or improvised version in the evidence of PW1 and 2. The evidence of PW1 and 2 coupled with the evidence of PW4/Doctor and Investigating Officers PW5 and 6 is corroborating with all points as deposed by PW1. Further, in this case MO1 –

Stone was also marked. As seen from the injuries, PW4 deposed that the injuries are SIMPLE IN NATURE.

22As seen from the evidence on record, PW1 has deposed of assault by

A2/Anil and with regard to A1 involvement PW1 and 2 did not depose anything 6 Of 8 C.C.No. 301 of 2019 against A1, except the incident which took place earlier for which PW2 has lodged complaint against A1. As seen from the evidence, PW1 has deposed that A1 beat his mother with brick. However, LW4 mother of PW1 was not examined in this case. Even though summons were served to LW4, she did not turnup to give evidence in her own case, hence her evidence was closed. Hence in this regard there is no case made out against A1, hence she is entitled for acquittal for the offence under Sec. 324 , 506 of IPC.

23In-order to attract the offence under Sec. 324 of IPC,

The essential ingredients of Sec. 324 of IPC

i) that the accused caused grievous hurt to any person, that such hurt was caused voluntarily.

ii) that such hurt was caused voluntarily iii) that such grevious hurt (as contemplated under Sec. 320 ) was caused by any means given under Section 324 IPC.

24As in this case there are no grevious injuries. Hence prosecution has failed to prove the case against A1 and A2 for the offence under Sec. 324 of IPC. Hence

A1 and A2 are entitled for acquittal for the offence under Sec. 324 of IPC.

However, the evidence on record, attracts the offence under Sec. 323 of IPC which is a minor to the offence under Sec. 324 of IPC. Hence prosecution proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt against A2 only for the offence under Sec.

323 of IPC.

25The essential ingredients to punish under Sec. 506 of IPC is that

An act committed by the accused has caused alaram to the person and also cause such person to do any act which is not legally bound to do.

26As seen from the evidence on record, the evidence of PW1 and 2 establishes the offence under Sec. 506 of IPC and the evidence on record also attracts the offence under Sec. 323 of IPC against A2.

7 Of 8 C.C.No. 301 of 2019 27The prosecution has proved the case against A2 for the offence under Sec 323 , 506 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, A2 is convicted under

Sec.248(2) of Cr.P.C. for the offence under Sec. 323, 506 of IPC. A1 is found not guilty for the offence under Sec. 324, 506 of IPC and accordingly she is acquitted under Sec. 248(1) of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the

open Court on this the 25 th day of April, 2024 .

IX ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.

28Heard the A2 with regard to the quantum of sentence. The A2 submitted that his family is depending on him and prayed this court to take lenient view in- respect of passing sentence but in view of the severity of the offence, he is not entitled to get any lenient view under the provisions of P.O Act.

29In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offence under Sec. 324, 506 of

IPC and accordingly she is acquitted under Sec. 248(1) of Cr.P.C. A2 is found guilty for the offence under Sec. 323, 506 of IPC and accordingly he is convicted under Sec. 248(2) of Cr.P.C.

30After hearing the A2 with regard to the quantum of sentence and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, A2 is convicted under Sec.

248(2) of Cr.P.C for the offence under section 323, 506 of Indian Penal Code . The

A2 is sentenced to undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of ONE YEAR for the offence under Sec.323 of IPC and A2 is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.

2,000/-( Rupees Two Thousand only) for the offence under Sec. 506 of

IPC and in default of payment of fine he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of (3) Months. The remand period already undergone by A2, if any, shall be set of under Sec. 428 of Cr.P.C. The A2 is informed about his right to appeal

before the Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad against the judgment

passed by this court and also he is informed about his right to take free legal aid in preferring to appeal and free copy of judgment is furnished to him.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the

open Court on this the 25 th day of April, 2024 .

IX ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.

8 Of 8 C.C.No. 301 of 2019

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

WITNESSES EXAMINED:

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1 : P.Shekar

PW2 : Sai Kumar

PW3 : Jhangir

PW4 : S.Madhukar

PW5 : P.Balraj

PW6 : V.Eshwara Rao

FOR DEFENCE: NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1 Complaint

Ex.P.2 Signature of PW3 on Panchanama

Ex.P3 Medical Certificate of Bhaghyakka

Ex.P.4 Medical Certificate of Shekar

Ex.P.5 First Information Report

Ex.P.6 Scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P.7 Rough Sketch

FOR DEFENCE:

NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1 Stone NIL

IX ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.

9 Of 8 C.C.No. 301 of 2019

1 OF

1 C.C. No. 17057 OF 2019

IN THE COURT OF IX ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, HYDERABAD.

PRESENT:: SRI. G. UDAY BHASKAR RAO

IX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Hyderabad.

DATED THIS THE 26 th DAY OF APRIL, 2024

C.C. No. 17057 OF 2019

Between:

The State through The Sub Inspector of Police Chikkadpally Police Station Hyderabad. … Complainant

A N D

J.Siddi Ramulu S/o. J.Narayana Aged – 56 Yrs., Occ – LIC Agent and Fake Doctor at Premises No. 1-8-106/A, Beside Vyshnavi Paper Lane Old PG Aroro College, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad R/o. Flat No.16, Apoorva Enclave, HIG 2 Block No.13 Bagh Lingampally, Hyderabad … Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri G.Chandra Mohan, Leaned Counsel for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad has filed chargesheet against the accused for the offence under Sections 336, 419, 420, 468, 471, 472 of Indian penal

Code ( in short “IPC”), in Cr.No.32/2019.

2. The brief facts of the case is as follows:

(i) That accused was working as Compounder under LW7/Dr A.Prem Sagar from 2008 to 2016. As LW7 was 68 Years he stopped the Profession by leaving he furniture, Medical equipments in the same premises at Bagh Lingampally, Hyderabad. Accused took advantage, shifted the furniture and equipements to H.No. 1-8-106/A, bahg Lingampally and started examining the patients as Doctor without name to the Clinic and also providing medical fitness certificates to the needy on the name of Dr Prem Sagar, MBBS Reg No. 9037 and DR Venkatarama Reg No. 94552 for five years by collecting Rs. 50/- per patient and by

2 Of 6 C.C. No. 17057 OF 2019

using the Rubber stamp of DR Prem Sagar and that Accused thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 336, 419, 420, 468, 471, 472 of IPC. Hence, the complaint.

3 Basing on the contents of the complaint LW14, Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No. 32/2019 under Sec 336, 419, 420, 468, 471, 472 IPC. LW15 Sub Inspector of

Police examined and recorded the statement of witnesses, visited Scene of offence, conducted scene observation panchanama and drafted rough sketch and seized Rs. 900/- ,

One Vivo Cellphone, Fake certificates, some tablets, Thermometer, Stethoscope , Medical prescription books, stamps on the name of Dr Prem Sagar, MBBS and Dr Venkataramana under cover of seizure panchanama , effected his arrest and produced him before the court for judicial custody and after completion of investigation he filed the chargesheet against

Accused for the offence under Sec. 336, 419, 420, 468, 471, 472 of IPC.

4 This court took cognizance for the offence under Sec. 336, 419, 420, 468, 471, 472 of IPC. against Accused.

5.On appearance of the Accused copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

6 Accused was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. The substance of charge for offence under Sec. 336, 419, 420, 468, 471, 472 of IPC was framed, read over and explained to Accused for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7In this case prosecution examined as PW1 to 7 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 8 , MO1 to 8 in support of the case.

8 After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused was examined under Section 313 of

Cr.P.C. he denied the incriminating material evidence found in the testimony of PW1 to 7 and reported no defence on his behalf.

9 Heard arguments of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Defence Counsel.

3 Of 6 C.C. No. 17057 OF 2019

10 Now the point for determination is

i) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of Accused for the offence under Secs. 336, 419, 420, 468, 471, 472 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

. Point :

11.To substantiate the case of the prosecution, prosecution examined PW1 to 7, Ex.P.1 and P.8 and MO1 to 8 were marked in support to his case. PW1 and 2 are the witnesses to this case, they turned hostile and did not supported the case of the prosecution. PW3 is the Registrar, Telangana State Medial Council wherein he deposed that Police asked about the particulars of Dr Prem Sagar with Reg No. 9037 on whose name accused issued Medical Certificates. And also the particulars of Dr K.Venkata Ramana with Reg No. 94552. The Investigating officer asked for the genuineness of the both registrations for which he submitted report Vide Ex.P.4 stating that Dr Chalmaji was registered with No.94552 MBBS and the name of Dr Venkata Ramana with Reg NO. 94552 was not genuine.

12PW4 is the Owner of the premises, where the accused was running the clinic, did not support the case of the prosecution.

13PW5/Investigating Officer deposed that on 30-1-2019 on reliable information he alongwith LW11 and 12 went to the scene of offence at Old PG Arora College, Bagh Lingampally, where they found accused giving treatment to the patients, on interrogation he confessed that he was running the clinic for the last five years without licence, upon which he seized MO1 to 8 under the cover of panchanama Ex.P.6 and then he lodged the complaint.

14PW6 panch for scene of offence deposed that Police called him to scene of offence at Chikkadpally where he found one person in the custody of Police, where the accused revealed his name as Siddi Ramulu running Clinic in the name of Dr Vidyasagar and issuing fake certificate to the needy people and also providing treatment as Doctor. Police seized MO1 to 8 in his presence, under the cover of scene of offence and confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P.6.

15PW7 and 8 Investigating officers deposed of investigation in this case.

16As seen from the evidence on record, it was PW1 who received reliable information and the accused confessed in the presence of panchas and Police seized MO1 to 8 in the presence of panchas.

17In this case, PW4 stated that he was the owner of the premises where accused was running the Clinic. He did not supported the case of the prosecution and he was declared hostile. Further, the witnesses PW1 and 2 also turned hostile. The whole case rests on the evidence of PW6 and 7.

4 Of 6 C.C. No. 17057 OF 2019

18In this case the owner of the premises did not supported the case of the prosecution. The Investigating officer failed to examine any of the victims of the accused to whom he had given treatment by acting as a Doctor. Further, prosecution marked the Medical certificate in the name of Dr Prem Sagar with Reg NO. 9037 where as PW4 deposed that registration No,. 945523 which is not relevant to MO8 fake certificate which are in the name of Dr Prem Sagar. Further, the person to whom this fake Medical Certificate was issued was not cited as witness. The panch for confession cum seizure deposed of accused confession that he was acting as a Doctor, whereas he deposed that Police seized MO1 to 8 from the Clinic, but it is not his evidence that these MO1 to 8 were seized upon the confession of the accused as crucial evidence was missing to connect the seizure with the confession stating that the accused used MO1 to 8 in his practice. Furthermore, as these MOs are easily available in the market and accused was projected as Doctor, it is for the prosecution to examine the patients, to whom accused treated. There is also no evidence of any written prescriptions issued by the accused to the patients. MO8 fake Medical certificate cannot be linked to the accused as there is no proof to show that it was issued by the accused as the beneficiaries were not examined in this case . Hence the evidence of PW5 who conducted search and seized MO1 to 8 is not reliable.

19In this case the neighbours of the Clinic were not examined by the Investigating officer and also the photographs of the Clinic were not obtained by the Investigating Officer The entire investigation was done by PW5 and relying on that PW8 filed the chargesheet. He failed to examine the neighbours and obtained the photographs of the Clinic, he also failed to examine the victims to connect the seized items to the accused.

20The accused was charged for the offence U/s 420 IPC.

To establish the offence of cheating in inducing the delivery of property, the following ingredients need to be proved:- i. The representation made by the person was false.

ii. The accused had prior knowledge that the representation he made was false.

iii. The accused made false representation with dishonest intention in order to deceive the person to whom it was made.

iv. The act where the accused induced the person to deliver the property or to perform or to abstant from any act which the person would have not done or had otherwise committed.

21 The accused was also charged for the offence under Sec. 468 of IPC. The

basic ingredients to establish the offence under Sec. 468 IPC

a) Essential Ingredients – An offence under this Section has following essentials

i) That the accused committed forgery

ii) That he did so, intending that the documernt or (electronic record) forged

shall harm the reputation of any party or knowing that it is likely to be used for

that purpose.

5 Of 6 C.C. No. 17057 OF 2019

Sec. 471 of IPC 

a) Essential Ingredients – An offence under this Section has following essentials

: 

i) Fraudulent or dishonest use of a document as genuine

ii) The person using it must have knowledge or reason to believe that the

document is forged one 

22 The prosecution has literally faield to prove that accused had dishonest

and fraudulent intention from the inception stage and used the fake/forged

medical certificates as genuine knowing them to forged at the time of using.

Prosecution also literally failed to prove the case against the accused for the offence under Secs. 336, 419, 420, 468, 471, 472 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt.

23In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sec. 336, 419, 420, 468, 471, 472 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted under Sec. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of the appeal time as per Sec. 437 of Cr.P.C. MO1 Rs. 900/- shall be confiscated to the State, MO2 to 8 shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in

the open Court on this the 26 th day of April, 2024 .

IX ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

WITNESSES EXAMINED:

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1 : Srinivas PW2 : M.S.Suresh PW3 : Dr CH. Hanumanth rao PW4 : Krishnaiah PW5 : K.Venkata Ramana PW6 : P.Vijay Kumar PW7 : R.Kotesh

FOR DEFENCE: NIL

6 Of 6 C.C. No. 17057 OF 2019

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW1 Ex.P.2 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW2 Ex.P.3 Letter received by PW3 from PS Chikkadpally Ex.P.4 Report of PW3 Ex.P.5 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW4 Ex.P.6 Confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P.7 Complaint Ex.P.8 First Information Report

FOR DEFENCE:

NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1 Rs. 900/- MO2 Cellphone MO3 Tablets MO4 Stethescope MO5 Thermometer MO6 (2) Rubber Stamps MO7 Visiting Cards MO8 (2) fake Fitness Certificates

FOR DEFENCE:

NIL

IX ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.

1 of 9 CC NO.102/2024

IN THE COURT OF THE XV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT:- SRI. G.UDAY BHASKAR RAO,

XV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

DATED THIS THE 20 th DAY OF MARCH, 2025

CC.No.102 OF 2024

(Old CC No.245 of 2017)

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

AND

A1 : Amjola Ajay Kumar, S/o.A.Anjaneyulu, Age : 28 years, Occ : Pvt Employee

A2 : A Bala Mani, W/o.A.Anjaneyulu Age : 52 years, Occ : Govt Employee,

A3 : A Karthik, S/o.A.Anjaneyulu, Age : 26 years, Occ : Pvt Employee,

A4 : P Manjula, W/o.P.Prabhakhar, Age : 38 years, Occ : Housewife,

A5 : P Prabhakar, Age : 48 years, Occ : Business,

All are R/o.Sai Mohan Chiken Centre, Madhura Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad.… Accused

This case coming before me for final hearing on 19-03-2025 in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State and M/s.Raj 2 of 9 CC NO.102/2024

Kumar,Advocate, learned counsel for the accused and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

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

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, WPS, CCS, DD Hyderabad, filed charge sheet in Cr.No.42 of 2015 for the offences punishable under secs. 498-A, 420, 506 of IPC, Sec 3 and 5 of DP Act against the accused.

2. The brief facts of the cases are as follows:--

(i) The case of the prosecution is that the marriage of Amjola Arathi/

Defacto complainant/LW1 was held with A1. At the time of marriage on demand of accused, LW1 parents gave cash of Rs.4 lakhs, 15 tulas of gold, 35 tulas of silver and home appliances worth Rs.2 lakhs. After the marriage LW1 came to know that A1 is a drunkard, sadistic and used to behave very cruely with LW1 and used to treat her as a slave and whenever

LW1 tried to reason A1 used to abuse and beat her and other accused used to taunt by stating that the articles presented are sub standard and used to pass scarcastic comments stating that Lw1’s parents easily get rid of LW1 by giving her in marriage to A1 and they harassed her to get

additional dowry of Rs.10 lakhs and when LW1 expressed her parents

inability, they insisted A1 to increase the harassment towards LW1 and due to the unbearable harassement even once LW1 contemplated to commit suicide and after blessing with the girl child accused aggravated their 3 of 9 CC NO.102/2024 harassment and demand of additional dowry of Rs.10 lakhs and picked up a quarrel with her and necked out from the house stating without additonal dowry she will not be allowed inside the house and LW1’s parents and elders tried to pacify the matter but in vain as such LW1 filed a complaint in Cr.NO.99 of 2024 for the offences u/s.498-A IPC, Sec 4 & 6 of DP Act against the accused and A1 to A5 induced her to withdraw the case and assured her to treat and look her properly as such she withdrawn the case in Lok Adalat on 01.09.2014. Thereafter LW1 and A1 started living in a rent house, eventhough A1 upon the instigation of A2 to A5 harassed her for additonal dowry of Rs.10 lakhs and beat her mercilessly on many occasions and insitgated A1 against LW1 stating that she is employee of

Lokayuktha and can esaily influence the police and on 13.09.2014 with preplain A1 along with other accused beat LW1 for additional dowry and necked out her from the hosue and vacted the rented house and they have been conveying their threates to comply their demand of additional dowry or else LW1 and her family members life will be ar risk. Hence, requested to take action against the accused.

(ii) Basing on the above report, the LW-8/Prakash, Sub Inspector of

Police, WPS, CCS DD, Hyderabad registered this case in Cr.42 of 2015 under section 498-A, 420, 506 of IPC, Sec 3 and 5 of DP Act. During the course of investigation, LW9 caused enquiries and recorded the statements 4 of 9 CC NO.102/2024 of witnesses, collected relevant documents and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet.

3.Learned Hon’ble XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Hyderabad court took cognizance for the offences under section 498-A, 420, 506 of IPC, Sec 3 and 5 of DP Act against the Accused and numbered as CC No.245 of 2017.

4.The copies of the documents were furnished to Accused as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.As per the orders of Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Dis No.6187/MSJ/OP Cell/2023 dt: 07-12-2023, this case is transferred to this court and numbered as CC No.102 of 2024.

6.Accused were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C. for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the offence under sections 498-A, 420, 506 of IPC, Sec 3 and 5 of DP Act. Hence, charges for aforesaid offence were framed and its contents read over and explained to Accused in vernacular language.

7.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 5 got marked the documents Exs.P1 to P5. The evidence of Lws.5 to 8 is closed.

5 of 9 CC NO.102/2024 8.After closure of prosecution evidence, the Accused were examined under Section 313 (b) of Cr.P.C. They denied the evidence and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard the arguments of Learned APP and counsel for the accused.

10.Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable

doubt for the offences punishable U/s 498-A, 420, 506 of IPC,

Sec 3 and 5 of DP Act against the Accused ?

POINT 11.In this case, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 5. The defacto complainant, PW1, deposed that she was married to A1 in the year 2012, and her parents presented 15 tulas of gold, 50 tulas of silver, 5 lakhs in₹ cash, household articles, and furniture as dowry. The other witnesses deposed along the same lines. However, no substantive evidence was placed by the prosecution to establish that the accused demanded dowry, nor is there any documentary proof that the dowry was indeed presented. Ex.P2, a photograph relied upon by the prosecution, does not prove that the jewellery was presented on demand by the accused, nor is there any evidence that it was purchased by PW1’s parents.

12.PW1 further deposed that after she conceived, the accused harassed her to get the pregnancy aborted. She also stated that after the birth of a baby girl, the accused demanded gold. She alleged that A1 beat her over 6 of 9 CC NO.102/2024 minor disputes and for dowry articles, and that she sustained bleeding injuries for which she lodged a complaint at the WPS. The parties subsequently entered into a compromise. PW1 also deposed that the accused agreed to deposit 6 lakhs in the name of their daughter out of the₹ sale consideration amount, and that he did deposit the same.

13.The allegation by PW1 that the accused assaulted her and caused bleeding injuries is not substantiated by medical reports. She admitted during cross-examination that they entered into a Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) in May 2014. PW1 also claimed that after rejoining, all the accused beat her and refused to take her back. However, she did not specify any reasons for the alleged beating. There is no evidence of any harassment or coercion to meet unlawful demands.

14.PW2, the father of PW1, also deposed along the lines of PW1.

However, as discussed, the evidence is not convincing. During cross- examination, PW2 stated that the couple lived separately in a rented house after the compromise. He did not disclose any disputes that occurred after the compromise.

15.PW3, the mother of PW1, also deposed similarly to PW1. She alleged continued harassment and that A2 demanded termination of PW1’s pregnancy. She further alleged that A1 had an illicit relationship. PW2 7 of 9 CC NO.102/2024 stated that PW1 was harassed and they lived separately for four months, but the harassment continued, leading them to lodge another complaint.

During cross-examination, he stated they lived in a rented house for six months and lodged the complaint in 2014, which also ended in a compromise. He also stated that they lived together separately, but there is no evidence as to why the disputes resumed. PW1 did not specify what kind of harassment she faced after the compromise, merely stating that the accused beat her and refused to take her back. There is no other corroborative evidence from PW1.

16.PW4 stated that he is a colleague of PW2 in GHMC. His evidence is hearsay, and he did not participate in any panchayat. Hence, his testimony is not helpful to the prosecution’s case.

17.PW5 deposed regarding the investigation.

18.From the evidence on record, it is noted that the panchayat elders were not examined in this case, despite being crucial witnesses as the matter was earlier compromised. The evidence of PW1 is neither cogent nor convincing regarding the alleged assault over minor issues and demands for gold during the child’s cradle ceremony. The testimonies of PWs 2 and 3, parents of PW1, do not inspire confidence. Moreover, there is no convincing evidence to prove that the accused harassed PW1 after the 8 of 9 CC NO.102/2024 compromise. There is no evidence as to why she was sent away to live with her parents. The harassment allegations prior to the compromise were not corroborated by any independent witnesses. The prosecution has also failed to explain why the panchayat elders were not examined to support the claim.

19.Therefore, considering all of the above, the prosecution has failed to prove the charges. Accordingly, all the accused are entitled to acquittal.

20. In the result, A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offences under

Sec. 498-A, 420, 506 of IPC, Sec 3 and 5 of DP Act. Accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused shall be canceled after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr.II, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in

the open court, on this the 20 th day of March, 2025.

XV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

PW1 : Aarthi- None- PW2 : P Mallesh PW3 : Kalpana PW4 : S Vishnu PW5 : B Pandary

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 : Complaint Ex.P2 : Photographs 9 of 9 CC NO.102/2024

Ex.P3 : Wedding card Ex.P4 : FIR

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

- NIL -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- NIL -

XV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD