SRI.Kancha Prasad

1 of 8

Dated: 14-10-2025

CC. No. 1066/2016

Cr. No. 219/2016

IN THE COURT OF X ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE :

SECUNDERABAD

Present : SRI K. PRASAD

X ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD.

Tuesday, the 14th Day of October, 2025

C.C. No. 1066 of 2016

Between: The State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of police, Gandhi Nagar Police Station, Secunderabad.…Complainant

And

Abdul Gaffor, S/o. Khaja Shareef, age: 44 years, occ: Driver, r/o. H. No. 1-3-1036, Sulthan Bagh Masjid,

Kavadiguda, Hyderabad....Accused

This case is coming before me on 10-10-2025 for final hearing in the presence of Smt. J. Bhargavi, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri N. Janardhan Reddy, the learned counsel for the accused and the matter having stood over for determination till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E NT

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Gandhi Nagar P.S., Secunderabad has filed charge sheet against accused in Cr. No. 219/2016 for the offences punishable under Section 341 and 506 of IPC.

2(i). On 03-08-2016 at about 10:00 hours LW1/Mohd. Khairul Hasan lodged a complaint as follows: That he has been continuously receiving complaints from

Imam, Moazzan and other tenants of Sulthan Bagh Mosque, Kavadiguda, that the accused, who is one of the ex-members of the Managing Committee of their Masjid is harassing them on pretext of one or other. Imam and Moazzan added that the accused along with four strangers visiting their premises during odd hours of midnight and demanding them to unlock the Masjid in order to provide shelter to his accompanies. When they refuse to provide shelter to such unknown persons, the accused used most filthy language and beat them with hands. Further, the accused also unnecessarily interfering in the activities of the tenants. On 27-01-2016 at 17:46 hours the accused illegally demanded

Rs.50,000/- from Syed Mahboob @ Mohd Jani, who is tenant of mulgi no.

2 of 8

Dated: 14-10-2025

CC. No. 1066/2016

Cr. No. 219/2016 1-3-1036, who was erecting a shed with prior permission of the Managing

Committee. The accused obstructed the above said tenant from erecting a shed. The accused has no authority to obstruct such activity when the

Managing Committee itself granted permission to such tenant. If they neglect atrocities of the accused at this juncture then the accused would become hazardous to the society and nobody would save them from the accused goondaism. The accused further demanding premises of the Masjid which is against the norms of the Masjid. The accused even was demanding money from the account of Masjid. On 24-07-2016 at 12:30 PM the accused came to the

Masjid to hand over the waqf fund receipt to Sri Razwan Alam Imam Sahab, ex-member of Masid Committee the accused came out of the masjid, used filthy language against him saying that he is responsible for the accused divorce. The accused also tried to hit him with hammer, but the tenants came and rescued him from the attack of the accused. He, tenants and Masjid

Committee members are apprehending danger from the accused. Hence, he requested to take necessary action in this regard.

2(ii)Basing on the above report given by LW1/Mohd. Khairul Hasan, a case was registeredin Cr. No.219/2016 for the offences punishable U/s.341 and 506 of IPC. During the course of investigation the accused was apprehended by the police and on completion of investigation, the Investigation Officer filed a charge sheet u/s 173 Cr.P.C. against accused for the offences punishable U/s 341 and 506 of IPC.

3.After taking cognizance for the offences punishable U/s. 341 and 506 of

IPC against the accused, the relevant copies of documents were furnished to him U/sec.207 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter, the accused was examined U/s 251

Cr.P.C. and the substance of accusation leveled against the accused for the offences punishable U/s 341 and 506 of IPC was read over and explained to him, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3 of 8

Dated: 14-10-2025

CC. No. 1066/2016

Cr. No. 219/2016

4.In order to prove its case against the accused, the prosecution examined

PW1 to PW5 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material appearing against him in prosecution evidence, for which the accused denied and further, he reported no evidence in his support.

5.Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

6.Now the point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable U/sec.341 and 506 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT:

7.The prosecution has examined PW1 to PW5 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 in support of its case.

8.The charges against the accused are under section 341 and 506 of IPC its reads as under.

Section 341 of IPC:

“Whoever wrongfully restrains any person, shall be

punished with simple imprisonment for a term which

may extend to one month, or with fine which may

extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.”

Essential Ingredients. -This section prescribes

punishment for wrongful restraint. Wrongful

restrained has been defined under Section 339.

Essential ingredients of an offence of wrongful

restraint are as follows:.

(i) That there was same voluntary obstruction caused;

(ii) That the obstruction was such as to prevent any person from proceeding in any direction;

(iii) That the person obstructed had a right to

proceed int hat direction.

Section 506 of IPC:

“Whoever commits the offence of criminal

4 of 8

Dated: 14-10-2025

CC. No. 1066/2016

Cr. No. 219/2016

intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of

either description for a term which may extend to

two years, or with fine, or with both; and if the

threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to

cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to

cause an offence punishable with death or

imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a

term which may extent to seven years, or to impute

unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with

imprisonment of either description for a term which

may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with

both.”

Essential Ingredients. - The offence of criminal

intimidation has been defined under Section 503 IPC,

Section 506 provides punishment for it.

An offence under Section 503 has following

essentials:

1. Threatening a person with any injury ;

(i) to his person, reputation or property; or

(ii) to the person, or reputation of any one

in whom that person is interested.

2. The threat must be with intent;

(i) to cause alarm to that person; or

(ii) to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat; or

(iii) to cause that person to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat.

9.The accusation against the accused is that he restrained the PW1 and threatened him with dire consequences. PW1 is the complainant filed the complaint and deposed that on 24-07-2016 he came to Masjid to give receipt to PW2. After giving receipt when he returned the accused stopped him and abused him. At that time, the accused demanded to provide one room in Masjid otherwise huge amount to him. When the PW1 denied, the accused brought 5 of 8

Dated: 14-10-2025

CC. No. 1066/2016

Cr. No. 219/2016 one hammer and tried to beat him. PW2 and PW3 rescued him. On that he filed the complaint before the police. Ex.P1 is the complaint. As per the complaint, the accused who is the ex-committee member of Sultan Bagh Masjid

Committee criminally trespassing into the Masjid premises with an unknown persons during the midnight thereby PW1 requested the police to take legal action against the accused. As per the complaint, on 27-01-2016 accused demanded Rs. 50,000/- from Syed Mahboob who is tenant of mulgi no.1-3- 1036 and accused obstructed the said Syed Mahboob in erecting the shed.

