M.A.Khaleel

1 CC.No.57 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS :: ZAHEERABAD.

PRESENT: Sri Mohd Abdul Khaleel, Prl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Zaheerabad. FAC:Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Zaheerabad.

Tuesday, on this the 25 th day November, 2025

C.C No. 57 of 2017

Between: The State through S.H.O, P.S Chiragpally … Complainant

V/s

K.Raju, S/o.Rajaiah, age: 45 yrs, Occ: RTC Bus Driver, R/o.Dubbaka village of Siddipet District … Accused

The case is coming on before me for final hearing on 25/11/2025 in presence of A.P.P for the State and Sri. Syed Ahmed Advocate for Accused and hearing upon their arguments, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following :-

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

1. The brief facts of the case in nutshell are as follows:-

The brief facts of the case that on 2-12-2016 at 16.00 hrs the complainant Nandyala Anji Reddy gave police report by alleging that on that day he along with his wife boarded one RTS bus bearing no.

TS08UB2490 at Mannekelli to come to Zaheerabad and when the bus was

2 CC.No.57 of 2017

near Buchinapally village at Mekalavaagu the driver drove that bus in a wrong direction and dashed to the container bearing no.MH06BD0653 which was proceeding towards Bombay from Hyderabad side due to which the container driver Ravi Prakash, S/o. Himanchalal died on the spot and 12 bus passengers including the accused sustained injuries and on the report the police registered the case and examined the witnesses and went to the scene of offense and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased person and the injured were sent to hospital and the doctor opined that some of them sustained simple injuries and other sustained grievous injuries the bus was examined by M.V Inspector who ruled out any possibility of any mechanical defects on the bus and the doctor who conducted Post mortem opined that the cause of the death of the deceased person due to shock and multiple injuries and after elaborate investigation the police filed charge sheet against the accused for committing the offense U/Sec.304-A, 337, 338 IPC.

2.The case was taken on file U/Sec.304-A, 337, 338 IPC against the accused. On appearance of the accused copies furnished to him as required U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C and when he was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C for the charge sheet allegations leveled against him U/Sec. 304-A, 337, 338 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3 CC.No.57 of 2017

3.During the course of trial the prosecution got examined 5 witnesses as PW1 to PW5 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P23 are marked.

4.After the closure of prosecution side evidence the accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating evidence voiced against him to which he pleaded not guilty and reported no defense.

5. Heard the arguments on both sides.

6. Now the point for my determination is whether the prosecution

has proved the case against the accused for committing the offense

U/Sec. 304-A, 337, 338 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt or not ?

7. It is the arguments of learned APP that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is clearly proving their case against the accused and he prayed the Court to convict the accused.

8.The case of the accused is one of total denial. The learned defense counsel argued that the identity of the accused as the driver of that bus is not established and the evidence of all the witnesses do not point out any guilt of the accused in committing this offense and the essential ingredient

4 CC.No.57 of 2017

of the sections of law alleged against the accused are not proved by the prosecution and he prayed the Court to acquit the accused by giving the benefit of doubt.

9.I have gone through the evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution.

10.PW1 (Narasimhlu) is the conductor of that bus and he stated that on 02-12-2016 when he along with the accused went to Gulbarga and he was busy in giving the tickets all of a sudden one accident took place and he do not know due to whose negligence the accident was occurred and he was treated as hostile by the learned APP.

11.PW2 (Khalil Ahmed) is one of the bus passenger who was injured, he also turned hostile.

12.PW3 (Sankalp) is another injured he also turned hostile.

13.PW4 (D. Vasappa) is the panch for crime detail form for the scene of offense Panchnama, he also turned hostile.

14.PW5 (Challa RajsHekar) is the SIP who deposed about registration of the case his investigation and recording of statement of witnesses and

5 CC.No.57 of 2017

his visit to the scene of offense and preparation of crime detail form and holding inquest over the dead body of the deceased person and obtaining the injury certificates of the injured persons and filing of chargesheet etc.

15.The main charge leveled against the accused is U/Sec.304-A IPC and to prove it the prosecution must prove the following ingredients:-

1. Causing death of a person.

2. Due to rash or negligent act of the accused.

3. The said act does not amount to culpable homicide.

And the death of the person who is the lorry driver is not denied by the accused in this case and even the inquest Panchanama, post-mortem report, prima facie shows that the lorry driver died in the accident and to that extent it is a settled law that admitted facts need not be proved so death is proved by the prosecution.

16.Now the important ingredient is whether was there any negligence of the accused or due to his rashness that accident occurred is to be seen.

In this case, the important prosecution witness is PW1 who is the conductor of that bus and along with him the accused was driving that bus he turned hostile and surprisingly the other injured persons also turned hostile and due to the long pending of this case since this case pertains to

6 CC.No.57 of 2017

the year 2017 the other witnesses including the defacto complainant died due to natural death and he was not examined and the remaining injured persons belong to Karnataka and Maharashtra states and their addresses were not traced out by the police and they were not brought before the

Court and the two important injured persons who were traced out by the police they turned hostile and even the circumstances of the case are not established. So, there is no proof placed before the Court that the accused was the driver of that RTC bus and when a specific question was asked to the investigating officer by the learned defense counsel that whether he has seized any trip sheet of the bus to which he answered in negative since the seizure of the trip sheet might have helped the prosecution to connect the accused as the driver of that bus, but it was not done where as the conductor turned hostile. So, there is no evidence to say that the accused was the driver of that bus and in fact, the injured person also stated that they did not see the accused and one of the witness clearly stated that the accused who was present in the Court hall is not the driver of that bus so the identity of the accused is not at all proved by the prosecution.

17.And apart from it, the investigation done by the police is also done in a routine manner which creates an impression that they registered this case only to help the injured person and the family of the deceased person

7 CC.No.57 of 2017

to get compensation. Since the scene of offence Panchnama does not show that there was a damage to the divider of the road. Since it is the case of the prosecution that while proceeding towards Hyderabad the RTC driver in a negligent manner dashed to the lorry which was coming on the opposite direction and there was a divider on that national highway but there is no damage to that divider then how is it possible that the accused has drove that bus in a wrong direction and dashed to that lorry is also unexplained by the prosecution in this case and there were no skid marks shown on the road and even though contributory negligence is not one of the defense even the investigating officer PW5 admitted that he did not send the lorry to the M.V Inspector to ruled out any mechanical defects on it which is also fatal in this case since in these type of cases but the prosecution must prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt that was not done in this case and it appears that due to long pendency of the case the witnesses have lost their interest in this case and they turned hostile.

So even though the death is proved but the rash or negligent act of the accused is not proved which automatically shows that the charge

U/Sec.304-A IPC is also not proved by the prosecution.

18.The another charges leveled against the accused are U/Sec. 338 and 337 IPC and to prove them the prosecution again must prove the sustaining of simple and grievous injuries by the injured and due to rash

8 CC.No.57 of 2017

or negligent act of the accused those injuries must suffered by the injured person.

19.But again in this case due to non-proof of the presence of the accused as the driver of that bus those two charges are also not said to be proved against the accused.

20.Apart from it even the injured person turned hostile another injured person did not turn up to the Court to give evidence so the charge

U/Sec.337 and 338 IPC is baseless in this case and even the medical officer who treated the injured also not traced out by the police which clearly shows that the charge U/Sec.337 and 338 IPC are nowhere proved in this case.

21.So in view of the above circumstances in the absence of the identity proof of the accused as the driver of the bus it can be safely said that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges U/Sec.304-A, 337, 338 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and this is a fit case to give benefit of doubt to the accused.

9 CC.No.57 of 2017

22.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offense U/Sec.

304A ,337, 338 IPC accordingly he is acquitted U/Sec.255 (1) Cr.P.C.

Bail bonds canceled forth with the unmarked property, if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 25 th day of November, 2025.

Prl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Zaheerabad.

FAC:Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Zaheerabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE :: ::

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: PW1 : Narsimulu

PW2 : Khaleel Ahmed

PW3: Sankalp

PW4: D.Basappa

PW5: Challa Rajashekar

FOR DEFENCE : - Nil -

10 CC.No.57 of 2017

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 is is the 161 Cr.P.C statement.

Ex.P2 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2.

Ex.P3 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3.

Ex.P4 is the signature on scene of offence panchanama.

Ex.P5 is the signature on rough sketch.

Ex.P6 is the report of LW1.

Ex.P7 is the FIR.

Ex.P8 is the scene panchanama.

Ex.P9 is the rough sketch.

Ex.P10 is the inquest report.

Ex.P11 is the P.M.E report.

Ex.P12 is the MVI report.

Ex.P13 is the Medical report.

Ex.P14 is the Medical report.

Ex.P15 is the Medical report.

Ex.P16 is the Medical report.

Ex.P17 is the Medical report.

Ex.P18 is the Medical report.

Ex.P19 is the Medical report.

Ex.P20 is the Medical report.

Ex.P21 is the Medical report.

11 CC.No.57 of 2017

Ex.P22 is the Medical report.

Ex.P23 is the Medical report.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE:- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS : Nil

Prl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Zaheerabad.

FAC:Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Zaheerabad.

1 CC.No.264 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS :: ZAHEERABAD.

PRESENT: Sri Mohd Abdul Khaleel, Prl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Zaheerabad. FAC:Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Zaheerabad.

Tuesday, on this the 25 th day November, 2025

C.C No. 264 of 2020

Between:

The State through S.H.O, P.S Chiragpally. … Complainant

V/s

A1: Kaminpally Pulamma, W/o.Ramulu, age: 55 years, Occ: Agriculture.

A2: Kaminepally Mallamma, W/o. Late Papaiah, age: 50 yrs, Occ: Agriculture.

R/o.Mannapur village of Mogudampally Mandal.

… Accused A1 & A2

The case is coming on before me for final hearing on 25/11/2025 in presence of A.P.P for the State and Sri. Swamindas Advocate for Accused A1 & A2 and hearing upon their arguments, and having stood over for con- sideration till this day, the court delivered the following :-

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

1. The brief facts of the case in nutshell are as follows:-

The brief facts of the case that on 29-05-2020 at 15.00 hours the complainant Venkanna gave a police report by alleging that on 27-05-2020 at 1.00 P.M when he was cultivating the lands of LW2 the

2 CC.No.264 of 2020

accused A1 and A2 came with a tractor and damaged the fencing wall and damaged the cultivated land belongs to LW2 and he informed the same to

LW2 and on his advice he filed police complaint and basing on his report, the police registered the case and examined the witnesses and went to the scene of offense and after elaborate investigation they filed charge sheet against the accused A1 and A2 for committing the offense U/Sec. 447, 427 IPC.

2.The case was taken on file U/Sec.447, 427 IPC against A1 and A2.

3. On appearance of the accused copies furnished to them as required

U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C and when they were examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C for the charge sheet allegations leveled against them U/Sec.447, 427 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During the course of trial the prosecution got examined 4 witnesses as PW1 to PW4 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 are marked.

5.After the closure of prosecution side evidence the accused A1 and

A2 are examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating evidence voiced

3 CC.No.264 of 2020

against them to which they pleaded not guilty and reported no defense.

6. Heard the arguments on both sides.

7. Now the point for my determination is whether the prosecution

has proved their case U/Sec. 447, 427 IPC against A1 and A2 beyond

all reasonable doubt or not ?

8.The Learned APP argued that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is clearly proving their case and he prayed the Court to convict the accused.

9.The case of the accused is one of total denial. The learned defense

Counsel argued that absolutely no case made out against the accused A1 and A2 and the report of LW1 has no legal sanctity and the hostile behavior of other witnesses is proving the innocence of the accused as such he prayed the Court to acquit the accused by giving the benefit of doubt.

10.I have gone through the evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution.

4 CC.No.264 of 2020

11.PW1( N. Venkanna ) is the defacto complainant and he deposed that about 5 years back at 3.00 P.M when he was working in the agricultural land in Survey No.58. A1 and A2 trespassed into his land with a tractor and started plugging it he stopped them but the accused also damaged the fencing of his lands on that he gave report to the police. In his cross-examination he admitted that the said land belongs to one

Narayana Reddy and he was working for him as a watchman for the last 10 years for doing agricultural works as a caretaker of that property and in fact he is not the owner of that lands and he is only a worker of LW2.

12.PW2 (N. Madhu Sudhakar) is the relative of PW1 and he deposed that on 27-05-2020 in the afternoon PW1 called him on phone and informed that the accused were damaging the land and the fencing with a tractor and he rushed there and saw the tractor was going back and infact he was not present when the tractor was stopped by PW1.

13.PW3 (Rathod Raju) and PW4 (Jadhav Heeru Singh) are the panch witnesses for the scene of offence Panchanama they both turned hostile.

14.In spite of giving so many adjournments the other witnesses did not

5 CC.No.264 of 2020

came to the Court even though this case pertains to the year 2020 and after taking cogent steps their evidence was closed by the Court.

15.The main charge leveled against the accused is for committing the offense U/Sec.447 IPC for which the prosecution first of all have to prove the ownership of the land and secondly trespass of the accused in those lands owned by other person.

16.In this case during the course of investigation not a single paper was seized by the investigating officer to show that those lands belong to the witness LW2 and infact in spite of giving so many adjournments the owner of the land did not came to the Court to give evidence and PW1 is the watchman of that land he is not the owner of that land and the prosecution cannot prove the charge U/Sec.447 IPC through the evidence of watchman in the absence of the owner since on perusal of the ingredients of the section the accused must trespass into the lands of the owner and in this case the complaint given by PW1 is having no legal sanctity for committing the offense U/Sec.447 IPC since when the civil disputes are pending between the parties it is the domain of the civil Court to decide the ownership of the land and in this case the prosecution miserably failed to prove that LW2 was the owner of the land and in fact

6 CC.No.264 of 2020

PW1 also admitted that he got prepared the report through one person whose name he do not know and it was prepared in a shop and he gave the said report to the police on 4.00 P.M on the same day that is also false since there is a clear cut delay of two days in giving report the alleged incident occurred on 27-05-2020 at 13.00 hours but the police has received the report from PW1 on 29-05-2020 at 15.00 hours and that delay was suppressed by the witness and there was no proper reasons explained in column number 8 of the FIR so the unexplained delay of two days is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

17. Apart from it there is no voluntariness in giving the report PW1 clearly stated that when he informed LW2 on his advice he gave report what prevented LW2 to approach the police from giving the report why he did not came to the Court to speak against the accused is not explained apart from it the evidence of PW1 also contra to the evidence of PW2 who is his nearest relative and PW2 stated that he did not saw the driver of the tractor and he was not present when the tractor was stopped by

PW1 and he is a real estate businessman and he simply stated that when he went there the accused were going back and both of these witnesses did not uttered a single word with regard to the damage caused by the accused and criminal trespass into the lands so the charge U/Sec.447 IPC

7 CC.No.264 of 2020

is nowhere proved by the prosecution against the accused.

18.The next charge leveled against the accused is for committing the offense U/Sec.427 IPC which deals for the punishment of mischief causing mischief and to prove it the prosecution must be in a position to say to what extent mischief was suffered by the complainant in this case complainant is not the defacto owner of that land and he did not uttered a single word and not a single word was mentioned in the report about the actual value of the mischief caused to the lands of LW2 so from the stage of FIR itself the charge U/Sec.427 IPC is baseless and it was not supported by the evidence of any of the witnesses even the scene panchayathdars PW3 and PW4 they turned hostile so the circumstances of the scene are also not proved by the prosecution. In this case the prosecution failed to sighted as the witness the driver of the tractor which was used by the accused for causing mischief and he is the important witness but he was not sighted as witness and PW2 also stated that he did not saw the driver of the tractor so the presence of the tractor at the scene of offence is also not proved by the prosecution and to clarify all these ambiguous circumstances even the investigating officer did not came to the Court to clarify the doubts appearing in the case of the prosecution so the uncorroborated testimony of PW1 and PW2 and the hostile behavior

8 CC.No.264 of 2020

of PW3 and PW4 pressing this Court not to lay its hands on the accused more particularly the charges framed against them and it can be safely said that this is a fit case to give benefit of doubt to the accused.

19. In the result A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offense

U/Sec.447, 427 IPC accordingly they are acquitted U/Sec.255 (1) Cr.P.C.

Bail bonds canceled forthwith the unmarked property, if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 25 th day of November, 2025.

Prl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Zaheerabad.

FAC:Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Zaheerabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE :: ::

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: PW1 : N.Venkanna

PW2 :N.Madhu Sudhakar

PW3: Rathod Raju

PW4: Jadav Heeru Singh

FOR DEFENCE : - Nil -

9 CC.No.264 of 2020

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 is the complainant.

Ex.P2 is the signature of scene panchanama.

Ex.P3 is the signature on the rough sketch.

Ex.P4 is the signature on scene of offence panchanama.

Ex.P5 is the signature on rough sketch.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE:- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS : Nil

Prl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Zaheerabad.

FAC:Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Zaheerabad.

TSSN050000142025

Presented on : 22-02-2021 Registered on : 22-02-2021 Decided on : 15-11-2025 Duration : 4 years, 8 months, 21 days

IN THE COURT OF

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

AT ZAHEERABAD ,MEDAK

(Presided Over by M.A.Khaleel)

CC/5/2025

Exhibit No. (PROSECUTION): PS Hadnoor Through Police Station Officer P.S HADNOOR , Hadnoor

ZAHEERABAD MEDAK

PS Hadnoor VERSUS : MD.Ahmed Age: 35 Occupation : Occ Business, Caste Muslim, R/o H.No.7.8.279/A, Gauthamnagar, Ferozguda, Bownpally Balanagar, Secunderabad, phone No.995135477 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: , Advocate for appearing for MD.Ahmed Advocate appearing for , respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under : 270,273 of INDIAN PENAL CODE, 20(2) of Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Comm, of , of ,

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 15-11-2025)

ORDER

Accused called present and he is examined U/S.251 Cr.P.C. for the offence U/s.270, 273 IPC and Sec.20(2) of Cigarette and other Tobacco Product Act., read over and explained the same to the in his vernacular language, for which Accused voluntarily pleaded guilty. Accordingly, Accused is convicted U/S.252 Cr.P.C. Accused sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only), In default payment of fine amount, Accused shall suffer SIMPLE imprisonment for a period of (03) MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE U/s.270 IPC. FURTHER Accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only), In default payment of fine amount, Accused shall suffer SIMPLE imprisonment for a period of (03) MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE U/s.273 IPC. FURTHER Accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only), In default payment of fine amount, Accused shall suffer SIMPLE imprisonment for a period of (03) MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE U/s.20(2) Cigarette and other tobacco product act, 2003. The unmarked case property shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period. The TOTAL FINE AMOUNT IS Rs.3,000/-. (Rupees three thousand only).

Date : 15-11-2025 (M.A.Khaleel)

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

ZaheerabadZAHEERABAD MEDAK

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

(M.A.Khaleel) Addl.Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial

Magistrate of First Class Zaheerabad

ZAHEERABAD MEDAK

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS

TSSN050000542019

Presented on : 01-02-2019 Registered on : 01-02-2019 Decided on : 15-11-2025 Duration : 6 years, 9 months, 14 days

IN THE COURT OF

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

AT ZAHEERABAD ,MEDAK

(Presided Over by M.A.Khaleel)

CC/12/2019

Exhibit No. (PROSECUTION): PS Jharasangam/Machkuru Srishailam Through Police Station Officer P.S JHARASANGAM 87, R/o Sangam-K village, Jharasangam mandal, Sangareddy District.

ZAHEERABAD MEDAK

PS Jharasangam/Machkuru Srishailam VERSUS : Peddadoddi Jaipal Age: 35 Occupation : R/o Sangam-K village, Jharangam mandal, Sangareddy district.

2:A-2. Tenugu Bhaskar Age: 30 Occupation : R/o Sangam-K village Jharasangam Mandal Sangareddy district.

3:A-3. Peddadoddi Laxman Age: 47

Occupation : R/o Sangam-K village Jharasangam Mandal Sangareddy district.

4:A-4. Tenugu Maruthi Age: 35 Occupation : R/o Sangam-K village Jharasangam Mandal Sangareddy district.

5:A-5. TEnugu Narsimulu Age: 65 Occupation : R/o Sangam-K village Jharasangam Mandal Sangareddy district ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: APPO, Advocate for appearing for Peddadoddi Jaipal Advocate , , , appearing for , , , , 2, 3, 4, 5 respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under : 324,323,504, of INDIAN PENAL CODE, 506r/w34IPC of INDIAN PENAL

CODE,

of , of ,

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 15-11-2025)

ORDER

In view of the Special Lok Adalath this case is advanced today. Accused A1 TO A5 and the Complainant/injured are present before the Spl. Lok Adalath Bench along with the defense counsel and APP and Lok Adalath members. The case is mutually compromised and both parties are identified by the police and since the APP altered the offence Section 324 to 323 and since the offence U/s 323, 504, 506 IPC are compoundable in nature hence, the case is settled before Special Lok Adalath Bench and the Accused A1 TO A5 are acquitted U/S.320(8) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds cancelled. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed. Nature of Disposal :SETTLED BEFORE LOK ADALAT

Date : 15-11-2025 (M.A.Khaleel)

Addl.Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class ZaheerabadZAHEERABAD MEDAK

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

(M.A.Khaleel) Addl.Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial

Magistrate of First Class Zaheerabad

ZAHEERABAD MEDAK

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS

TSSN050000232025

Presented on : 22-01-2025 Registered on : 22-01-2025 Decided on : 15-11-2025 Duration : 0 years, 9 months, 24 days

IN THE COURT OF

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

AT ZAHEERABAD ,MEDAK

(Presided Over by M.A.Khaleel)

CC/7/2025

Exhibit No. (PROSECUTION): PS Zaheerabad Town Through Police Station Officer Police Station Zaheerabad Town 318, Zaheerabad Town Zahirabad Town Circle Igp, Hyderabad Region Sangareddy

ZAHEERABAD MEDAK

PS Zaheerabad Town VERSUS : Ramesh Kadamnchi Age: 32 Occupation : 2-4-95Bagareddypally,Bagareddy pally,Bagareddypally,Zahirabad,SANGAREDDY,TELANGANA 2:Narsimulu Kadaminchi Age: 28 Occupation : 2-4-95Bagareddypally Bagareddy pally Bagareddypally Zahirabad

SANGAREDDY

TELANGAN

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: , Advocate for appearing for Ramesh Kadamnchi Advocate appearing for , 2 respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under : 118(1),352,3(5),115(2) of Bharatiya

Nyaya Sanhita,

352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, of ,

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 15-11-2025)

ORDER

In view of the Special Lok Adalath this case is advanced today. Accused A1 and A2 and the defacto complainant/injured are present before the Lok Adalath Bench along with and APP and Lok Adalath members. The case is mutually compromised and both parties are identified by the police and since the APP altered the offence Section 118(1) of BNS to 115(2), 352 r/w 3(5) of BNS which are compoundable and the case is settled before Lok Adalath Bench and the Accused A1 and A2 are acquitted U/S.359 BNSS. Bail bonds cancelled. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed.

Date : 15-11-2025 (M.A.Khaleel)

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

ZaheerabadZAHEERABAD MEDAK

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

(M.A.Khaleel)

Addl.Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial

Magistrate of First Class Zaheerabad

ZAHEERABAD MEDAK

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS