Smt K.Shreewani

CC.NI.484 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE IX JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

HYDERABAD.

Present: Smt. K. Shreewani IX Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabad

Dated this the 23rd day of April, 2026

CC. NI. 484 of 2024

In

STC NI. 1138 of 2023

Between:-

Employees State Insurance Corporation, 5-9-23, Hill Fort Road, Adarshnagar, Hyderabad, Rep. By its authorized Social Security Officer, S.Rathan Singh. …Complainant

AND

1. M/s.Medha Educational Society, Rep by its Chairman, Correspondent & Authorized Signatory Sri.M.Ranga Chhari, No.2-2-1145/2, New Nallakunta, Hyderabad, mrchhari@gmail.com, Mobile No.8639120196, 6281835348.

2. Sri. M.Ranga Chhari, Age:Major, Occ:Chairman, Correspondent & Authorized Signatory M/s.Medha Educational Society, No.2-2-1145/2, New Nallakunta, Hyderabad, … Accused No.1 and 2

Section of law:U/Sec.200 Cr.P.C for the offesen U/sec.138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

Plea of the Accused:Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court:Found guilty.

In the result, accused is sentenced to Sentence or Order: undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,50,500/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand and Five Hundred only) and in default of payment of such amount accused is sentenced to undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

1 to 9

CC.NI.484 of 2024

Out of said fine amount a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) shall be payable as compensationtothe complainant/prosecution i.e., Employees State Insurance Corporation, 5-9-23, Hill Fort Road, Adarshnagar, Hyderabad Rep by S.Ratan Singh, S/o.Late Gopiya Under section 357(3) of Cr.P,.C, and the remaining amount of Rs.500/- shall be payable to the State as fine amount.

Accused is informed about the right of filing appeal against the judgment within the limitation period of law. A copy of Judgment shall be given to the accused as per Sec.363 of Cr.P.C R/w Rule 73 of Criminal Rules of Practice free of cost.

This case is coming before me today for final disposal in the presence of Kattela Shankar counsel for the complainant and V.Srikanth counsel for the accused and having heard and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:-

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

1.This is a Private complaint filed by the complainant against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.200 Cr.P.C for the offesen U/sec.138 r/w 142 of Negotiable

Instruments Act.

2.The brief facts of the case as enumerated in the complaint:-

The complainant is Employees State Insurance Corporation situated at 5-9-23,

Adarshnagar, Hill Fort Road, Hyderabad represented by its Social Security Officer, a Public Servant as per Section 22 of ESI Act and within the meaning of S.21 of IPC.

That the Social Security officer is hereby authorized to represent on behalf of the corporation in the court as per the Resolution dt.26-07-1991. M/s.Medha Educational

Society who is the accused No.1 represented by Sri.M.Ranga Chhari was brought under the coverage of ESI Act U/sec.1(5) and the accused No.1 firm was allotted the ESI code

No.52000435510001302. The employees once covered under the ESI shall be continued to be governed by the provisions of ESI act and would be governed by the provisions of

ESI Act and would be required to comply with all the provisions of ESI Act. Under section 40 of ESI act, 1948 every principal employer shall pay both shares of contributions i.e., the employees share contribution as well as the employer share of 2 to 9

CC.NI.484 of 2024 contribution is respect of every employee in the first instance. The principal employer is entitled to recover the employees share of contribution from their wages relating to the period in respect of which the contribution is payable. Every such contribution payable under the said act in respect of employees shall be paid by the principal employer within 15 days from the last day of the calender month. The accused No.2 is liable to pay the

ESI contribution and interest on behalf of the accused No.1 for an amount of

Rs.8,10,458/-. The accused issued a cheque for part payment on behalf of accused No.1 firm cheque bearing No.002169 dt.30-11-2022 of Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on Union Bank of

India, Shivam Road Branch, Hyderabad. The complainant corporation presented the said cheque at his banker i.e., State Bank of India, Hyderabad Main Branch, Koti but the said cheque was dishonored with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient”. Thereafter the complainant corporatio got issued a Statutory Legal notice dt.27-12-2022 to the accused

No.1&2 through speed post on 28-12-2022 calling upon them to pay the said dishonored cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice.

3.After recording the sworn statement of the complainant and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court took cognizance of the offence

U/sec.138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act and issued summons to the accused.

4. On receipt of the summons, the accused did not appeared before the court and hence

NBW was issued against him . The Accused appeared before the court by filling petition u/s 70 (2) the same was heard and allowed . Later he was supplied with copies of complaint and other document, as contemplated under Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.The accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. explaining the substance of accusation alleged against her for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881, for which the accused denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To substantiate the complainant case, complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P12.

Ex.P1: Attested copy of Resolution of ESIC dt.26-07-1991.

Ex.P2: Gazette notification dt.25-05-2010.

Ex.P3: Authorization Letter dt.03-09-2024.

Ex.P4: Original Cheque bearing No.002169, dt.30-11-2022 for an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/-

Ex.P5: Original cheque return Memo dt.12-12-2022.

Ex.P6: Office copy of Legal notice dt. 27-12-2022.

3 to 9

CC.NI.484 of 2024

Ex.P7: List of Postal Receipts showing consignment to the accused.

Ex.P8: Copy of Track Consignment for Postal Receipt RN166432565IN Dt.29-12-2022.

Ex.P9: Copy of Track Consignment for Postal Receipt RN166431998IN Dt.29-12-2022.

Ex.P10: Attested copy of C10 Certificate dt.20-07-2021.

Ex.P11 Attested copy of C10 Certificate dt.08-11-2018.

Ex.P12: Copy of 45G Order dt.07-11-2022.

7.After closure of complainant side evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating evidence appearing in the complainant witnesses, accused denied the same.

8. The learned counsel for complainant submitted the written arguments and relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which are discussed later.

9.The learned counsel for the accused submitted written arguments.

10.Basing on the rival contentions of both learned counsels, the following point is framed for determination.

“Whether the complainant proved the existence of legally enforceable

debt against accused person and whether accused person has rebutted the

presumption U/Sec.200 Cr.P.C for the offesen U/sec.138 r/w 142 of

Negotiable Instruments Act in favour of complainant?”

11. Point No.1:

Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, three conditions have to be fulfilled by a person; namely;

1. The cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of three months from the date on which it was drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier.

2. The payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice, in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the

Bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and

3. The drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money, to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.

4. Presumptions both under sections 118 @ and 138 of the Act are rebuttable in nature.

4 to 9

CC.NI.484 of 2024

12. Sec. 118 Presumption as to Negotiable instrument:-

Of consideration–that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration”.

The preliminary burden is on complainant, to establish the existence of legally enforceable debt so as to draw presumption under Sec. 139 of N.I. Act.

13.Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, presumption is available in favour of the drawee or holder in due course:

“Presumption in favour of holder: It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred in the

Section 138 for discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability”.

“Presumption under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable in nature”.

14.The initial burden is on the complainant to show that cheque was issued to discharge a legally enforceable debt or other liability and then only the burden shifts to the drawer of the cheque to rebut the presumption U/Sec.200 Cr.P.C for the offesen

U/sec.138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

15. Complainant to support and substantiate his case has examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12.

16. Complainant/ P.W.1 has filed chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination and reiterated the facts as mentioned in complaint. In nutshell, Pw.1 deposed that sthe complainant is Employees State Insurance Corporation situated at 5-9-23, Adarshnagar,

Hill Fort Road, Hyderabad represented by its Social Security Officer, a Public Servant as per Section 22 of ESI Act and within the meaning of S.21 of IPC. That the Social

Security officer is hereby authorized to represent on behalf of the corporation in the court as per the Resolution dt.26-07-1991. M/s.Medha Educational Society who is the accused No.1 represented by Sri.M.Ranga Chhari was brought under the coverage of

ESI Act U/sec.1(5) and the accused No.1 firm was allotted the ESI code

No.52000435510001302. The employees once covered under the ESI shall be continued to be governed by the provisions of eSI act and would be governed by the provisions of ESI Act and would be required to comply with all the provisions of ESI

Act. Under section 40 of ESI act, 1948 every principal employer shall pay both shares of contributions i.e., the employees share contribution as well as the employer share of 5 to 9

CC.NI.484 of 2024 contribution is respect of every employee in the first instance. The principal employer is entitled to recover the employees share of contribution from their wages relating to the period in respect of which the contribution is payable. Every such contribution payable under the said act in respect of employees shall be paid by the principal employer within 15 days from the last day of the calender month. The accused No.2 is liable to pay the ESI contribution and interest on behalf of the accused No.1 for an amount of

Rs.8,10,458/-. The accused issued a cheque for part payment on behalf of accused No.1 firm cheque bearing No.002169 dt.30-11-2022 of Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on Union Bank of India, Shivam Road Branch, Hyderabad. The complainant corporation presented the said cheque at his banker i.e., State Bank of India, Hyderabad Main Branch, Koti but the said cheque was dishonored with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient”. Thereafter the complainant corporatio got issued a Statutory Legal notice dt.27-12-2022 to the accused No.1&2 through speed post on 28-12-2022 calling upon them to pay the said dishonored cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice.

17. The complainant examining himself as PW.1and adducing documentary evidence, Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 has proved the existence of legally enforceable debt, for which accused No.2 issued the cheque and raised the presumption U/Sec.200 Cr.P.C for the offesen U/sec.138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act in his favour.

18.The accused has to rebut such presumption either by adducing independent evidence or by eliciting something in the cross examination of PW.1. The standard of proof for doing so is that of preponderance of probability. Therefore, if accused is able to raise a probable defence while creating doubt about the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability, the case of complaint fails. Now it has to be seen whether the accused is raised any probable defence to rebut the presumption under Sec. 139 N.I.

Act.

19.After giving sufficient opportunities the accused have failed to cross examine

PW.1. Hence, after giving conditional order the cross examination of PW.1 was closed.

The accused did not file any petition to reopen the evidence of PW.1 for the purpose of cross examination of PW.1. Hence, the cross examination of PW.1 is treated to be Nil.

20.On appreciation of evidence of PW.1 it could be seen that the accused No.2 is the signatory of cheque. Hence, complainant by adducing the oral and documentary evidence has raised the presumption under sec.139 of NI Act in his favour.

6 to 9

CC.NI.484 of 2024

21.Now it has to be seen from cross examination of Pw.1 whether the accused is successful in raising the probable defence in rebutting the presumption under sec.138 of

NI Act. It is admitted fact that the complainant is the absolute owner and possessor of the immovable property.

22. The counsel for the complainant filed written arguments and relied his arguments on the following judgments.

(I) In Bir Singh vs Mukesh Kumar 2019 AIR (SC) 21446wherein the Hon’ble

Supreme Court held that “If a signed blank cheque is voluntarily presented to a payee, towards some payment, the payee may fill up the amount and other particulars. This itself would not invalidate the cheques. The onus would still be on the accused to prove that the cheque was not discharge of a debt or liability by adducing evidence”.

23.In this case Accused not has replied to the legal notice given by complainant but simply denied the receiving the notice. During U/s.251 Cr.P.C examination and also 313 Cr.P.C examination the accused has never stated that the alleged cheque does not belong to him and also not placed any evidence before the court to prove the same.

Hence, accused failed to explain properly with the support of any oral or documentary evidence of his contention. Complainant by examining himself, and by adducing documentary evidence has proved that the complainant is a Employees State Insurance

Corporation. The accused was brought under the coverage of ESI Act U/sec.1(5) and the accused No.1 firm was allotted the ESI Code No.52-43351. Accused could not shake the credit of the witnesses during the cross examination of PW.1. Accused did not bring about any cogent evidence to disprove the evidence of Pw.1.

24.In the light of discussion supra, accused failed to raise the probable defence in his favour. Complainant through his oral and documentary evidence has proved the existence of legally enforceable debt for which cheque Ex.P4 was issued.

25.Therefore, this point is answered, in favour of complainant and against accused

No.1 and 2.

26.In the result, accused is found guilty for an offence U/Sec.190 Cr.P.C of the offence of Punishable U/sec.138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, accused No.2 is convicted for the said offence under Sec. 255(2) of Cr.P.C.

7 to 9

CC.NI.484 of 2024

Dictated to the Stenographer-III, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this 23 rd day of April, 2026.

Sd/-

IX Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabad.

27.Accused No.2 is questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence to be imposed upon him . Accused submitted that, he would prefer appeal.

28.Heard the accused No.2 with regard to quantum of sentence. After taking into consideration all the circumstances and nature of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the said circumstances are not mitigating in nature. This is not fit case to invoke the provisions of probation of offenders Act and also not case to take lenient view. As such, it is just and proper to award punishment to accused in the interest of justice and to meet ends of justice.

29. In the result, accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,50,500/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty

Thousand and Five Hundred only) and in default of payment of such amount accused is sentenced to undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

Out of said fine amount a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty

Thousand only) shall be payable as compensation to the complainant/prosecution i.e.,

Employees State Insurance Corporation, 5-9-23, Hill Fort Road, Adarshnagar,

Hyderabad Rep by S.Ratan Singh, S/o.Late Gopiya Under section 357(3) of Cr.P,.C, and the remaining amount of Rs.500/- shall be payable to the State as fine amount.

Accused is informed about the right of filing appeal against the judgment within the limitation period of law. A copy of Judgment shall be given to the accused as per

Sec.363 of Cr.P.C R/w Rule 73 of Criminal Rules of Practice free of cost.

Dictated to the Stenographer-III, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this 23 rd day of April, 2026.

Sd/-

IX Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant:

PW-1.S.Ratan Singh/Complainant.

For Defence:

Nil. 8 to 9

CC.NI.484 of 2024

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainant:

Ex.P1: Attested copy of Resolution of ESIC dt.26-07-1991.

Ex.P2: Gazette notification dt.25-05-2010.

Ex.P3: Authorization Letter dt.03-09-2024.

Ex.P4: Original Cheque bearing No.002169, dt.30-11-2022 for an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/-

Ex.P5: Original cheque return Memo dt.12-12-2022.

Ex.P6: Office copy of Legal notice dt. 27-12-2022.

Ex.P7: List of Postal Receipts showing consignment to the accused.

Ex.P8: Copy of Track Consignment for Postal Receipt RN166432565IN Dt.29-12-2022.

Ex.P9: Copy of Track Consignment for Postal Receipt RN166431998IN Dt.29-12-2022.

Ex.P10: Attested copy of C10 Certificate dt.20-07-2021.

Ex.P11 Attested copy of C10 Certificate dt.08-11-2018.

Ex.P12: Copy of 45G Order dt.07-11-2022.

For Defence

Nil.

M.Os. Marked

NIL

IX Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabad.

9 to 9

()

METROPOLITAN LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY LOK ADALAT CONVENED BY

METROPOLITAN LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY, HYDERABAD.

(Organized under section 19(2) of the Legal Services Authorties Act by the T.S. State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad vide ROC No. 232/APSLSA/LSW/06 dt: 21/09/2006. Mediation, Conciliation & Family Counseling Centre, II Floor, Metro Criminal Courts, Red Hils, Hyderabad -500 004, Telephone: 23442499 Present:

StKclaeerw

- Judicial Member 1. - Member 2 - Member 3 (Constituted U/s. 32(2) of the LS.A, Act by the Metropalitan Legal Services Authorty, Hhyderabad)

SJC-N-8s.

2024 .Ot../202S

Lok Adalat Case No. Dated: ....... In ..Addl. C.M.M., Hyderabad of 20 on the file of Hlonble... C.C. No.... In Crime No............. ... of 20 of P.S.....

Between: Lmite

NUivce deu Seeds

Kp by k Qana dei

ComplainantVictim/ Injured

wayalhuhanau!

AND

Accused This case having been referred to the Lok Adalat for Settlement in the presence of de-facto complainant/victim(s)/injured and the accused and in view of amicable settlement arrived at between the parties and as the person(s), who may have to compound the offence(s) having voluntarily compounded the offence(s) against the accused, the Lok Adalat has passed the following:

AWARD (U/s. 21 of the L.S.A. Act) The de-facto complainant/victim(s)/injured has/have compounded the offence punishable under 1 Sec(s) .......S........... P.C/N.I. Act. Consequently, the accused is/are acquitted of the above said offence(s) and set at liberty forthwith if in custody. The accused has/have paid or agreed to pay a sum of Rs.&9000L To the de-facto 2. complainant/victim(s)/injured towards compensation/amount due under the dishonored cheque. In agreement of the above, the parties and their Counsel have affixed their signatures/ thumb impression in presence of the members of the Lok Adalat.

kthMTED

For NUZIVEEDU SEEDS

Signature(s) of the De facto Comiptainant/

Victim(s)/njured Signature(s) of Accused

ekuthorised Signatory

by Counsel for Complainant/ A.P.P/.O./Court Police Constable Signature of Counsel for Accused Giyen under our hands and the seal of the Lok Adalat for Metro Criminal/Civil/Courts, Hyderabad.

Rueeww

2uluhs

1. Judicial Member 2. Membef 3. Member Note: This award is final and binding on all the parties, 'and no appeal shall lie to any court as per Section 21(2) of the L.S.A. Act, 1987.

METROPOLITAN LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY LOK ADALAT CONVENED BY

METROPOLITAN LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY, HYDERABAD.

(Organized under section 19(2) of the Legal Services Authorities Act by the T.S. State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad vide ROC No. 232/APŠLSA/LSW/06 dt: 21/09/2006. Mediation, Concliatlon & Farily Counsellng Centre, II Floor, Metro Criminal Courts, Red Hills, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telephone: 23442499 Present:

1. - Judicial Member 2 - Member - Member 3. (Constituted U/s. 32(2) of the LS.A. Act by the Metropolitan Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad)

Dated: 2.A../20 y

Lok Adalat Case No..ss..... ........, Of 20

MM

In

STCNhGe. No.Ab.0.2.. of 2023 on the file of Hon'ble.NAde e.MM Hyderabad

In Crime No........ of 20 of P.S... Between:

Complainant/Vicdm/injured AND

S Shaleili

Accused This case having been referred to the Lok Adalat for Settlement in the presence of de-facto compļainant/victim(s)/injured and the accused and in view of amicable settlement arrived at between the parties and as the person(s), who may have to compound the offence(s) having voluntarily compộunded the offệnce(s) against the acCused, the Lok Adalat has passed the following:

AWARD (U/s. 21 of the L.S.A. Act) The de-facto complainant/victim (s)/injuręd has/have compounded the offence punishable under 1. Sec(s) .................. LP.C/N.. Act. Consequently, the accused is/ąre acquitted of the above said offence(s) and set at liberty forthwith if in custody. The acCused has/have paid or agreed to pay a sum of Rs. To the de-facto 2. complainant/victim(s)/injured towards compensation/amount due under the dishonored cheque. In agreement of the above, the parties and their Counsel have affixed their signatures/ thumb impression in presence of the members of the Lok Adalat.

AHolleugo

Signature(s) of the De asto Comoen

Victim(s)/njured Signature(s) of Acused

Identified by Counsel for Complainant A.P.P/I.0/Court Police Constable Signature of Cournse for Accused Given under our hạnds and the seal of the Lok Adalat for Metro Criminal/Civil/Courts, Hyderabad.

Seeuss

1. udicial Member £. Memper

3. Member Note: Thls award is final and binding on all the parties, dnd no appeal shall ie to any court as per Sectlon 21(2) of the L.S.A. Act, 1987,

OFFICE OF IX JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, HYDERABAD

Present:- Smt.K.Shreewani

IX Judicial Magistrate of Frist Class,

Hyderabad.

Dated this the 24 th day of April, 2026.

STC NI. NO. 2551 /2024

BETWEEN:-

Smt.Trichunapally Usha Kirthi

…..Complainant

AND

Smt.V.Sandhya Jyothi …Accused

This case was referred to the Mediation for settlement before the Mediator in the presence of petitioner and the Respondent, and in view of the amicable settlement arrived at between both the parties with free will and volition, this court has passed the following:

A W A R D

1.Petitioner called present. Learned counsel for the Petitioner called present.

Respondent called present. Learned counsel for the Respondents called present.

2. During the pendency of the case, at the request of both parties, the Petitioner and

Respondent were referred to Mediation, where they amicably settled their disputes (copy of the said MOU has been annexed to the Mediator Report):

(a) Respondent agreed to pay a total amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) to the Petitioner towards full and final settlement of all her claims.

(b) Respondent has already paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) to the Petitioner.

The terms and conditions incorporated in this Award have been read over and explained to the Petitioner and Respondent in the language known to them. They have admitted the same to be true and correct and have affixed their signatures on this MOU as a token of their presence and acceptance.

 Written, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 24th day of

April, 2026.

IX JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

HYDERABAD.

OFFICE OF IX JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, HYDERABAD

Present:- Smt.K.Shreewani

IX Judicial Magistrate of Frist Class,

Hyderabad.

Dated this the 24 th day of April, 2026.

STC NI. NO. 2460 /2024

BETWEEN:-

Smt.Trichunapally Usha Kirthi

…..Complainant

AND

Boddu Vijay Krishna …Accused

This case was referred to the Mediation for settlement before the Mediator in the presence of petitioner and the Respondent, and in view of the amicable settlement arrived at between both the parties with free will and volition, this court has passed the following:

A W A R D

1.Petitioner called present. Learned counsel for the Petitioner called present.

Respondent called present. Learned counsel for the Respondents called present.

2. During the pendency of the case, at the request of both parties, the Petitioner and

Respondent were referred to Mediation, where they amicably settled their disputes (copy of the said MOU has been annexed to the Mediator Report):

(a) Respondent agreed to pay a total amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) to the Petitioner towards full and final settlement of all her claims.

(b) Respondent has already paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) to the Petitioner.

The terms and conditions incorporated in this Award have been read over and explained to the Petitioner and Respondent in the language known to them. They have admitted the same to be true and correct and have affixed their signatures on this MOU as a token of their presence and acceptance.

 Written, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 24th day of

April, 2026.

IX JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

HYDERABAD.