However, no complaint lodged against the accused by Syed Mahboob. The present incident is on 24-07-2016 at 12:30 PM PW1 came to the Masjid to handover the waqf fund receipt to PW2 then accused came out of the Masjid and abused him in the filthy language saying that PW1 is the responsible for his divorce.

10.On perusal of Ex.P1, the PW1 filed this complaint on 25-07-2016 narrating the incident from 27-01-2016, but he did not explain what prevented him to file the complaint before the police since 27-01-2016. The counsel for the accused cross examined the PW1 wherein it was revealed, he did not file any document to show that he is the President of Masjid Committee and other documents to show the demand of the accused.

11.The prosecution/complainant filed a CD stating that the CD containing the video footage of the incident, but same is not accompanied with a certificate under section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act and also no explanation from where it was retrieved. Admittedly, the complainant not whispered about the CCTV footage in his complaint. Even as per the evidence of the Investigating Officer he also admitted that he did not collect any CCTV footage of the alleged incident. PW2 examined as eye witness to the incident who worked as Imam in the said Masjid since 20 years. As per his evidence, accused used to sleep in

Masjid and several complaints lodged against him before the police. However, 6 of 8

Dated: 14-10-2025

CC. No. 1066/2016

Cr. No. 219/2016 no material placed to show that complaints filed against the accused before the police. As per his version that on 24-07-2016 PW1 came to him with receipt and when he came out at the same time accused came there and tried to beat the PW1 with hammer. PW2 categorically admitted in his cross-examination that he did not file any written complaint before the police or Masjid Committee about the accused. PW2 further admitted that there were disputes pending between the accused and his wife for which PW1 is the reason for the disputes.

12.PW3 is another eye witness deposed that he was in his shop at that time accused lifted hammer and tried to beat the PW1, meanwhile he intervened and caught hold the hammer. But, the Investigating Officer not seized the said hammer. PW2 and PW3 also admitted that accused used to reside in the Masjid and he also acted as committee member in the past. PW3 stated that he do not know what happened between the accused and PW1. As per the evidence of

PW2 and PW3, both were witnesses when the accused lifted hammer against the PW1, but what altercation or discussion took place between the accused and PW1 not disclosed by any one. Admittedly, there are disputes between the

PW1 and accused with regard to the accused wife and some allegations leveled against the accused that he residing in the premises of the Masjid and also demanding him as such there are issues with regard to the internal matters of the Masjid.

13.The Investigating Officer categorically admitted that the complaint received on 25-07-2016 and First Information Report registered on 03-08- 2016. He did not explain the reason for the delay of nine days to register the case. The Investigating Officer further admitted that no complaint received against the accused prior to this case from any one of the tenant of Masjid compound.

14. The counsel for the accused cross examined all the witnesses eliciting 7 of 8

Dated: 14-10-2025

CC. No. 1066/2016

Cr. No. 219/2016 contradictions of their version in their statements before the police and in their chief examinations. The prosecution mainly relied on the CCTV footage which was filed but the same was not believable because it doesn’t contain the 65-B of Indian Evidence Act certificate as well as no whisper from where it was collected and there is no mention either in the complaint or in the statement of the PW1. Further, the Investigating Officer also admitted that he did not collect the CCTV footage. Therefore, the evidence of CD is not admissible in evidence.

Except CD which is not admissible in evidence the evidence of PW1 to PW3 are not inspiring in confidence in their version as there are previous disputes between the accused and PW1 and PW2 and PW3 are working under the control of PW1. Therefore, this court discarded the evidence of CD as well as the evidence of PW2 and PW3, except self serving testimony of the PW1 including the allegation against the accused for extortion and threatening six months prior to filing of this complaint is not believable. Accordingly, I hold that the prosecution is failed to prove the accusation leveled against the accused.

15.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable

U/s.341 and 506 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted U/Sec.255(1)

Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months U/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. There is no case property deposited in this case hence no order regarding disposal of case property is passed.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this, the 14th day of October, 2025.

X ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD

8 of 8

Dated: 14-10-2025

CC. No. 1066/2016

Cr. No. 219/2016

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

PW1: Sri Mohd. Khairul Hasan: Complainant/victim.-Nil- PW2: Sri Md. Rizwan Alam: Eye witness. PW3: Sri Mustafa Khan: Witness. PW4: Sri Azmath Sharif: Panch witness. PW5: Sri T. Gopi Kiran Reddy: the then S.I. of Police/Investigating Officer.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

Ex.P1: Complaint of PW1. -Nil- Ex.P2: Scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch. Ex.P3: First Information Report.

M.Os MARKED

-Nil-

X ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD

1 of 7

Dated: 15-10-2025

CC. No. 349/2018

Cr. No. 75/2018

IN THE COURT OF X ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE :

SECUNDERABAD

Present : SRI K. PRASAD

X ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD.

Wednesday, the 15th Day of October, 2025

C.C. No. 349 of 2018

Between: The State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of police, Gopalapuram Police Station, Secunderabad.…Complainant

And

Mohammed Baseer, S/o. Late Mohd. Yousuf, age: 47 years, occ: Business, r/o. H. No. 11-1-808/11/2, backside of Sri Devi Theatre,

Chilkalguda, Secunderabad....Accused

This case is coming before me on 10-10-2025 for final hearing in the presence of Smt. J. Bhargavi, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri A.C. Srinivas and Smt. Annapurna, the learned counsels for the accused and the matter having stood over for determination till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E NT

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Gopalapuram P.S., Secunderabad has filed charge sheet against accused in Cr. No. 75/2018 for the offences punishable under Section 448, 509 and 506 of IPC.

2(i). On 21-03-2018 at 21:00 hours LW1/Smt. Zahida Begum lodged a complaint as follows: That she is the sole and absolute owner of 3-44-93 on

Plot No50 situated at Ishaq Colony, Kakaguda, Secunderabad and also the

House bearing No.9-3-294 and 295 consisting of ground, first floor situated at

Rezimental Bazar, Secunderabad. While the matters stood so, her son accused gave her Receipt-cum-Undertaking on 2nd August, 2016, acknowledging the receipt of Rs.9,00,000/- from her towards his share amount in respect of the said properties and relinquished all his rights over the properties. After taking his share amount of Rs.9,00,000/- in respect of the said properties her son accused physically and mentally tortured her to pass on the share to him, by 2 of 7

Dated: 15-10-2025

CC. No. 349/2018

Cr. No. 75/2018 way of bringing his anti-social elements for which she refused to do so.

Moreover, her son the accused cautioning her that he will murder her, in case the share in the said property is not given to him. She is apprehending danger to her life with her son accused and further that without her knowledge her son accused break opened the one of the Madgi shutter bearing House No.9-3-294 and 295, Rezimental Bazar, Station Road, Secunderabad on 20-03-2018 and illegally in possession of the said Madgi by way of dumping the artificial jewellery items. Hence, she requested to take necessary action in this regard.

2(ii)Basing on the above report given by LW1/Smt. Zahida Begum, a case was registeredin Cr. No. 75/2018 for the offences punishable U/s. 448, 509 and 506 of IPC. During the course of investigation the accused was surrendered

before the police and on completion of investigation, the Investigation Officer

filed a charge sheet u/s 173 Cr.P.C. against accused for the offences punishable

U/s 448, 509 and 506 of IPC.

3.After taking cognizance for the offences punishable U/s. 448, 509 and 506 of IPC against the accused, the relevant copies of documents were furnished to him U/sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Charges for the offences punishable U/s 448, 509 and 506 of IPC are framed against the accused, read over and explained to him for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.In order to prove its case against the accused, the prosecution examined

PW1 to PW5 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material appearing against him in prosecution evidence, for which he denied and further, he reported no evidence in his support.

5.Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

3 of 7

Dated: 15-10-2025

CC. No. 349/2018

Cr. No. 75/2018

6.Now the point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable U/sec. 448, 509 and 506 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT:

7.The prosecution has examined PW1 to PW5 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 in support of its case.

8.Section 448 and 506 of IPC reads as under;

Section 448 of IPC:

“Whoever commits house-trespass shall be punished

with imprisonment of either description for a term

which may extend to one year, or with fine which

may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.”

Essential Ingredients. - This section simply provides

punishment of an offence of house trespass, which is

defined under Section 442 of IPC.

Section 509 of IPC:

“Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any

woman, utters any word, makes any sound or

gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such

word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture

or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes

upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished

with simple imprisonment for a term which may

extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.”

Essential Ingredients. - An offence under Section 510

has following essential ingredients: -

1. Appearance of a person in a state of intoxication in

(i) any public place, or

(ii) any place which it is a trespass in him to enter.

2. The person so appearing must have conducted

himself in such a manner as to cause

annoyance to any person 4 of 7

Dated: 15-10-2025

CC. No. 349/2018

Cr. No. 75/2018

Section 506 of IPC:

“Whoever commits the offence of criminal

intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of

either description for a term which may extend to

two years, or with fine, or with both; and if the

threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to

cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to

cause an offence punishable with death or

imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a

term which may extent to seven years, or to impute

unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with

imprisonment of either description for a term which

may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with

both.”

Essential Ingredients. - The offence of criminal

intimidation has been defined under Section 503 IPC,

Section 506 provides punishment for it.

An offence under Section 503 has following

essentials:

1. Threatening a person with any injury ;

(i) to his person, reputation or property; or

(ii) to the person, or reputation of any one

in whom that person is interested.

2. The threat must be with intent;

(i) to cause alarm to that person; or

(ii) to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat; or

(iii) to cause that person to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat.

9.The charge against the accused is that on 20-03-2018 he broke open one of the shutter in the ground floor of H. No. 9-2-294 and 295, Rezimental Bazar,

Secunderabad and in illegal possession and dumped the artificial jewellery 5 of 7

Dated: 15-10-2025

CC. No. 349/2018

Cr. No. 75/2018 items and when PW1 questioned, he threatened her with dire consequences and abused her.

10.PW1 is the complainant who is none other than mother of the accused deposed that one Ravinder/PW2 who run a tailor shop in the said mulgi and he vacated and handed over the mulgi to PW1 on 02-03-2018. But, on 20-03- 2018 accused broke open lock of the said mulgi and running the business, but accused not agreed to vacate the same on that she lodged a complaint/Ex.P1.

As per the Ex.P1, she is the absolute owner of two properties i.e., (1) H.No.3-44-93, Plot No.50, situated at Ishaq Colony,

Kakaguda, Secunderabad.

(2) H.No.9-3-294 and 295, consisting of ground and first floors, situated at Rezimental Bazar, Secunderabad.

Where in accused relinquished all his rights in the above said properties by taking Rs.9,00,000- from her and executed receipt cum undertaking on 02- 08-2016. In spite of taking Rs.9,00,000/- the accused torturing the PW1 to give his share in the properties of the PW1. However, the PW1 admitted that presently she is residing with her daughter and the mulgi in which the accused running artificial jewellery shop was given to her daughter and civil dispute is pending between the accused and her daughter on the file of the III Senior

Civil Judge, Secunderabad.

11.PW2 who is the tenant of the said mulgi since 1982 to 2018. However, he handed over the keys by vacating the said mulgi to PW1 on 02-03-2018.

Though the alleged incident occurred on 20-03-2018, but PW2 already vacated the premises and handed over the keys to PW1 on 02-03-2018. Therefore, his evidence is not useful to establish that act. Further, PW2 admitted that he vacated the premises as per the orders of the court passed in the case filed by the PW1. PW2 further admitted that he did not witness when the accused broke 6 of 7

Dated: 15-10-2025

CC. No. 349/2018

Cr. No. 75/2018 open the lock of the mulgi and he came to know about the same through PW1.

PW3 is the scene of offence panch. PW4 who cited as witness turned hostile and the evidence remain is that of the Investigating Officer who filed the charge sheet. He also categorically admitted in his cross-examination that he did not verify the civil disputes pending between the PW1 and accused and he further not verified the ownership documents of the property.

12.It is the case of the PW1 that she is the absolute owner of the property no.1 and 2 and she had four sons and four daughters and accused relinquished his right by taking Rs.9,00,000/- and in spite of that he occupied the mulgi. On considering the nature of the relationship of the PW1 and accused, it is purely a civil dispute which converted into criminal case. The police filed charge sheet for the offences under section 509 and 506 of IPC, but even PW1 also not whispered about the ingredients of the 509 and 506 of IPC. The relationship between the PW1 and accused is that of mother and son and there is no scope to attract 509 of IPC and PW1 herself not deposed in her chief examination that the accused threatened her. She herself deposed that she lodged the complaint

before the police when the accused dumped the artificial jewellery in the mulgi

and it is an admitted fact that it is a property dispute and also PW1 admitted that a civil dispute is pending between her daughter and the accused. However, there is no eye witness to the incident that the accused broke open the lock of the said mulgi. The Police also failed to seize any broken lock or any instrument used to broke open the lock. PW1 being the mother and accused being a son, both are entitled to reside in the property. But, there is no evidence that the properties are partitioned and accused relinquished his right. Even if the accused relinquished his right in the said property the remedy opened to the

PW1 is to approach the civil court for eviction from the said property.

Therefore, I hold that the prosecution is failed to prove the charges leveled against the accused.

7 of 7

Dated: 15-10-2025

CC. No. 349/2018

Cr. No. 75/2018

13.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable

U/s.448, 509 and 506 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1)

Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months U/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. There is no case property deposited in this case hence no order regarding disposal of case property is passed.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this, the 15th day of October, 2025.

X ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

PW1: Smt. Shahida Begum: Defacto Complainant.-Nil- PW2: Sri Ravinder: Witness. PW3: Sri Laxman: Panch witness. PW4: Sri S. Sandeep: Witness. PW5: Sri G. Ramakrishna: the then S.I. of Police/Investigating Officer.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

Ex.P1: Complaint of PW1. -Nil- Ex.P2: Scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P3: Rough Sketch Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW4 Ex.P5: First Information Report.

M.Os MARKED

-Nil-

X ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD

1 of 7

Dated: 13-10-2025

CC. No. 206/2016

Cr. No. 351/2015

IN THE COURT OF X ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE :

SECUNDERABAD

Present : SRI K. PRASAD

X ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD.

Monday, the 13th Day of October, 2025

C.C. No. 206 of 2016

Between: The State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of police, Gopalapuram Police Station, Secunderabad.…Complainant

And

A1: P. Upender, S/o. P. Chandraiah, age: 24 years, occ: Auto Driver, r/o. 4048/407, Addagutta, East Marredpally, Secunderabad.

A2: J. Pandu, S/o. J. Krishna,, age: 26 years, occ: Auto Driver, r/o. Schithra, Bowenpally, Secunderabad.

A3: Syed Haji, S/o. Syed Rasool, age: 23 years, occ: Auto Driver, r/o. Addagutta, Secunderabad.

A4: R. Samuel Raj, S/o. Mallaiah, age: 28 years, occ: Auto Driver, r/o. 10-4-80/DA/436, Chandra Sekhar Nagar, Addagutta, Secunderabad.

A5: M. Ramachander, S/o. M. Yadaiah, age: 28 years, occ: Auto Driver, r/o. Dhamaiguda, ECIL, Hyderabad.

A6: P. Narsing Rao, S/o. P. Raghupathi, age: 35 years, occ: Auto Driver, r/o. 4-112, Maruthi Nagar, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad.

A7: D. Narsing Rao, S/o. D. Lingamurthy, age: 30 years, occ: Auto Driver, r/o. Plot No.19, Sai Sanjeeva Nagar, Nagaram, Hyderabad.

A8: K. Parasuramulu, S/o. Tirupathaiah, age: 24 years, occ: Auto Driver, r/o. Saibaba Nagar, Dhammiguda,

ECIL, Hyderabad. ...Accused No.1 to 8

This case tried against the accused No.1, 3 and 6. On 15-03-

2024 the case against the accused no.2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 was split up and

numbered as C.C. No.597/2024 and the same is pending.

This case is coming before me on 08-10-2025 for final hearing in the presence of Smt. J. Bhargavi, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri S. Narayana Rao and Sri Nagendhar Rao, the learned counsels for the accused no.1, 3 and 6 and the matter having stood over for determination till this day, this court delivered the following:- 2 of 7

Dated: 13-10-2025

CC. No. 206/2016

Cr. No. 351/2015

J U D G M E NT

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Gopalapuram P.S., Secunderabad has filed charge sheet against accused no.1 to 8 in Cr. No.351/2015 for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.

2(i). On 17-11-2015 at 22:30 hours LW1-Md. Sharfuddin, A.S.I. of Police,

Gopalapuram Police Station, lodged a complaint as follows: That on 17-11- 2015 at about 18:00 hours while he along with his staff are conducting special drive on irregular number plates/wrong number plates on instruction of superior officers at Keyes High School, Secunderabad, they found the following vehicles with irregular number plates (1) AP 13 X 8316 P. Upender

Feroz/A1, (2) AP 11 Y 8292 J Pandu/A2, (3) TS 07 UA 3472 Syed Hazi/A3, (4)

AP 28 TE 7890 Samuel Raju/A4, (5) AP 28 W 6880 Ram Chander/A5, (6) AP 29 V 7492 P. Narsing Rao/A6, (7) AP 10 W 1779 D. Narsing Rao/A7 and (8)

AP 10 W 3252 Parashuramulu/A8. Hence, he requested to take necessary action in this regard.

2(ii)Basing on the above report given by LW1/Md. Sharfuddin, a case was registeredin Cr. No. 351/2015 for the offence punishable U/s. 420 of IPC.

During the course of investigation the accused no.1 to 8 were apprehended by the police and on completion of investigation, the Investigation Officer filed a charge sheet u/s 173 Cr.P.C. against the accused no.1 to 8 for the offence punishable U/s 420 of IPC.

3.This court taken cognizance for the offence punishable U/s. 420 of IPC against the accused no.1 to 8. On 15-03-2024 case against the accused no.2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 was split up. The relevant copies of documents were furnished to the accused no.1, 3 and 6 as required u/s.207 of Cr.P.C. Charge for the offence punishable U/s 420 of IPC is framed against the accused no.1, 3 and 6, read over and explained to them for which the accused no.1, 3 and 6 3 of 7

Dated: 13-10-2025

CC. No. 206/2016

Cr. No. 351/2015 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW4 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and MO1 to MO8. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused no.1, 3 and 6 were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material appearing against them in prosecution evidence for which the accused no.1, 3 and 6 denied, reported no evidence in their support.

5.Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

6.Now the point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused no.1, 3 and 6 for the offence punishable U/sec. 420 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT:

7.The prosecution has examined PW1 to PW4 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and MO1 to MO8 in support of its case.

8.The prosecution case is that on 17-11-2025 at 18:00 hours at Keyes

High School Junction, Secunderabad the accused cheated the traffic police by tampering the their auto number plates and thereby committed the offence under section 420 of IPC.

9.In order to prove the facts, PW1 to PW4 examined, Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and

MO1 to MO8 marked.

10.Section 420 of IPC reads as under;

Section 420 of IPC:

“Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces

the person deceived to deliver any property to any

person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or

any part of a valuable security, or anything which is

signed or sealed, and which is capable of being

converted into a valuable security, shall be

4 of 7

Dated: 13-10-2025

CC. No. 206/2016

Cr. No. 351/2015

punished with imprisonment of either description

for a term which may extend to seven years, and

shall also be liable to fine.”

Essential Ingredients. - An offence under this

section has following essentials:

(i) There must be deception i.e., the accused must have deceived someone;

(ii) That by the said deception. The accused must induce a person,

(a) to deliver any property; or

(b) to make, alter or destroy the whole or part of the valuable security or any thing which is signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable property.

(iii) That the accused did so dishonestly.

11.The charge against the accused is that they were misleading the police in the limits of the Traffic Police Station Gopalapuram by tampering the number plates thereby escaping from e-challans. As per the prosecution, the accused were found in driving the autos with bearing nos. AP 13 X 8316, AP 11 Y 8292, TS 07 UA 3472, AP 28 TE 7890, AP 28 W 6880, AP 29 V 7492, AP 10 W 1779 and AP 10 W 3252 by tampering the number plates thereby PW1 seized the same while conducting patrolling and brought them to the Police

Station. Later on PW4 filed the charge sheet against them.

12.As per the evidence of PW1, on 17-11-2016 at 06:00 PM he conducted vehicle checking at Keys High School, Secunderabad and PW2 also assisted him then they caught eight autos noticing some of them removed numbers or putting black paint thereby tampered the number plates to avoid challans.

They seized the said autos and filed the complaint before PW4, PW4 registered the case and recorded the confession of the accused. However, some of the confession panchas are not examined before this court.

5 of 7

Dated: 13-10-2025

CC. No. 206/2016

Cr. No. 351/2015

13.The counsel for the accused disputed that Ex.P2 photographs were taken at the Police Station and not at the scene of offence. PW1 also categorically admitted that Ex.P2 photographs of the autos taken at the Police

Station and PW2 also admitted in his cross-examination that they seized the autos on the spot, but he cannot say the auto numbers and number of pending challans on the seized autos. PW3 cited as witness, but his evidence is not useful to connect the accused. PW4 is the Investigating Officer who filed the charge sheet. As per his evidence, on 17-11-2015 PW1 brought the autos to the Police Station and on 18-11-2018 accused voluntarily surrendered

before him.

14. The counsel for the accused cross examined the Investigating Officer wherein it is elicited that the engine numbers and chassis numbers of the autos were not mentioned in the complaint and he further not verified the pending challans on the above mentioned autos numbers. The counsel for the accused vehemently argued that the section 420 of IPC does not apply to the given case and if at all the police noticed any tempering of the number plates police might have imposed penalty on the spot.

15.Section 192(1) of M.V. Act deals with using a vehicle with false number plate and can result in the penalty of upto Rs.5,000/-, but whereas coming to the section 420 of IPC, the Hon’ble High Court for the State of

Telangana in Vasundhara Chary vs. State of Telangana, held that;

“it appears that the only allegation against the petitioner is

that he drove the vehicle without number plate, as such,

the vehicle was seized, which does not come under the

purview of Section 420 of IPC. Further, the petitioner was

also charged for the offence punishable under Section

80(a) of the Act and the said Section speaks about the

procedure in applying for and granting permits to the

vehicles. Therefore, driving the vehicle without number

plate does not attract Section 80(a) of the Act.” 6 of 7

Dated: 13-10-2025

CC. No. 206/2016

Cr. No. 351/2015 To attract the section 420 of IPC, the accused has to cheat and dishonestly induce the victim to deliver any property to any person or make, alter or destroy any part of valuable property. The section 80(a) of M.V. Act describes that exhibition of registration number.

If at all the accused found with the number plat tampering the police have to impose fine against the petitioner as per the rules or register the case under the concerned provision under M.V. Act. Penalties can be imposed under the Motor Vehicles Act for failing to have the number plates displayed clearly and correctly, including violations such as covering or using an incorrect format. Section 192 of M.V. Act prescribed the punishment that driving a vehicle without registration or displaying false registration numbers the penalty upto Rs.5,000/- for the first offence and subsequently offences one year imprisonment or Rs.10,000/- fine. But, section 420 of IPC or 468 of

IPC does not apply with a given case. Therefore, the charge under section 420 of IPC is not sustainable when there is a tampering or deletion of digits/letters the police may seized the vehicle and got imposed penalty of Rs.5,000/-, but

PW4 directly filed the charge sheet under section 420 of IPC. Therefore, I hold that the prosecution is failed to prove the charge leveled against the accused no.1, 3 and 6.

16.In the result, the accused no.1, 3 and 6 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.420 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted

U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused no.1, 3 and 6 shall remain in force for a period of six months U/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

There is no order passed as to the case property i.e., MO1 to MO8 as the case against the accused no.2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 was split up and numbered as

C.C.No.597/2024 and the same is pending.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this, the 13th day of October, 2025.

X ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD

7 of 7

Dated: 13-10-2025

CC. No. 206/2016

Cr. No. 351/2015

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

PW1: Sri Md. Sharfuddin: Complainant. -Nil- PW2: Sri K.V. Sambha Siva Rao: Police Constable. PW3: Sri Balaji: Witness. PW4: Sri S. Venkatesh: the then S.I. of Police/Investigating Officer.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

Ex.P1: Complaint of PW1. -Nil- Ex.P2: 05 Photographs of the autos. Ex.P3: First Information Report. Ex.P4: Confession Panchanama. Ex.P5: Motor Vehicle Inspector Report

M.Os MARKED

MO1: Vehicle bearing no.AP 13 X 8316. MO2: Vehicle bearing no.AP 11 Y 8292. MO3: Vehicle bearing no.TS 07 UA 3472. MO4: Vehicle bearing no.AP 28 TE 7890. MO5: Vehicle bearing no.AP 28 W 6880. MO6: Vehicle bearing no.AP 29 V 7492. MO7: Vehicle bearing no.AP 10 W 1779. MO8: Vehicle bearing no.AP 10 W 3252.

X ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD

1 of 6

Dated: 16-10-2025

CC. No. 504/2016

Cr. No. 159/2016

IN THE COURT OF X ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE :

SECUNDERABAD

Present : SRI K. PRASAD

X ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD.

Thursday, the 16th Day of October, 2025

C.C. No. 504 of 2016

Between: The State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of police, Chilkalguda Police Station, Secunderabad.…Complainant

And

A1: Anjaneyulu, S/o. Chennaiah, age: 22 years, occ: Nursing Student, Gandhi Hospital, r/o. Nursing Hostel, Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. A2: Srinivas Naik, S/o. Hari Singh, age: 27 years, occ: Pvt. Employee, r/o. Plot No.5, Hayath Nagar, R.R. District. A3: G. Shankar Naik, S/o. G. Baggu Naik, age: 28 years, occ: Student, r/o. 28-80/2, Road No.1, Matha Laxminagar, Gaddi Annaram, Saroor Nagar, R.R. District. A4: Smt. Ruth Pankaja, W/o. Eliaizer, age: 56 years, occ: Tutor Gr-II in Gandhi Hospital, r/o. H. No. 4-3-40/1, 5 th Floor, Flat No.501, Narsimha Nagar Colony, Mallapur, R.R. District. A5: Smt. Sunitha, W/o. Christopher, age: 57 years, occ: Tutor Gr-II, in Gandhi Hospital, r/o. H.No.10-22/4, Malkajgiri, R.R. District. A6: Smt. B. Manjulatha, W/o. Late B. Joshna, age: 49 years, occ: Tutor, (Nursing), r/o. H. No. 8-3-228/1280/46, Jawahar Nagar,

Yousufguda, Hyderabad. ...Accused No.1 to 6

This case tried against the accused No.1, 4 and 5. On 10-03-2025 the case against the accused no.2, 3 and 6 was split up and numbered as C.C. No.422/2025 and the same is pending.

This case is coming before me on 13-10-2025 for final hearing in the presence of Smt. J. Bhargavi, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri R. Vidya Prabhakar, the learned counsel for the accused no.1, 4 and 5 and the matter having stood over for determination till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E NT

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Chilkalguda P.S., Secunderabad has filed charge sheet against accused no.1 to 6 in Cr. No.159/2016 for the offences punishable under Section 506 and 507 of IPC.

2(i). On 16-03-2016 at 21:30 hours LW1/Kum. Sriveni lodged a complaint as 2 of 6

Dated: 16-10-2025

CC. No. 504/2016

Cr. No. 159/2016 follows: That on 16-03-2016 at 03:00 PM the accused no.1 was threatening her and asked her to come to Amule Canteen along with the accused no.2 to 5 for the purpose of compromise and also said that the accused no.1 will give an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and further he is torturing by making calls. Hence, she requested to take necessary action in this regard.

2(ii)Basing on the above report given by LW1/Kum. Sriveni, a case was registeredin Cr. No.159/2016 for the offences punishable U/s. 506 and 507 of

IPC. During the course of investigation the accused no.1 to 6 were apprehended by the police and on completion of investigation, the Investigation

Officer filed a charge sheet u/s 173 Cr.P.C. against accused no.1 to 6 for the offences punishable U/s 506 and 507 of IPC.

3.This court taken cognizance for the offences punishable U/s. 506 and 507 of IPC against the accused no.1 to 6. Thereafter, the case against the accused no.2, 3 and 6 was split up and numbered as C.C. No.422/2025, due their non- appearance and Non-Bailable Warrants pending against them. The relevant copies of documents were furnished to the accused no.1, 4 and 5 U/sec.207 of

Cr.P.C. and thereafter, the accused no.1, 4 and 5 were examined U/s 251

Cr.P.C. and the substance of accusation leveled against the accused no.1, 4 and 5 for the offences punishable U/s 506 and 507 of IPC was read over and explained to them, for which the accused no.1, 4 and 5 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.In order to prove its case against the accused no.1, 4 and 5, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW3 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused no.1, 4 and 5 were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material appearing against the accused no.1, 4 and 5 in prosecution evidence, for which the accused no.1, 4 and 5 denied and further, the accused no.1, 4 and 5 reported no defence evidence.

3 of 6

Dated: 16-10-2025

CC. No. 504/2016

Cr. No. 159/2016

5.Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

6.Now the point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused no.1, 4 and 5 for the offences punishable U/sec. 506 and 507 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT:

7.The prosecution has examined PW1 to PW3 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 in support of its case.

8.The charge against the accused no.1, 4 and 5 are under section 506 and 507 of IPC its reads as under.

Section 506 of IPC:

“Whoever commits the offence of criminal

intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of

either description for a term which may extend to

two years, or with fine, or with both; and if the

threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to

cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to

cause an offence punishable with death or

imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a

term which may extent to seven years, or to impute

unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with

imprisonment of either description for a term which

may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with

both.”

Essential Ingredients. - The offence of criminal

intimidation has been defined under Section 503 IPC,

Section 506 provides punishment for it.

An offence under Section 503 has following

essentials:

1. Threatening a person with any injury ;

(i) to his person, reputation or property; or

(ii) to the person, or reputation of any one

in whom that person is interested.

2. The threat must be with intent;

(i) to cause alarm to that person; or

(ii) to cause that person to do any act which 4 of 6

Dated: 16-10-2025

CC. No. 504/2016

Cr. No. 159/2016 he is not legally bound to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat; or

(iii) to cause that person to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat.

Section 507 of IPC:

“Whoever commits the offence of criminal

intimidation by an anonymous communication, or

having taken precaution to conceal the name or

abode of the person from whom the threat comes,

shall be punished with imprisonment of either

description for a term which may extend to two

years, in addition to the punishment provided for the

offence by the last preceding section.”

Essential Ingredients. - An offence under this section

has following essential ingredients:

(i) That the accused committed the

offence of criminal intimidation;

(ii) That he did so by an anonymous

communication or having taken

precaution to conceal the name and

abode of the person from whom the

threat comes.

9.The accusation against the accused is that on 16-03-2016 at 03:00 PM the accused no.1 threatened the defacto complaint/LW1-Kum. Sriveni and asked her to come to Amule Canteen for compromise and also said that the accused no.1 will give Rs.1,00,000/- and thereby making call to the defacto complainant/LW1-Kum. Sriveni and also threatened her. However, the LW1-

Kum. Sriveni, LW2-Kum. S. Saritha and LW3-Kum. Urmila who are the defacto complainant and eye witnesses were not examined before this court and police filed a report thereby their evidence was closed.

10. The scene of offence panchas are examined as PW1 and PW2, but they completely turned hostile to the prosecution case and as per their evidence, the 5 of 6

Dated: 16-10-2025

CC. No. 504/2016

Cr. No. 159/2016 police obtained their signature, wherein the signatures of PW1 obtained at his house and the signatures of PW2 were obtained at Gandhi Hospital.

11.The Investigating Officer is examined as PW3. As per his evidence, the complaint/Ex.P5 lodged by the twenty persons, all are 3rd year Nursing students. As per the complaint/Ex.P5, the accused no.1 threatened them on phone. The complainant/Ex.P5 also revealing the cell number of the accused no.3 as 9063900833 and the defacto complainant/LW1/Smt. Sriveni number as 9951340899.

12.In order to establish the accusation, the Investigating Officer relied upon the cal data obtained from service provider and marked as Ex.P8. However,

Nodal Officer not examined before this court to ascertain the Ex.P8. As per the

Ex.P8, on 16-03-2016 the call made from the cell no.9063900833 to the cell no.9951340899 and call duration is 403 seconds and call time is 16:47:36.

Except that there is no material is placed on record by the Investigating Officer.

Whereas coming to the Ex.P5, the cell numbers cited as that of Shankar Naik, but the Investigating Officer not collected any material to show that the said number stands in the name of the accused no.3 and further the no.9951340899 stands in the name of the defacto complainant/LW1-Smt.

Sriveni. As per the complaint/Ex.P5, the accused used to harass her by making calls repeatedly, but whereas coming to the Ex.P8, the alleged calls in the call record there is only one call made from the alleged Shankar Naik’s number to the alleged the defacto complainant/LW1-Smt. Sriveni’s number. The

Investigating Officer only relied upon the call data/Ex.P8 wherein he highlighted only one call at 16:47:36 hours, but there is no repeated calls from the alleged accused no.3 cell number. The Investigating Officer not explained in what way the other accused are connected with the alleged offences. Except the call record which is also not useful to connect the accused and there are no overt acts of the other accused and there is no evidence that other accused threatened the victim/ LW1-Smt. Sriveni. Therefore, I hold that the prosecution 6 of 6

Dated: 16-10-2025

CC. No. 504/2016

Cr. No. 159/2016 is miserably failed to prove the accusation leveled against the accused no.1, 4 and 5.

13.In the result, the accused no.1, 4 and 5 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s.506 and 507 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted

U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused no.1, 4 and 5 shall remain in force for a period of six months U/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

There is no order passed as to the case property as the case against the accused no.2, 3 and 6 was split up and numbered as C.C.No.422/2025 and the same is pending.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this, the 16th day of October, 2025.

X ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW1: Sri Mohd. Aleem Shareef: Panch witness.-Nil- PW2: Sri Mohd. Yousuf: Panch witness. PW3: Sri K. Umesh Chary: the then S.I. of Police/Investigating Officer.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch. Ex.P2: Signature of PW1 on scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch. Ex.P3: Signature of PW2 on scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch. Ex.P4: Signature of PW2 on scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch. Ex.P5: Complaint. Ex.P6: First Information Report. Ex.P7: Scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch. Ex.P8: Cal Data Record.

M.Os MARKED

-Nil-

X ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD

1 of 6

Dated: 16-10-2025

CC. No. 504/2016

Cr. No. 159/2016

IN THE COURT OF X ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE :

SECUNDERABAD

Present : SRI K. PRASAD

X ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD.

Thursday, the 16th Day of October, 2025

C.C. No. 504 of 2016

Between: The State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of police, Chilkalguda Police Station, Secunderabad.…Complainant

And

A1: Anjaneyulu, S/o. Chennaiah, age: 22 years, occ: Nursing Student, Gandhi Hospital, r/o. Nursing Hostel, Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. A2: Srinivas Naik, S/o. Hari Singh, age: 27 years, occ: Pvt. Employee, r/o. Plot No.5, Hayath Nagar, R.R. District. A3: G. Shankar Naik, S/o. G. Baggu Naik, age: 28 years, occ: Student, r/o. 28-80/2, Road No.1, Matha Laxminagar, Gaddi Annaram, Saroor Nagar, R.R. District. A4: Smt. Ruth Pankaja, W/o. Eliaizer, age: 56 years, occ: Tutor Gr-II in Gandhi Hospital, r/o. H. No. 4-3-40/1, 5 th Floor, Flat No.501, Narsimha Nagar Colony, Mallapur, R.R. District. A5: Smt. Sunitha, W/o. Christopher, age: 57 years, occ: Tutor Gr-II, in Gandhi Hospital, r/o. H.No.10-22/4, Malkajgiri, R.R. District. A6: Smt. B. Manjulatha, W/o. Late B. Joshna, age: 49 years, occ: Tutor, (Nursing), r/o. H. No. 8-3-228/1280/46, Jawahar Nagar,

Yousufguda, Hyderabad. ...Accused No.1 to 6

This case tried against the accused No.1, 4 and 5. On 10-03-2025 the case against the accused no.2, 3 and 6 was split up and numbered as C.C. No.422/2025 and the same is pending.

This case is coming before me on 13-10-2025 for final hearing in the presence of Smt. J. Bhargavi, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri R. Vidya Prabhakar, the learned counsel for the accused no.1, 4 and 5 and the matter having stood over for determination till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E NT

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Chilkalguda P.S., Secunderabad has filed charge sheet against accused no.1 to 6 in Cr. No.159/2016 for the offences punishable under Section 506 and 507 of IPC.

2(i). On 16-03-2016 at 21:30 hours LW1/Kum. Sriveni lodged a complaint as 2 of 6

Dated: 16-10-2025

CC. No. 504/2016

Cr. No. 159/2016 follows: That on 16-03-2016 at 03:00 PM the accused no.1 was threatening her and asked her to come to Amule Canteen along with the accused no.2 to 5 for the purpose of compromise and also said that the accused no.1 will give an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and further he is torturing by making calls. Hence, she requested to take necessary action in this regard.

2(ii)Basing on the above report given by LW1/Kum. Sriveni, a case was registeredin Cr. No.159/2016 for the offences punishable U/s. 506 and 507 of

IPC. During the course of investigation the accused no.1 to 6 were apprehended by the police and on completion of investigation, the Investigation

Officer filed a charge sheet u/s 173 Cr.P.C. against accused no.1 to 6 for the offences punishable U/s 506 and 507 of IPC.

3.This court taken cognizance for the offences punishable U/s. 506 and 507 of IPC against the accused no.1 to 6. Thereafter, the case against the accused no.2, 3 and 6 was split up and numbered as C.C. No.422/2025, due their non- appearance and Non-Bailable Warrants pending against them. The relevant copies of documents were furnished to the accused no.1, 4 and 5 U/sec.207 of

Cr.P.C. and thereafter, the accused no.1, 4 and 5 were examined U/s 251

Cr.P.C. and the substance of accusation leveled against the accused no.1, 4 and 5 for the offences punishable U/s 506 and 507 of IPC was read over and explained to them, for which the accused no.1, 4 and 5 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.In order to prove its case against the accused no.1, 4 and 5, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW3 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused no.1, 4 and 5 were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material appearing against the accused no.1, 4 and 5 in prosecution evidence, for which the accused no.1, 4 and 5 denied and further, the accused no.1, 4 and 5 reported no defence evidence.

3 of 6

Dated: 16-10-2025

CC. No. 504/2016

Cr. No. 159/2016

5.Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

6.Now the point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused no.1, 4 and 5 for the offences punishable U/sec. 506 and 507 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT:

7.The prosecution has examined PW1 to PW3 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 in support of its case.

8.The charge against the accused no.1, 4 and 5 are under section 506 and 507 of IPC its reads as under.

Section 506 of IPC:

“Whoever commits the offence of criminal

intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of

either description for a term which may extend to

two years, or with fine, or with both; and if the

threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to

cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to

cause an offence punishable with death or

imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a

term which may extent to seven years, or to impute

unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with

imprisonment of either description for a term which

may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with

both.”

Essential Ingredients. - The offence of criminal

intimidation has been defined under Section 503 IPC,

Section 506 provides punishment for it.

An offence under Section 503 has following

essentials:

1. Threatening a person with any injury ;

(i) to his person, reputation or property; or

(ii) to the person, or reputation of any one

in whom that person is interested.

2. The threat must be with intent;

(i) to cause alarm to that person; or

(ii) to cause that person to do any act which 4 of 6

Dated: 16-10-2025

CC. No. 504/2016

Cr. No. 159/2016 he is not legally bound to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat; or

(iii) to cause that person to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat.

Section 507 of IPC:

“Whoever commits the offence of criminal

intimidation by an anonymous communication, or

having taken precaution to conceal the name or

abode of the person from whom the threat comes,

shall be punished with imprisonment of either

description for a term which may extend to two

years, in addition to the punishment provided for the

offence by the last preceding section.”

Essential Ingredients. - An offence under this section

has following essential ingredients:

(i) That the accused committed the

offence of criminal intimidation;

(ii) That he did so by an anonymous

communication or having taken

precaution to conceal the name and

abode of the person from whom the

threat comes.

9.The accusation against the accused is that on 16-03-2016 at 03:00 PM the accused no.1 threatened the defacto complaint/LW1-Kum. Sriveni and asked her to come to Amule Canteen for compromise and also said that the accused no.1 will give Rs.1,00,000/- and thereby making call to the defacto complainant/LW1-Kum. Sriveni and also threatened her. However, the LW1-

Kum. Sriveni, LW2-Kum. S. Saritha and LW3-Kum. Urmila who are the defacto complainant and eye witnesses were not examined before this court and police filed a report thereby their evidence was closed.

10. The scene of offence panchas are examined as PW1 and PW2, but they completely turned hostile to the prosecution case and as per their evidence, the 5 of 6

Dated: 16-10-2025

CC. No. 504/2016

Cr. No. 159/2016 police obtained their signature, wherein the signatures of PW1 obtained at his house and the signatures of PW2 were obtained at Gandhi Hospital.

11.The Investigating Officer is examined as PW3. As per his evidence, the complaint/Ex.P5 lodged by the twenty persons, all are 3rd year Nursing students. As per the complaint/Ex.P5, the accused no.1 threatened them on phone. The complainant/Ex.P5 also revealing the cell number of the accused no.3 as 9063900833 and the defacto complainant/LW1/Smt. Sriveni number as 9951340899.

12.In order to establish the accusation, the Investigating Officer relied upon the cal data obtained from service provider and marked as Ex.P8. However,

Nodal Officer not examined before this court to ascertain the Ex.P8. As per the

Ex.P8, on 16-03-2016 the call made from the cell no.9063900833 to the cell no.9951340899 and call duration is 403 seconds and call time is 16:47:36.

Except that there is no material is placed on record by the Investigating Officer.

Whereas coming to the Ex.P5, the cell numbers cited as that of Shankar Naik, but the Investigating Officer not collected any material to show that the said number stands in the name of the accused no.3 and further the no.9951340899 stands in the name of the defacto complainant/LW1-Smt.

Sriveni. As per the complaint/Ex.P5, the accused used to harass her by making calls repeatedly, but whereas coming to the Ex.P8, the alleged calls in the call record there is only one call made from the alleged Shankar Naik’s number to the alleged the defacto complainant/LW1-Smt. Sriveni’s number. The

Investigating Officer only relied upon the call data/Ex.P8 wherein he highlighted only one call at 16:47:36 hours, but there is no repeated calls from the alleged accused no.3 cell number. The Investigating Officer not explained in what way the other accused are connected with the alleged offences. Except the call record which is also not useful to connect the accused and there are no overt acts of the other accused and there is no evidence that other accused threatened the victim/ LW1-Smt. Sriveni. Therefore, I hold that the prosecution 6 of 6

Dated: 16-10-2025

CC. No. 504/2016

Cr. No. 159/2016 is miserably failed to prove the accusation leveled against the accused no.1, 4 and 5.

13.In the result, the accused no.1, 4 and 5 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s.506 and 507 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted

U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused no.1, 4 and 5 shall remain in force for a period of six months U/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

There is no order passed as to the case property as the case against the accused no.2, 3 and 6 was split up and numbered as C.C.No.422/2025 and the same is pending.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this, the 16th day of October, 2025.

X ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW1: Sri Mohd. Aleem Shareef: Panch witness.-Nil- PW2: Sri Mohd. Yousuf: Panch witness. PW3: Sri K. Umesh Chary: the then S.I. of Police/Investigating Officer.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch. Ex.P2: Signature of PW1 on scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch. Ex.P3: Signature of PW2 on scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch. Ex.P4: Signature of PW2 on scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch. Ex.P5: Complaint. Ex.P6: First Information Report. Ex.P7: Scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch. Ex.P8: Cal Data Record.

M.Os MARKED

-Nil-

X ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD