Sri L.Raju

Pg. 1 O.S. No.767/2021

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-

CUM-I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT KUSHAIGUDA .

Present:L. Raju I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kushaiguda.

Friday, the 06 thday of March, 2026

O.S.No. 767 of 2021

Between:

B.Naresh Varma, S/o.Late B.Papaiah, Aged about 65 years, Occupation: Retired Government Servant, R/o.Tenant in H.No.30-265/20/G-20, Sainathpuram, Malkajgiri, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, 500047 TS … P laintiff

A N D

Devalla Dinesh Gurunath, S/o.Late G.S.Gurunath, Aged about 47 years, Occupation: Bank Employee, R/o.H.No.C-408, Block India Bulls, Centurian, Lower Tank Bund, Elachiguda, Gandhinagar, Hyderabad – 500080 TS.

...Defendant

This suit is coming before me on 25.02.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri T.Venugopala Rao, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri M.P.Sanjay, Advocate for defendant; and upon perusing the material on record, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed under Order VII Rule 1 read with Section 26 of the

Code of Civil Procedure by the Plaintiff seeking the relief of Perpetual

Injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, servants, henchmen or persons claiming through or under him, from interfering with the alleged peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

Pg. 2 O.S. No.767/2021 2).The brief averments of Plaint are as follows:-

(i)The plaintiff submits that he was inducted as a tenant in the suit schedule premises, i.e., Duplex Independent Residential House bearing H.No.30-265/20/G-20, Sainathpuram, Malkajgiri, Medchal-

Malkajgiri District – 500047, Telangana, consisting of Ground Floor and

First Floor, in the month of June, 2016, on a monthly rent of Rs.18,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Thousand only) excluding electricity consumption charges. Subsequently, the rent was enhanced by the defendant/landlord from time to time and the present rent is Rs.20,000/- per month.

(ii)The plaintiff submits that there is no written rental agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant and the tenancy is purely oral in nature. At the time of induction as tenant, the plaintiff deposited an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) with the defendant towards refundable security deposit, as demanded by the defendant. The plaintiff has been using the suit schedule premises for residential purposes.

(iii)The plaintiff further submits that at the instructions of the defendant he carried out repairs and renovation works in the suit schedule premises and spent an amount of about Rs.70,000/- at the time of occupying the premises.

Pg. 3 O.S. No.767/2021

(iv)The plaintiff submits that since the date of his induction as tenant he has been regular in payment of monthly rent and has been maintaining the suit schedule premises in a neat and proper condition.

There were no complaints whatsoever from the defendant regarding the occupation of the premises by the plaintiff at any point of time.

(v)The plaintiff further submits that he is a retired Executive

Engineer from the State Government and a senior citizen and has always maintained cordial and respectful relations with the defendant.

(vi)The plaintiff submits that in the last week prior to the Dasara festival, i.e., on 11-10-2021, the defendant suddenly instructed the plaintiff to vacate the suit schedule premises immediately. The plaintiff was shocked and surprised by such sudden demand.

(vii)Despite repeated requests made by the plaintiff seeking reasons for such sudden demand for eviction, the defendant failed to disclose any valid or reasonable cause and continued to insist that the plaintiff vacate the premises immediately.

(viii) The plaintiff submits that he has good relations with the neighbouring residents of the suit property and there has never been any quarrel or dispute with the defendant at any point of time.

Pg. 4 O.S. No.767/2021

(ix)The sudden demand for eviction has caused serious hardship to the plaintiff, who is a pensioner and senior citizen. In the present circumstances it is extremely difficult for the plaintiff to secure alternative accommodation at such short notice. The plaintiff further submits that he has been regularly paying rent as well as electricity consumption charges without any default.

(x)The plaintiff submits that as per the instructions of the defendant, he has been depositing the monthly rents into the bank account of the defendant’s wife, namely Smt. Lalitna Dinesh, in Andhra

Bank.

(xi)The plaintiff is filing herewith xerox copies of bank statements showing payment of rents till the date of filing of the suit, along with Aadhaar Card, LPG gas connection payment receipts, electricity bill payment receipts, etc., which clearly establish that the plaintiff is in lawful possession of the suit schedule premises and has been regularly paying rents and other charges.

(xii)The plaintiff submits that the defendant has been demanding the plaintiff to vacate the premises suddenly without issuing any legal notice or assigning any valid reason and has been repeatedly calling the plaintiff over phone insisting upon the date and time for vacating the premises.

Pg. 5 O.S. No.767/2021

(xiii) Such conduct of the defendant has caused great hardship to the plaintiff, who is a senior citizen suffering from age-related health problems. The defendant is also holding the security deposit of

Rs.1,50,000/- and the renovation amount spent by the plaintiff, but has remained silent regarding repayment of the same.

(xiv) The plaintiff apprehends that the defendant, having support of manpower and influence, may attempt to forcibly evict the plaintiff from the premises without following due process of law.

(xv)Therefore, the plaintiff has no other alternative except to approach this Court seeking protection of his lawful possession by way of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff otherwise than by due process of law, as the threatened eviction is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice.

3).The brief averments of written statement are as follows.

(i)The defendant submits that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The allegations made by the plaintiff are false, baseless and denied in to, and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of all the allegations made in the plaint.

Pg. 6 O.S. No.767/2021

(ii)The defendant denies each and every allegation made in the plaint except those specifically admitted herein. The suit is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.

(iii)The defendant admits that the plaintiff was inducted as a tenant in the suit schedule premises, i.e., Duplex Independent

Residential House bearing H.No.30-265/20/G-20, Sainathapuram,

Malkajgiri, Medchal-Malkajgiri District – 500047, Telangana, consisting of

Ground Floor and First Floor, in June 2016 on a monthly rent of

Rs.18,000/- excluding electricity charges.

(iv)However, the defendant submits that the rent was subsequently enhanced and the present rent is Rs.21,000/- per month.

The plaintiff has been paying lesser amounts on several occasions, which would be evident from the account statements filed by the defendant

before this Court.

(v)The defendant submits that a rental agreement was prepared, but the plaintiff deliberately avoided signing the same from the inception of the tenancy. On several occasions the defendant attempted to meet the plaintiff for execution of the agreement, but the plaintiff was not approachable and often not reachable on telephone.

(vi)The defendant further submits that during a recent visit he noticed unauthorized constructions in the suit premises, including

Pg. 7 O.S. No.767/2021 construction of a shed in the backyard and covering of the pooja room, which indicates the malafide intention of the plaintiff.

(vii)The defendant further denies that the plaintiff deposited

Rs.1,50,000/- as security deposit and submits that the plaintiff paid only

Rs.40,000/- towards refundable deposit.

(viii) The defendant submits that he has been orally requesting the plaintiff since April 2020 to vacate the premises, as the tri-party rental agreement between the landlord, bank and defendant was going to expire on 30-11-2021.

(ix)The defendant further submits that he has no alternative accommodation and needs to shift to his own house along with his aged mother-in-law and mentally challenged brother, for whom he is responsible.

(x)The defendant submits that though the agreed rent is

Rs.20,000/- per month, the plaintiff has been paying lesser amounts at his convenience, which is evident from the bank account statements filed

before this Court. On several occasions the plaintiff has delayed payment

of rent.

(xi)The defendant further submits that the plaintiff continues in possession of the premises only as a tenant and has been paying only rent and not other charges mentioned in the plaint.

Pg. 8 O.S. No.767/2021

(xii)The defendant submits that he himself is residing in a rented house paying Rs.31,000/- per month and his rental agreement is expiring on 30-11-2021. The landlord of the defendant also issued a legal notice

dated 14-08-2021 demanding vacating of the premises within two

months.

(xiii) The defendant denies the allegation that the plaintiff paid huge security deposit or renovation charges. The defendant also denies that he has any manpower or muscle power or that he intends to illegally evict the plaintiff.

(xiv) The defendant submits that the plaintiff owns a multi-storied building at Chikkadapally near RTC Cross Roads, yet he is deliberately refusing to vacate the suit premises and is attempting to illegally occupy the defendant’s house property.

(xv)The defendant submits that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and has every legal right to seek eviction of the plaintiff. The defendant has been requesting the plaintiff to execute a rental agreement since 2016, but the plaintiff has avoided doing so.

(xvi) The plaintiff has approached this Court with unclean hands and false allegations seeking perpetual injunction. Hence, the defendant prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

Pg. 9 O.S. No.767/2021

4)Basing on the above said rival pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial.

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the

relief of Perpetual injunction as prayed for ?

2. To What relief?

5)Heard both sides. Perused the record.

6.1) To substantiate their case, the plaintiff is examined as PW1 and marked Exs.A1 to A4, which consist of bank statements, electricity bills, electricity payment receipts and gas bills.

6.2)The defendant examined himself as DW1 and marked Exs.B1 to B7, including legal notice dated 14-08-2021, reply notice, transfer order, bank-attested rental agreement copy, statement of account, disability certificate of his brother and bank letter directing him to shift to his owned premises. The neighbour of the suit schedule property was examined as DW2.

7)ISSUE NO.1:

It is not in dispute that the plaintiff entered the suit schedule property as a tenant under the defendant. The relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted.

Pg. 10 O.S. No.767/2021 7.2)However, the relief of Perpetual injunction is an equitable relief, and the plaintiff must approach the Court with clean hands and establish a clear threat of illegal dispossession.

7.3)The plaintiff alleges payment of Rs.1,50,000/- as refundable deposit and Rs.70,000/- towards renovations. However, during cross- examination, PW1 categorically admitted that no receipt was taken for the alleged deposit. No documentary proof is filed for payment of renovation expenses. His explanation regarding source of funds is vague and unsupported by records. Thus, the plaintiff failed to prove these material assertions, which go to the root of his claim.

7.4)PW1 admitted that he paid rent in cash for long periods without any proof. He did not file bank statements for crucial periods, including the year 2020. He received eviction notice and gave reply, but still pleaded sudden illegal eviction. Though he alleged threats of muscle power, no police complaint was lodged. These admissions clearly show material inconsistencies and suppression of facts.

7.5) The plaintiff is admittedly a tenant. When the landlord seeks possession and disputes exist regarding tenancy, the proper remedy is to contest eviction proceedings, not to file a suit for perpetual injunction to indefinitely protect possession. The plaintiff is attempting to use

Pg. 11 O.S. No.767/2021 injunction as a shield against lawful eviction, which is impermissible in law.

7.6)The defendant is the undisputed owner of the suit schedule property and has demonstrated bona fide personal necessity supported by documentary evidence (Exs.B3, B6, B7).

7.7)On the other hand, the plaintiff has failed to establish any imminent illegal dispossession. Granting perpetual injunction would amount to curtailing the lawful rights of the owner.

7.8)For the foregoing reasons, this Court holds that the plaintiff has failed to prove entitlement to the relief of Perpetual Injunction.

Accordingly, Issue No.1 is answered against the Plaintiff.

8)ISSUE NO.2:In view of the finding on Issue No.1, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief.

9)In the result, the suit is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation by my Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 06 thday of March, 2026.

Sd/-

I Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Kushaiguda

Pg. 12 O.S. No.767/2021

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

P.W.1: B.Naresh VarmaD.W.1 : D.Dinesh Gurunath D.W.2 : P.Rambabu

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1:Original Bank Statement regarding showing the payment of monthly rents. Ex.A2: Original Electricity Bills (6 Nos) Ex.A3 :Original online Electricity payments receipts. Ex.A4 :Original Gas Supply bills (3 Nos)

FOR DEFENDANTS :

Ex.B1 :Legal notice, dated 14.08.2021. Ex.B2 : Reply to the legal notice dated 14.08.2021 Ex.B3 : Transfer order dated 03.09.2021 Ex.B4 : Rental agreement (Bank attested copy) Ex.B5 : Attested copy of statement of account Lalitha Dinesh from 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2022. Ex.B6 : Attested copy of Disability certificate of elder brother D.Sai Ravi. Ex.B7 : Bank letter dated 04.06.2021 to shift to owned premises.

Sd/-

I Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Kushaiguda

Pg. 13 O.S. No.767/2021

DECREE IN ORIGINAL SUIT

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM- I

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT KUSHAIGUDA.

Present:L.Raju I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kushaiguda.

Friday, the 06 thday of March, 2026

O.S.No. 767 of 2021

Between:

B.Naresh Varma, S/o.Late B.Papaiah, Aged about 65 years, Occupation: Retired Government Servant, R/o.Tenant in H.No.30-265/20/G-20, Sainathpuram, Malkajgiri, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, 500047 TS … P laintiff

A N D

Devalla Dinesh Gurunath, S/o.Late G.S.Gurunath, Aged about 47 years, Occupation: Bank Employee, R/o.H.No.C-408, Block India Bulls, Centurian, Lower Tank Bund, Elachiguda, Gandhinagar, Hyderabad – 500080 TS.

Pg. 14 O.S. No.767/2021

...Defendant

Claim: This suit is filed Under Order VII Rule 1 read with Section 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the Plaintiff seeking the relief of Perpetual Injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, servants, henchmen or persons claiming through or under him, from interfering with the alleged peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

Date of Presentation : 18.10.2021 Date of Numbering : 20.10.2021 Date of Decree : 06.03.2026

Cause of Action: Cause of action arose in the last week of October, 2021, i.e., prior to Dushera i.e., on 11.10.2021, the defendant/Landlord, given a serious instructions to the plaintiff/tenant to evict the suit schedule premises immediately. Despite of requests made by the plaintiff/tenant to defendant/landlord, that the reason for sudden asking for eviction of plaintiff/tenant by the defendant/landlord, was disclosed and there is every apprehension that the defendant/landlord with the support of manpower and muscle power without following due process of law, may interfere with or evict the plaintiff fro the suit premises illegally.

Valuation: The suit is valued at Rs.1,00,000/- and upon which a court fee of Rs.3,426/- is paid under section.26 (c) TSCF & S.V.Act.

This suit is coming before me on 25.02.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri T.Venugopala Rao, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri M.P.Sanjay, Advocate for defendant; and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court doth order and decree as under.

ORDER

1.That the suit of the plaintiffs be and the same is hereby dismissed.

2. That there shall be no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and seal of the Court on this the 06 th day of March, 2026.

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kushaiguda .

MEMO OF COSTS

For Plaintiffs For Defendant

1. Stamp on PlaintRs. 3,426-00

Pg. 15 O.S. No.767/2021

2. Stamp on VakalatRs. 2-00Rs. 2-00

3. Stamp on ProcessRs. 35-00

4. Publication charges-- Rs. 3,463-00Rs. 2-00

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kushaiguda .

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

All that Duplex Independent Residential House bearing H.No.30-265/20/G- 20, Sainathapuram, Malkajgiri, Medchal-Malkajgiri District - 500047 TS, consisting of Ground and first floor and bounded by: North : H.No.30-265/20/G-22 South : H.No.30-265/20/G-19 East : Neighbour’s Apartment West: 30ft road.

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class

at Kushaiguda .

Page 1 of 10 OS No.570 of 2022 I-AJCJ-cum-I-AJMFC

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT, AT KUSHAIGUDA.

Present: L. RAJU I Addl.Junior Civil Judge-cum I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, At Kushaiguda.

Tuesday, the 6 thday of March, 2026.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.570 OF 2022

Between: Sri. Dinesh Gurunath, S/o. D.S.Gurunath, Aged about: 51 years, Occ: Service, R/o. H. No. C-48, India Bulls Centrum, Lower tank Bund, Elchiguda, Hyderabad.

...Plaintiff.

AND

Sri.B.Naresh Varma, S/o. Late B.Papaiah, Occ: Retired, H.No.30-265/20/G-20, Sainathapuram, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad – 500047. …Defendant.

This suit is coming for a final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.M.P.Sanjay, Advocate for the plaintiff, and Sri. S.G.Poornachander Rao, Advocate for the defendant and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this date, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed under Order VII Rule 1 and 2 r/w Sec.26 of Code of

Civil Procedure by the plaintiff seeking a decree directing the defendant to vacate the suit schedule premises i.e., H.No.30-265/20/G-20,

Sainathpuram, Malkajgiri, and to deliver vacant and peaceful possession

Page 2 of 10 OS No.570 of 2022 I-AJCJ-cum-I-AJMFC thereof to the plaintiff, and further seeking recovery of arrears of rent of

Rs.13,000/- for the period from June 2021 to June 2022, damages of

Rs.2,00,000/-, and enhanced rent @ Rs.21,000/- per month from

December, 2021 till delivery of possession.

2).The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-

(i)The plaintiff let out his duplex residential house bearing H.No.

30-265/20/G-20, Sainathapuram, Malkajgiri, to the defendant in June 2016 on a monthly rent of Rs.18,000/- for residential purposes. Though the property was purchased for his personal use, the plaintiff rented it out as he was posted at Mahabubnagar while working in State Bank of India and was residing with his family in a rented house at Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad, paying Rs.31,000/- per month. He states that he is paying Rs.11,000/- more than the rent received from the defendant. The plaintiff further submits that the defendant did not execute a rental agreement, denied inspection of the premises, and unlawfully made structural modifications without consent. Despite having his own house at Chikkadpally, the defendant allegedly continued in possession with an intention to illegally retain the suit property and filed O.S. No. 767/2021 for perpetual injunction

before this court.

ii) It is further averred that the plaintiff alleges that the defendant has defaulted in paying full rent, leaving arrears, and is currently paying

Rs.1,000/- less than the agreed rent of Rs.21,000/-. He further claims

Page 3 of 10 OS No.570 of 2022 I-AJCJ-cum-I-AJMFC damages for unauthorized alterations (estimated at Rs.2,00,000/-), excess rent paid by him to his landlord, legal expenses, mental agony, and emotional distress. The plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 01-03-2022 seeking eviction and damages, to which the defendant replied on 15-04- 2022 denying the allegations. Hence, the plaintiff seeks eviction of the defendant from the suit premises along with recovery of arrears, damages, and other consequential reliefs. Hence, the suit.

3).Defendant filed the written statement resisting the plaintiff's claim and denied all the averments made in the plaint and further contended that he was inducted as a tenant in the suit schedule property, i.e., Duplex

Independent House bearing No. 30-285/20/G-20, situated at

Sainathapuram, Malkajgiri, in the month of June 2016, after mutual negotiations and agreement with the Plaintiff. At the inception of tenancy, the monthly rent was fixed at Rs.18,000/- exclusive of electricity and water charges, and the same was enhanced from time to time by mutual consent.

At present, the agreed rent is Rs.20,000/- per month, which the Defendant has been paying regularly and without any default, and the Plaintiff has been receiving the same without objection. The Defendant has also been regularly paying electricity and water consumption charges to the concerned authorities and has been maintaining the premises in a neat and tenantable condition. The Defendant further submits that the suit house was not a newly constructed building at the time of tenancy but was about ten years

Page 4 of 10 OS No.570 of 2022 I-AJCJ-cum-I-AJMFC old, and the Plaintiff was the third purchaser of the said property. There was no written rental agreement executed between the parties at any point of time, and the Plaintiff never presented any such agreement for execution.

Any alleged rental agreement now relied upon by the Plaintiff is denied as fabricated and not binding on the Defendant. The Defendant categorically submits that he has not made any structural alterations, additions, or unauthorized constructions in the suit premises and has been using the property strictly for residential purposes in accordance with the tenancy.

ii) It is further contended that he is a bona fide tenant in lawful possession of the suit premises and that his possession cannot be termed as unlawful. As the Plaintiff attempted to dispossess him without following due process of law, the Defendant was constrained to file O.S. No. 767 of 2021

before this court seeking perpetual injunction, in which an order of

injunction was granted restraining the Plaintiff from interfering with his possession except in accordance with law. The Defendant further submits that the allegation regarding payment of Rs.1,000/- less than the agreed rent is false, as the agreed rent is only Rs.20,000/- per month and the same has been paid regularly. There are no arrears of rent as alleged by the

Plaintiff. The Defendant has no knowledge of the Plaintiff’s alleged personal circumstances, employment posting, rental commitments, or financial liabilities, and the tenancy between the parties is independent of such personal matters. The Defendant denies liability to pay any amount towards

Page 5 of 10 OS No.570 of 2022 I-AJCJ-cum-I-AJMFC alleged damages, structural modifications, water-proofing, depreciation, excess rent allegedly paid by the Plaintiff, legal expenses, or compensation for emotional distress. The claim for Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental agony is baseless and unsustainable in law. The Defendant submits that the present suit is filed as a counterblast to the injunction suit and is intended to harass and pressurize the Defendant. The Defendant reiterates that he has been a sincere and regular tenant and that the Plaintiff is not entitled to eviction, arrears of rent, damages, or any other relief as claimed. Hence, prayed to dismiss the present petition.

4).During the course of trial, plaintiff himself is examined as PW1 and Exs.A1 to A10 are marked on his behalf further he was cross- examined. Further in support of the contention of the defendant he has examined himself as DW-1 and was cross-examined.

5). Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the learned counsel for the defendant. Perused the record and written arguments filed by the defendant.

6). Upon the pleadings of both parties, the following issues were framed by my predecessor during trial.

(I) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for eviction of the

defendant from the suit schedule property?

(II) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for Rs.13,000/-

Page 6 of 10 OS No.570 of 2022 I-AJCJ-cum-I-AJMFC towards arrears of rent from June 2021 to June 2022?

(III) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to enhanced rent

@ Rs.21,000/- per month from December, 2021 till

disposal of the suit?

(IV) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to Rs.2,00,000/- towards damages?

(V) To what relief?

7).Issue No.I :-

The plaintiff has contended that he is the owner of the suit schedule property and that the defendant was inducted as a tenant in June, 2016.

The defendant has not disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

The plaintiff has also stated that he terminated the tenancy of the defendant by issuing a legal notice dated 01-03-2022 demanding vacant possession of the premises.

The defendant has not produced any material to show that the tenancy continues in accordance with law after termination of the same.

Once the tenancy is terminated by issuing a valid notice, the tenant is bound to vacate and deliver possession of the premises.

The Judgment relied by the Plaintiff, which was delivered by the

Hon'ble High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh in Manik Halder, S/o.

Page 7 of 10 OS No.570 of 2022 I-AJCJ-cum-I-AJMFC

Rishikant Halder Versus Polamraju Lavanya, W/o. P.L.N. Prasad, which was reported in 2004 Law Suit (AP) 1182 in which the court held that “the tenant is liable to be evicted on the ground of bona fide requirement for running of business by the respondent”.

The another Judgment relied by the Plaintiff, which was delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sarla Ahuja Versus United India

Insurance Company Limited, which was reported in 1998 Law Suit (SC) 1014, in which the court held that “availability of alternative residential accommodation does not disentitle landlord to seek recovery of possession of tenanted premises”.

This Court has perused the above judgments and, upon careful consideration of the evidence on record, observes that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant is admitted. The notice issued by the plaintiff terminating the tenancy is found to be valid.

The plaintiff has also established his bona fide requirement of the suit schedule property, Therefore, the defendant is liable to be evicted from the suit schedule premises. Accordingly, Issue No.I is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

8).Issue No.II :-

The plaintiff claims that the defendant paid Rs.1,000/- less every month, thereby accumulating arrears of Rs.13,000/- from June 2021 to

Page 8 of 10 OS No.570 of 2022 I-AJCJ-cum-I-AJMFC

June 2022.

However, except making a bald assertion, the plaintiff has not produced any convincing documentary evidence to establish that the agreed rent was Rs.21,000/- per month or that the defendant had paid lesser amount than the agreed rent.

It is also an admitted fact that no written rental agreement exists between the parties specifying the exact quantum of rent.

The defendant has consistently taken a stand that the agreed rent was

Rs.20,000/- per month and that he has been regularly paying the same.

In the absence of reliable documentary evidence establishing the alleged short payment of rent, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has failed to satisfactorily prove that a sum of Rs.13,000/- is due towards arrears of rent. Accordingly, Issue No.II is answered against the plaintiff.

9).Issue No.III:-

The plaintiff further claims that the rent was enhanced from time to time and finally fixed at Rs.21,000/- per month from December, 2021.

However, the plaintiff has not produced any documentary evidence or written agreement showing such enhancement of rent. There is also no material on record to show that the defendant had agreed to pay rent at the

Page 9 of 10 OS No.570 of 2022 I-AJCJ-cum-I-AJMFC enhanced rate of Rs.21,000/- per month.

On the contrary, the defendant has categorically denied the alleged enhancement and maintained that the rent agreed between the parties was only Rs.20,000/- per month.

In the absence of any convincing evidence proving enhancement of rent, this Court cannot accept the contention of the plaintiff regarding enhanced rent. Therefore, Issue No.III is answered against the plaintiff.

10)Issue No.IV:-

The plaintiff has claimed damages of Rs.2,00,000/- alleging that the defendant made unauthorized alterations and caused loss to the plaintiff.

However, the plaintiff has not produced any documentary or oral evidence to establish the nature of alleged alterations or the quantum of damages suffered by him.

No independent witness or evidence has been placed before this Court to prove that the defendant caused damage to the property. In the absence of proper proof regarding the alleged damages, the claim of the plaintiff for

Rs.2,00,000/- towards damages cannot be sustained. Hence, Issue No.IV is answered against the plaintiff.

Page 10 of 10 OS No.570 of 2022 I-AJCJ-cum-I-AJMFC 11).Issue No.V:-

In view of the findings on Issues Nos.I to IV, the suit deserves to be partly decreed.

12).In the result, the suit is partly decreed with costs directing the

Defendant to

(a) vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the Suit Schedule property to Plaintiff within 2 months from the date of decree.

(b) pay the mesne profits to the Plaintiff at the rate to be determine on separate petition under Order XX Rule 12 of CPC for the period from the date of filing the suit to till date of handing over the vacant possession of the Suit Schedule Property to the Plaintiff.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected, and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6 thday of March, 2026.

Sd/-

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge -cum- I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Medchal- Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

PW1: Sri. Dinesh Gurunath DW1: B.Naresh Varma

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.A1 :Legal notice dated 14.08.2021 Ex.A. :Reply to the legal notice dated 16.08.2021 Ex.A3 :Residential Accommodation agreement

dated 14.01.2019.

Ex.A4 :Expiry of rented accommodation dated 04.09.2021 Ex.A5 :Transfer order dated 03.09.2021

Page 11 of 10 OS No.570 of 2022 I-AJCJ-cum-I-AJMFC

Ex.A6 :Rental Agreement (Bank attested copy) Ex.A7 :Disability certificate of elder brother D.Sai Ravi (attested copy) Ex.A8 :Latest medical discharge summary of mother-in-law Ex.A9 :Legal notice dated 01.03.2022 Ex.A10:Legal notice dated 15.04.2022 FOR DEFENDANTS: -None-Sd/-

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge -cum- I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Medchal- Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda.

Read by:

Compared by:

DECREE IN ORIGINAL SUIT

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM- I ADDITIONAL

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT KUSHAIGUDA.

Present:L.Raju I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kushaiguda.

Friday, the 06 thday of March, 2026

O.S.No. 570 of 2022

Between: Sri. Dinesh Gurunath, S/o. D.S.Gurunath, Aged about: 51 years, Occ: Service, R/o. H. No. C-48, India Bulls Centrum,

Page 12 of 10 OS No.570 of 2022 I-AJCJ-cum-I-AJMFC

Lower tank Bund, Elchiguda, Hyderabad.

...Plaintiff

AND

Sri.B.Naresh Varma, S/o. Late B.Papaiah, Occ: Retired, H.No.30-265/20/G-20, Sainathapuram, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad – 500047. …Defendant.

Claim: This suit is filed Under Order VII Rule 1 and 2 r/w Sec.26 of Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiff seeking a decree directing the defendant to vacate the suit schedule premises i.e., H.No.30-265/20/G-20, Sainathpuram, Malkajgiri, and to deliver vacant and peaceful possession thereof to the plaintiff, and further seeking recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.13,000/- for the period from June 2021 to June 2022, damages of Rs.2,00,000/-, and enhanced rent @ Rs.21,000/- per month from December, 2021 till delivery of possession.

Date of Presentation : 11.08.2022 Date of Numbering : 16.08.2022 Date of Decree : 06.03.2026

Cause of Action: Cause of action arose in the month of June, 2016 when the defendant requested to let out suit schedule property on rent for residential purpose. The defendant has filed suit for perpetual injunction on 18.10.2021. The plaintiff received legal notice on 14.08.2021 to vacate the premises by 31.01.2020 The plaintiff got issued legal notice dated 01.03.2022 to the defendant to evict from suit schedule property and also to pay the damages. The defendant has given reply dated 15.04.2022 to the legal notice denied the allegations and also made counter allegation against the plaintiff.

Valuation: The suit is valued at Rs.2,16,000/- and upon which a court fee of Rs.4,626/- is paid under section.29 r/w 6 of APCF & S.V.Act.

This suit is coming before me on 25.02.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.M.P.Sanjay, Advocate for the plaintiff, and Sri. S.G.Poornachander Rao, Advocate for defendant; and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court doth order and decree as under.

ORDER

1.That the suit of the plaintiffs be and the same is hereby partly decreed with costs.

2. That the defendant is hereby directed to (a) vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the Suit Schedule property to Plaintiff within 2

Page 13 of 10 OS No.570 of 2022 I-AJCJ-cum-I-AJMFC months from the date of decree, (b) pay the mesne profits to the Plaintiff at the rate to be determine on separate petition under Order XX Rule 12 of CPC for the period from the date of filing the suit to till date of handing over the vacant possession of the Suit Schedule Property to the Plaintiff.

Given under my hand and seal of the Court on this the 06 th day of March, 2026.

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kushaiguda .

MEMO OF COSTS

For Plaintiffs For Defendants

1.Stamp on PlaintRs. 4,626-00

2.Stamp on VakalatRs. 2-00Rs. 2- 00

3.Stamp on ProcessRs. 35-00

4.Publication charges-- Rs. 2-00 Total Rs. 4,663-00

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kushaiguda .

Page 1 CC No. 358 /2025 I AJCJ-cum-I AJMFC.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-

CUM-I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

AT KUSHAIGUDA.

PRESENT: L. Raju I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Kushaiguda.

Tuesday, the 10 thday of March, 2026.

CALENDAR CASE NO. 358 OF 2025

Between:

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

A N D

Bottu Ramulu, @ Mayani Ramulu @ Mani @ Sailu @ Ravi, S/o.Chandraiah, Age 49 years, R/o.Neredmet, Medchal Malkajgiri district. …….Accused.

This case came before me on 11.02.2026 for final hearing in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and

Smt. P.Dhanaja, Assistant Legal Aid Defence Counsel for the

accused, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Neredmet Police Station laid charge sheet in Crime No.766/2023 against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of I.P.C.

Page 2 CC No. 358 /2025 I AJCJ-cum-I AJMFC.

2.Brief averments of the charge sheet are that on 05.09.2023 at 15.00 hours received a memo from the Hon’ble I-Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Medchal-

Malkajgiri District, at Malkajgiri vide Lr.Dis.No.2837/2023, dated 18.08.2023 filled by LW1/R.Thirupathi/Legal Aid Defence Counsel, stating that on 16.08.2023 at 1200 hours while the LW1 engaged in his duties and making his way to the fourth floor of the Hon’ble M.S.J

Court, in the meantime, the accused/M.Ramulu @ Bottu Ramulu in

SC.No.1163/2022 of Ghatkesar Police Station, threatened him that

after his release from jail he would see the LW1’s end and abused him in the most filthy language. Hence, he requested to take necessary action.

[ii] Basing on the report of PW-1, PW-7/G.Chandra Shekar, registered a case in Crime No.766 of 2023, issued F.I.R and entrusted the investigation to PW6. PW-6 took up the investigation and during the course of investigation, he examined and recorded statement of

PW1. Later proceeded to the scene of offence situated at IVth floor,

M.S.J Court hall corridor, Malkajgiri Court complex, Neredmet and caused enquired into the allegations made by complainant, secured presence of two panchas LW5/Duddu Balakrishna and PW4 and conducted scene of offence panchanama and prepared rough sketch in C.D.F. Further the PW-6 secured presence of other witnesses and

Page 3 CC No. 358 /2025 I AJCJ-cum-I AJMFC.

recorded the statements of PW2, PW3 and PW5. Later the PW7 took up the further investigation from the PW6. PW6 filed a requisition

before the Hon’ble Court with pray to issue P.T warrant against the

accused, accordingly on 23.01.2025, PW6 regularized the P.T warrant against the accused who was convicted prisoner in Central Prison

Cherlaplly vide S.C.No.507/2021.

3.Considering the Charge Sheet and material on record this Court took cognizance for the offences U/sec. 504 and 506 of IPC, against

Accused and on appearance of accused, furnished the copies of documents U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. to him, on which the prosecution is relying. Thereafter the accused was examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. by explaining the accusation and particulars of alleged offences, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During the course of trial in order to prove its case prosecution examined PWs 1 to 7 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and evidence of

LW5/Duddu Balakrishna was given up by the A.P.P. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating circumstance appearing against him in vernacular language, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

Page 4 CC No. 358 /2025 I AJCJ-cum-I AJMFC.

5. Heard contentions of learned A.P.P. and the Assistant Legal Aid

Defence counsel.

6.Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt

of accused for the offences punishable under Sections

504 and 506 of I.P.C beyond all reasonable doubt?

7. POINT:

To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-4. The oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution is scrutinized by this Court.

7.2) PW-1 is the de facto complainant and the victim in the present case. He deposed in clear and categorical terms that on the date of the incident, while he was discharging his official duties within the

Court premises, the accused abused him in filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences. PW-1 further stated that the accused intentionally insulted him in the presence of others and intimidated him by issuing threats, thereby causing fear and disturbance.

The testimony of PW-1 is natural, consistent and inspires

Page 5 CC No. 358 /2025 I AJCJ-cum-I AJMFC.

confidence. His version is in complete consonance with the contents of Ex.P-1 complaint, which was lodged without any undue delay.

Being the victim of the offence, his evidence carries great evidentiary value. Nothing substantial has been elicited during cross-examination to discredit his testimony. Hence, the evidence of PW-1 remains reliable and trustworthy.

7.3)PW-2, who is an advocate and colleague of PW-1, deposed that on 16.08.2023 at about 12:00 P.M, when the accused was produced

before the Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge in S.C.

No.1163/2022, he personally witnessed the accused abusing PW-1 in filthy language and threatening him. PW-2 clearly stated that the accused shouted at PW-1 and uttered threatening words in the court premises.

PW-2 also identified the accused before this Court. His testimony corroborates the version of PW-1 regarding the date, time and place of occurrence as well as the conduct of the accused. There is nothing on record to show that PW-2 had any motive to falsely implicate the accused. Therefore, the testimony of PW-2 lends strong corroboration to the evidence of PW-1.

7.4) PW-3, who was performing court duty at the relevant time, also supported the case of the prosecution. He deposed that he witnessed

Page 6 CC No. 358 /2025 I AJCJ-cum-I AJMFC.

the accused threatening the Legal Aid Counsel (PW-1) inside the court corridor and abusing him in offensive language. PW-3 further stated that the accused behaved aggressively and threatened PW-1 to kill, thereby creating a tense atmosphere within the court premises.

The evidence of PW-3 is consistent with the evidence of PWs-1 and 2. His testimony establishes that the incident took place within the court premises and that the accused intentionally intimidated the victim. The evidence of PW-3 therefore strengthens the prosecution case.

7.5)PW-4 is a witness to the scene of offence panchanama. He deposed that on 06.06.2025, the police conducted the scene of offence panchanama in his presence. He clearly stated that the police explained the contents of the panchanama and that he affixed his signature after verifying the same. PW-4 identified his signature on

Ex.P-2, which forms part of the scene of offence panchanama.

The evidence of PW-4 establishes the place of occurrence and supports the investigation conducted by the police.

7.6)PW-5, who was working as a Court Liaison Officer, also supported the prosecution case. He deposed that he personally witnessed the accused threatening PW-1 within the court premises

Page 7 CC No. 358 /2025 I AJCJ-cum-I AJMFC.

and using abusive language against him. PW-5 further stated that the conduct of the accused caused disturbance in the court premises and that several persons present there noticed the incident.

The testimony of PW-5 further corroborates the evidence of the other prosecution witnesses and clearly establishes the conduct of the accused.

7.7)PW-6 and PW-7 are the Investigating Officers. They deposed regarding the various steps taken during investigation. Their evidence reveals that upon receipt of the complaint, the police registered the crime, visited the scene of offence, conducted the panchanama, recorded statements of the witnesses, obtained P.T. warrant, and after completion of investigation filed the charge sheet before the

Court.

Their evidence establishes that the investigation was conducted in accordance with law and that the charge sheet was filed after collecting sufficient material against the accused.

7.8)The documentary evidence produced by the prosecution also supports the oral evidence. Ex.P-1 is the complaint given by PW-1 which forms the basis of the case. Ex.P-3 is the First Information

Report registered by the police. Ex.P-2 relates to the scene of offence

Page 8 CC No. 358 /2025 I AJCJ-cum-I AJMFC.

panchanama and bears the signature of PW-4. Ex.P-4 is the Crime

Detail Form.

These documents corroborate the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses and establish the prosecution version regarding the incident.

7.9)During cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, the defence failed to bring out any material contradictions, omissions or inconsistencies in their testimony. The evidence of PWs-1 to 5 is consistent and mutually corroborative. The defence has not suggested any credible motive for false implication.

The accused, when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., merely denied the allegations. However, he did not choose to lead any defence evidence to probabilise his version. Mere denial without supporting evidence cannot outweigh the consistent and cogent evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

7.10) From the cumulative appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, this Court is satisfied that the prosecution has successfully established that the accused intentionally abused

PW-1 in filthy language within the court premises and threatened him with dire consequences, thereby intentionally insulting him with the

Page 9 CC No. 358 /2025 I AJCJ-cum-I AJMFC.

knowledge that such provocation would likely cause breach of peace and also criminally intimidating him. Accordingly, this Court holds that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the point for determination is answered in favour of the prosecution and against the accused.

8.In the result, Accused is found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of I.P.C, and he is convicted under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C.

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class

at Kushaiguda.

Hearing on Quantum of sentence:

9.Upon finding the Accused guilty of the offences punishable under

Sections 504 and 506 of I.P.C, this Court has heard the Accused on the question of quantum of sentence as contemplated under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C., after explaining to him the nature of the offences and the punishment prescribed thereunder.

The Accused pleaded for mercy, stating that he is a life convict, and requested the Court to take a lenient view.

Considering the nature and gravity of the offences, this Court is

Page 10 CC No. 358 /2025 I AJCJ-cum-I AJMFC.

of the opinion that the Accused is not entitled to the benefit under

Section 360 of Cr.P.C. or under the provisions of the Probation of

Offenders Act. However, taking into consideration the plea of mercy made by the Accused and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to consider the said plea to a limited extent while determining the sentence.

Accordingly, in the result, the Accused is found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of I.P.C and is convicted therefor under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C.

The Accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One (01) year two (02) months for the offence punishable under Section 504 of I.P.C.

The Accused is further sentenced to undergo Simple

Imprisonment for a period of One (01) year two (02) months for the offence punishable under Section 506 of I.P.C.

Both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The period of remand undergone by the Accused from 23.01.2025 to 10.03.2026 (412 days), shall be set off under Section 428 of

Cr.P.C.

The Accused is informed of his right to prefer an appeal against

Page 11 CC No. 358 /2025 I AJCJ-cum-I AJMFC.

this Judgment and sentence passed by this court. He is also informed of his right to avail free legal aid for the purpose of filing an appeal.

Office is directed to furnish a true copy of the Judgment to the

Accused forthwith and to communicate this order to the

Superintendent, Central Prison, Cherlapally, and issue the conviction warrant accordingly.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10 thday of March, 2026 .

Sd/-

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class

at Kushaiguda.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION:DEFENCE:

PW-1 : R.ThirupathiNil.

PW-2 : Ch.Naveen Reddy

PW-3 : Md. Anwar

PW-4 :Y.Mukesh

PW-5 : P.Narasimha Reddy

PW-6 :P.Ramaswamy

PW-7 : G.Chandra Shekar

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Page 12 CC No. 358 /2025 I AJCJ-cum-I AJMFC.

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

Ex.P1 :Report of PW-1. Nil Ex.P2 :Signature of PW4 on panchanama. Ex.P3 :First Information Reporter Ex.P4 : Crime Detail Form

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

Sd/-

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class

at Kushaiguda.

Page 1 of 8CC No. 1879 /2024 I AJCJ-cum-I AJMFC.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

AT KUSHAIGUDA.

PRESENT: L.Raju I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Kushaiguda.

Friday, the 09 th day of March, 2026.

CALENDAR CASE NO. 1879 OF 2024

Between: The State of Telangana, through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Neredmet, Rachakonda.

……..Complainant.

A N D

Katta Jatin, S/o.Katta Nagarjuna Rao, Age 26 years, Occupation: Student, R/o.Villa No.120, Richmondvillas, Suncity, Bandlaguda Jagir, Neredmet.

….....Accused.

This case came before me on 09.03.2026 for final hearing in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for theState of Telanganaand M/s.Manikanta Law Firm, Advocate for accusedand upon hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Neredmet Police Station, filed a charge sheet against Accused in Crime No. 685 of 2024 for the offence punishable under Section 125(a) of B.N.S. (Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita) and 185 of MV Act.(Motor Vehicle Act)

Page 2 of 8CC No. 1879 /2024 I AJCJ-cum-I AJMFC.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

[i] On 30.09.2024, the complainant/LW1/Atla Santhosh, was traveling from JBS towards J.K.Colony on his two-wheeler bike

Br.No.AP15AZ7584. Enroute, when he reached the RK Puram bridge at around 0420 hours, the accused drove his vehicle Car Toyota

Urban Crusier Br.No.TS07JK2852 hit the LW1 bike from behind. As a result, the LW1 and his brother fall down on the road. The LW1 received a blood injury on the right knee and leg index finger. His brother Kiran received a injury on his right leg. Hence, the complainant requested to take necessary action.

[ii] Basing on the complaint, the LW7/Vanam Saidulu/Sub-

Inspector of police, examined and recorded the statement of

LW1/complainant/Atla Santhosh and LW2/Atla Kiran and proceeded to the scene of offence at RK Puram bridge, Neredmet, prepared CDF with all its descriptions & observations at the instance of Panchas

LW3/Murugula Krishna and LW4/Balakrishna. Conducted drunken test to accused in which calculated B.A.C is 120mg/100ml, Thereafter section 185 M.V act added to the existing section of law.

[iii]During the course of investigation, the LW7/Vanam

Saidulu/Sub-Inspector of police examined and recorded the statements of LW3/Murugula Krishna and LW4/Balakrishna. Later he

Page 3 of 8CC No. 1879 /2024 I AJCJ-cum-I AJMFC.

served notice accused U/Sec. 35(3) of B.N.S.S. After collection of all documents, he filed charge sheet against accused. Received medical certificate vide MLC No.998 from LW5/Dr.Laxmi, Civil Assistant

Surgeon, Community health Center, Medchal-Malkajgiri

3.This Court took cognizance of the offence punishable under

Section 125(a) of B.N.S and Sec.185 of M.V.Act against the accused.

Upon appearance of the accused, copies of the documents as contemplated under Sections 230 B.N.S.S were furnished to him and he was examined under Section 262 B.N.S.S.

4.Accused was examined under Section 262 B.N.S.S., and charges for the offence punishable under Sections 125(a) of B.N.S and Sec.185 of M.V.Act were framed, read over, and explained to him in the vernacular language, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 3 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-7. The Assistant Public Prosecutor also given up the evidence of LW-3/Murugula Krishna, LW-4/Balakrishna, as police filed report that there where about not known. The APP given up the evidence of LW-5/Dr.Laxmi, Civil Assistant Surgeon, as the relevant documents marked through PW3. The evidence of

LW6/P.Sandeep Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police also given up by APP

Page 4 of 8CC No. 1879 /2024 I AJCJ-cum-I AJMFC.

as FIR is marked through PW3.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, Accused was examined under Section 351 B.N.S.S. by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence. He denied the same and reported that he had no defence evidence.

7.Heard both sides and perused the record.

8. Now the point for consideration is :

“Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 125(a) of B.N.S and

Sec.185 of M.V.Act, beyond all reasonable doubt?”

9. Point :

In support of its case, as stated supra, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-7.P.W.1 is the defacto-complainant. P.W.2 is the eye witness. P.W-3 is the

Investigating Officer. Ex.P-1 is the signature of the PW1 on complaint.

Ex.P-2 is the 161 Cr.PC statement of PW1. Ex.P-3 is 161 Cr.PC statement of PW-2, Ex.P-4 is First Information Report. Ex.P-5 is the

C.D.F. Ex.P-6 is the Breath Analyzing Test report. Ex.P-7 is the M.L.C report vide No.998.

Page 5 of 8CC No. 1879 /2024 I AJCJ-cum-I AJMFC.

10.P.Ws.1 turned hostile and deposed that he do not know anything about the case. One day he went to police station on his personal work. Then the police obtained his signatures on some blank papers. Ex.P1 is his signature on complaint. Though the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor cross-examined him nothing incriminating could be elicited in support of the prosecution case.

11.P.Ws.2 turned hostile and deposed that he do not know anything about this case. He do not want to contest the case as the matter has been compromised. Though the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor cross-examined him nothing incriminating could be elicited in support of the prosecution case.

12.P.W.3, who is the investigating officer, deposed that on 13.09.2024, LW6/P.Sandeep Kumar, Sub-Inspector of police, received a complaint from PW1 and after registering case in Cr.No.685/2024 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 125(a) of B.N.S and Sec.185 of

M.V.Act. Ex.P4 is the FIR. Later he took up investigation, during the course of investigation time examined and recorded the statement of

PW1, PW2/eye witness and later he proceeded to the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of LW3 and LW4 vide Ex.P5 is CDF. As per the evidence collected during the investigation, he conducted drunken test to the accused and it was

Page 6 of 8CC No. 1879 /2024 I AJCJ-cum-I AJMFC.

calculated BAC 120mg/100 ml and the same is marked as Ex.P6 and added Sec.185 MV Act. Later he received a medical certificate from

LW5/Dr.Lakshmi, who treated the injured LW1 and issued MLC No.998 vide Ex.P7, opining of simple injury. Thereafter, he served notice under section 35(3) B.N.S.S to the accused person. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

During cross-examination, P.W.3 admitted that there is no evidence filed with regard to the scene of offence. He denied other suggestions put by the learned counsel for accused.

13.As P.Ws.1 & 2, who were material witnesses, turned hostile. The

Assistant Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of the remaining witnesses. Nothing incriminating was elicited from the evidence of

P.W-3. Hence, there is no reliable evidence to connect Accused with the alleged offence.

14.In view of the above facts and circumstances, the prosecution failed to prove that accused drove his vehicle in a rash and negligence manner. Consequently, the charge under Sections 125(a) of B.N.S and Sec.185 of M.V.Act is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

15.Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the

Page 7 of 8CC No. 1879 /2024 I AJCJ-cum-I AJMFC.

guilt of Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 125(a) of

B.N.S and Sec.185 of M.V.Act. The point is answered accordingly, in favour of Accused.

16.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 125(a) of B.N.S and Sec.185 of M.V.Act and accordingly he is acquitted for the same under Section 271(1)

B.N.S.S. The bail bonds of Accused shall stand cancelled and the sureties shall be discharged after expiry of the appeal period.

(Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected on the desktop and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 09 th day of March,

2026).

Sd/-

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Medchal-Malkajgiri Disrict, At Kushaiguda.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:- FOR DEFENCE:-

PW-1: Alat SanthoshNone PW-2:Atla Kiran PW-3:Vanam Saidulu PW-4:Kuncham Narsinha PW-5: Vanam Saidulu

Page 8 of 8CC No. 1879 /2024 I AJCJ-cum-I AJMFC.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 :Signature of the PW1 on the complaint. Ex.P2 :161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 Ex.P3 :161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 Ex.P4 :First Information Report Ex.P5 :C.D.F Ex.P6:Breath Analyzing Test Report Ex.P7 :M.L.C Report of the PW1

FOR DEFENCE:-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- NIL -

Sd/-

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, At Kushaiguda.

Page 9 of 8CC No. 1879 /2024 I AJCJ-cum-I AJMFC.

CALENDAR EXTRACT

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-I ADDL. JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MEDCHAL-MAKAJGIRI DISTRICT, AT

KUSHAIGUDA.

CC.No. 1879 / 2024

1. Name of the Police Station. : Neredmet

2. Crime Number : 685/2024

3. Offences Under Section : 125(a) of B.N.S. and Sec.185 of M.V.Act

4. Name of the Accused : Katta Jatin, S/o.Katta Nagarjuna Rao,

Age 26 years, Occupation: Student, R/o.Villa No.120, Richmondvillas, Suncity, Bandlaguda Jagir, Neredmet.

5. Date of:

a. Offence : 30.09.2024 b. Complaint : 30.09.2024 c. Arrest : issued 35(3) B.N.S.S notice d. Date of Release : - - e. Commencement of trial : 05.03.2026 f. Close of trial :05.03.2026 g. Judgment :09.03.2026

6. RESULT:In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 125(a) of B.N.S and Sec.185 of M.V.Act and accordingly he is acquitted for the same under Section 271(1) B.N.S.S. The bail bonds of Accused shall stand cancelled and the sureties shall be discharged after expiry of the appeal period.

7. Explanation for Delay: No delay

I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum- I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Kushaiguda

Page 1 of 17 CC No.1242/2024

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

AT KUSHAIGUDA.

PRESENT: L.Raju I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Kushaiguda.

Thursday, the 26 th day of February, 2026.

CALENDAR CASE NO. 1242 OF 2024

Between: The State of Telangana, through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Neredmet, Rachakonda.

……..Complainant.

A N D

A-1: Muntha Kishore yadav, S/o.M Babu Yadav, aged 24 years, Occupation: Student, R/o.Flat No.33-21, R.K.Puram, Officers Colony, Neredmet.

A-2: Manda Sai Kiran @ Dodla Sai S/o.Manda Ravi, age 23 years, Occupation: Driver, R/o.H.No..33-11/316, R.K.Puram, Officers Colony, Neredmet.

A-3: Rondi Vardhan, S/o.Late Dasharad, Age 24 years, Occupation: Pvt., Job, R/o.H.No.11-2-426/4, R.K.Puram, Officers Colony, Neredmet.

A-4: Saneeth Kumar, S/o.Suresh Kumar, Age 20 years, Occupation: Student, R/o.H.No.33-4/6, R.K.Puram, Officers Colony, Neredmet.

A-5: Susheel (Absconding)

A-6: Naresh (Absconding)

….....Accused.

Page 2 of 17 CC No.1242/2024

This case came before me on 20.02.2026 for final hearing in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor and Sri K.Emmanuel, Advocate for accused No.1 to 4 and upon hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Neredmet Police Station, filed a charge sheet against Accused Nos.1 to 6 in Crime No.397 of 2024 for the offence punishable under Section 290, 427, 147, 148 read with

Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “I.P.C.”).

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

[i] On 19.06.2024 between 0100 hours and 1600 hours, the

LW1/Smt.Devaki Thara, presented a report, stating that the accused

No.1 to 6 were carrying stones and sticks came on bikes and damaged 17 cameras, 6 safety meters, a junction box, wiring and a pole mount.

The cameras were installed for public safety and also damaged the front mirror of B.Srinivas Yadav’s Innova car Br.No.AP 10 BA 3194, and the stand kept in front of Sri Lakshmi shutters. Accused No.1 to 6 created a public nuisance and panicked the public, after looking into the cameras, she identified the accused No.1 to 6.

[ii] Basing on the complaint, the LW7/Vanam Saidulu/Sub-In- spector of police, examined and recorded the statement of LW1/com- plainant/Smt.Devaki Thara and proceeded to the scene of offence at

Page 3 of 17 CC No.1242/2024

Tuesday Fruit Market, RK Puram, Neredmet caused discreet enquiries into the facts besiders and prepared CDF with all its descriptions & ob- servations at the instance of Panchas LW4/Kuncham Narsinha & LW5/

Kaluvayi Krishna Reddy.

[iii]During the course of investigation, the LW7/Vanam

Saidulu/Sub-Inspector of police examined and recorded the statements of LW2/Bandari Srinivas Yadav and LW3/Gonthuna Sri Laxmi. Later he served notice A1 to A4 U/Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. After collection of all docu- ments, he filed charge sheet against A1 to A4 by mentioning A5 and A6 are absconding.

3.This Court took cognizance of the offence punishable under Sec- tion 290, 427, 147, 148 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code against Accused Nos.1 to 4. Upon appearance of the accused No.1 to 4, copies of the documents as contemplated under Sections 207 Cr.P.C.

were furnished to them, and they were examined under Section 239

Cr.P.C.

4.Accused Nos.1 to 4 were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., and charges for the offence punishable under Sections 290, 427, 147, 148 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code were framed, read over, and explained to them in the vernacular language, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Page 4 of 17 CC No.1242/2024 5.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 5 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-7. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of LW-1/Devaki Thara as her whereabouts were not known. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor also given up the evidence of LW-5/Kaluvayi Krishan Reddy, LW-6/P.Sandeep Kumar/Sub-

Inspector of Police.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, Accused Nos.1 to 4 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminat- ing circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence. They denied the same and reported that they had no defence evidence.

7.Heard both sides and perused the record.

8. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of accused

No.1 to 4 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 290, 427, 147, 148 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, beyond all reasonable doubt?”

9. Point :

In support of its case, as stated supra, the prosecution examined

P.Ws.1 to 5 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-7.P.W.1isthedefacto- complainant. P.W.2 & PW3 are the panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama. P.W-4 if the pancha witness for CDF. P.W-5 is the

Investigating Officer. Ex.P-1 is the signature of the PW1 on complaint.

Page 5 of 17 CC No.1242/2024

Ex.P-2 is the 161 Cr.PC statement of PW1. Ex.P-3 is 161 Cr.PC statement of PW-2, Ex.P-4 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3. Ex.P-5 is the signature of PW-4 on CDF. Ex.P-6 is the First Information Report.

Ex.P-7 is the scene of offence panchanama.

10.P.Ws.1 to 4 turned hostile and stated that they did not know any- thing about the case. Though the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor cross-examined them, nothing incriminating could be elicited in support of the prosecution case.

11.P.W.5, who is the investigating officer, deposed that on 19.06.2024, he received a case file from LW6 after registering a case in

Cr.No.397/2024 for the offence punishable U/Sec.390, 427, 147, 148 r/w 149 of I.P.C. Exs.P6 is FIR. Later, he took up the investigation and proceed to the scene of offence i.e., Tuesday fruit market, R.K.Puram.

He secured the presence of PW4 and LW5 and conducted scene of of- fence panchanama. Ex.P-7 is the scene of offence panchanama. Later he examined PW2 and 3 at the scene of offence. Late he served notice ot A1 to A4 U/Sec.41-A Cr./P.C. After collection of all documents, he filed charge sheet against A1 to A4 by mentioning A5 and A6 are ab- sconding.

During cross-examination, P.W.5 admitted that LW6 issued FIR.

PW5 did not obtain singature of PW1 on column No.14 of FIR and he de- nied the defence suggestions.

Page 6 of 17 CC No.1242/2024

12.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of the remaining witnesses, as P.Ws.1 to 4, who were material witnesses, turned hostile. Nothing incriminating was elicited from the evidence of

P.W-5. Hence, there is no reliable evidence to connect Accused Nos.1 to 4 with the alleged offence.

13.In view of the above facts and circumstances, the prosecution failed to prove that Accused Nos.1 to 4 had the intention to cheat the general public by selling a conch shell. Consequently, the charge under

Sections 290, 427, 147, 148 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal

Code is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

14.Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of Accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 290, 427, 147, 148 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The point is answered accordingly, in favour of Accused Nos.1 to 4.

15.In the result, Accused Nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the of- fences punishable under Sections 290, 427, 147, 148 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly they are acquitted for the same under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused Nos.1 to 4 shall stand cancelled and the sureties shall be discharged after ex- piry of the appeal period.

Page 7 of 17 CC No.1242/2024 (Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected on the desktop and pro- nounced by me in the open court, on this the 26 th day of February, 2026).

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Medchal-Malkajgiri Disrict, At Kushaiguda.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:- FOR DEFENCE:-

PW-1: Devaki TharaNone PW-2:Bandari Srinivas PW-3:Gonthuna Sri Laxmi PW-4:Kuncham Narsinha PW-5: Vanam Saidulu

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 :Signature of the PW1 on the complaint. Ex.P2 :161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 Ex.P3 :161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 Ex.P4 :161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P5 :Signature of PW4 on CDF Ex.P6:First Information Report Ex.P7 :Scene of offence panchanama

FOR DEFENCE:-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- NIL -

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, At Kushaiguda.

Page 8 of 17 CC No.1242/2024

CALENDAR EXTRACT

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGIS-

TRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MEDCHAL-MAKAJGIRI DISTRICT, AT KUSHAIGUDA.

CC.No. 1242 / 2024

1. Name of the Police Station.: Neredmet

2. Crime Number: 397/ 2024

3. Offences Under Section: 290, 427, 147, 148 r/w 149 of IPC

4. Name of the Accused : A-1: Muntha Kishore yadav

A-2: Manda Sai Kiran @ Dodla Sai A-3: Rondi Vardhan

A-4:Saneeth Kumar

5. Date of:

a. Occuffence : 19.06.2024 b. Complaint : 19-06-2024 c. Arrest : issued 41-A Cr.P.C. notice d. Date of Release : - - e. Commencement of trial : 03.02.2026 f. Close of trial :13.02.2026 g. Judgment :26.02.202+6

6. RESULT:In the result, Accused Nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 290, 427, 147, 148 read with Sec- tion 149 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly they are acquitted for the same under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused Nos.1 to 4 shall stand cancelled and the sureties shall be discharged af- ter expiry of the appeal period. The interim custody in respect of the unmarked case property shall holds good after expiry of appeal time.

7. Explanation for Delay: No delay

I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum- I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Kushaiguda

Page 9 of 17 CC No.1242/2024

Dis.No. , Dt: .01.2023.

Copy Submitted to: The Hon’ble I-Addl. District and Sessions

Judge,

, namely the one Swift car bearing

Registration Nos.Apd 09 BX 8502 and the Redmi mobile, passed in Crl.M.P.

Page 10 of 17 CC No.1242/2024

No. 1202/2017 dated 04.12.2017 and one Qualis car Br.No.TS 12 EA 9616 and

Lenovo Mobile Phone and one Lenovo

Mobilephonepassedin

Crl.M.P.No.1207/2017 dated

05.12.2017, and another mobile phone i.e., motorola,passedin

Crl.M.P.No.1208/2017 dated

05.12.2017, shall continue after the expiry of the appeal period.