Sri.P.Kiran

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SPL MOBILE COURT: CUM: XI METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE CYBERABAD: L.B.NAGAR.

PRESENT: Sri P. Kiran, M.A., L.L.M., Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Spl. Mobile Court cum: XI M.M. Cyberabad

Dated this the 24th day of March, 2014

C.C. No. 4 of 2009 Between:

The State through Saroornagar Police Station …Complainant

AND

K.Manoj Reddy S/o.Sai Reddy Age: 42 years Occ: Real Estate Business C/o.Huzurabad Surya Real Estate Pvt.Ltd

Vedere complex Disluknagar N/o.Warangal. ...Accused

a)Serial No. of the Case:4/2009

b)Date of the commission of offence:Prior to 21.9.2008

c)Name of the Complainant:State through Saroornagar Police Station

d)Name of the accused person : K.Manoj Reddy

e)Offence complained of:Sec.420 of IPC

f)Plea of the accused on his examination:Not guilty

g)Final Order:Acquittal under section 248 (1) of Cr. P. C

h)Date of Order:24.3.2014

This case came before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.Rama Krishna, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri M.Vijaya Kanth, Counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day and after considering all the material on record , the Court delivered the following: -

J U D G M E N T

The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows: On 20.9.2008 at 1500 hours M. Rama Sheshamma wife of Rama Rao lodged a complaint stating that she purchased five plots on 2 installmentsbasisfromHuzurabad Surya Real Estate

Company and paid an amount of Rs.86,000/- towards four plots. But, when she went to the office the office is closed and no one is available.

It is alleged in the complaint that she came to know that they were absconding. She requested to take action against the i.e, Huzurabad

Surya Real Estate Pvt.Limited which cheated her.

3

2. Basing on theabove complaint a case in crime

No: 1148/2008 U/s.406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code is registered against the accused and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed before this Court.

03.This case is taken on file for the offence U/s. 420 and 406 of Indian Penal Code and numbered the case as C.C. No. 4/2009.

On his appearance, the accused furnished with copies of the documents as required u/s. 207 of Cr. P.C., and he was examined u/s.

239 of Cr. P.C. Charges for the offence u/s. 420 and 406 of Indian

Penal Code was framed against the accused, read over and explained to them for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

04.In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined Pws1 to 4 and marked Exs. P1 to P4.

05.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined U/s. 313 of Cr. P.C. with reference to the incriminating evidence available against them, for which they denied the same and opted for no defence evidence on their behalf.

06. Heard both sides.

07.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s. 420 and 406 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubts?

08.Pw1 is the complainant reiterating the averments made in the complaint. She deposed that on seeing the paper advertisement issued by Surya Real Estate company, they approached him the said company for purchasing of plots at Hayathnagar in Narayanadri

Colony. She also deposed that she went to the spot,saw the office and agreed to purchase three plots in the name of his wife, daughter and including herself. Pw1 deposed that she paid Rs.86,000/- for five plots 4 by way of installments and theplots were located in Narayanadri colony. She deposed that he saw Manoj Reddy and when he went to the office and when he asked them to register the plots, they did not register plots and later closed the office. Ex.P1 marked through his evidence. Ex.P2 bank statement Ex.P3 is another bank statement marked through him. In her cross examination Pw1 stated that the date portion of Ex.p1 is appearing to be altered and that she did not hand over any document to police in proof of payment of amount by them. She admitted that she had not issued notice for demand of registration or return of money and that she did not know about the link document. She also stated that she had not filed any civil suit for the purpose of registration and she admitted that she had not paid the entire amount for the purchase of plots.

9. Pw2 who is the husband of Pw1 deposed the similar lines that of Pw1 and she identified A1 as Manoj Reddy. In his cross examination he had not paid the total sale consideration even as on today. Except the plan no other documents were obtained by her with regard to five plots. He deposed that they paid Rs. 86,000/- for four plots. He also deposed that they have not filed any civil suit.

Pw3 who is the owner of Vedere Complex Dilsuknagar deposed that K.Manoj Reddy approached him and joined as a tenant in the said complex. He deposed that Manoj Reddy stayed in his premises till the year 2005 and vacated the premises thereafter by settling the accounts with him. He deposed that 3 to 4 persons approached him and enquired about Manoj Reddy that they were cheated by him. But PW-2 identified A2 as Manoj Reddy. The witnessess was declared hostile at the request of the learned APPO.

He denied to a suggestion that he intentionally mis identified the 5 Accused to help them and thathe had stated to police that

Manoj Reddy took an amount of Rs 86,000/- from PW-1

10.Pw4 investigating officer deposed about the registration of crime, conducting of confessional panchanama surrender of the accused and filing of the charge sheet. In his cross examination Pw4 admitted that several cases were pending against the accused and that he verified the availability of the land for sale. He had not filed the original documents pertaining to the land offered to be sold by the accused. He also stated that he had not verified with regard to civil disputes over the land at the instance of third party. He denied to a suggestion that no document had been filed to establish the nexus between the accused and Huzarabad Surya Real Estate Pvt.Limited.

11. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has to establish that the Accused in capacity of Proprietor of Huzurabad Real Estate

Company conspired and offered to sell plots to the customers, dishonestly and fraudulently deceived PW-1 and received earnest money from her, entered in to an agreement of sale and thereafter failed to execute register sale deed in favour of PW-1 even after receiving the consideration amount from him.

12.It is the case of PW-1 and 2 that on seeing paper advertisement issued by the accused they agreed to purchase plots no: 21,22,23,65 and 66 and paid an amount of Rs. 86,000/- and obtained agreement of sale and receipts from him. The prosecution examined PW-1 in support of the said transaction and marked Ex.P2 and P3. Ex.P1 is the complaint filed by PW-1 Ex.P2 and P3 are the bank statements. The accused denied Ex.P2 and P3 and even denied that he never received any amount from PW-1 and also the execution of agreement of sale. The Accused denied that he never executed any agreement of sale in favour of PW-1 and gave a suggestion to the 6 effect that the Ex.P2 and 3 arefabricated. But the prosecution failed to prove the transaction between PW1 and the Accused and also passing of consideration under Ex.P2 and P3. Ex.P2 and P3 were not proved according to law.

13. The prosecution also failed to establish that the Accused is the proprietor of Huzurabad Real Estate Company and offered to sell the plots among general public. Though PW-1 deposed that he approached the Accused and accused offered to sell the plots, any of the paper advertisement or any other offer documents such as

Phamplets/Offer docments etc are filed to that effect.

14.In fact, in the cross examination PW-1 categorically admitted that she did not demand the accused for registration of the plot in her name either in writing or orally. No suit is also filed by them for registration of the plots for the enforcement of contract between them.

In the absence of any such demand and also fulfilling the obligation on the part of PW-1, it cannot be said that the Accused dishonestly cheated PW-1.

15. The learned APPO contended that the evidences of PWs 1 to and Ex.P1 to P4 establishes the case of the prosecution and prayed for conviction.

16.On the other hand the learned counsel for the Accused vehemently contended that the provisions of Sec. 420 of IPC are not at all attracted to the facts of the Case. He contended that the prosecution failed to establish the very relation ship between the

Accused and PW-1. He further contended that the documents i.e agreement of sale and receipts were not proved by the prosecution that they were executed by the accused and also that the Accused executed them in capacity of proprietor of Huzurabad Real estate company. He also contended that the land lord who was examined 7 PW-3 to show that A1 took theproperty on lease for running his office mis identified A2 as A1.

17.As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the Accused, the prosecution failed to establish the existence of the land and no documents were also collected by the Investigating Officer. No scene of offence panchanama was conducted and it is not the case of the prosecution that there is no land in existence for selling the same as plots.

18.The learned counsel for the accused relied on several decisions are as follows:

i) In Uma Shankar Gopalika Vs.State of Bihar and

Another reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336: It was held that breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating and only in those cases breach of contract would amount to cheating where there was any deception played at the very inception with an intention to cheat as development later on, the same cannot be amount to cheating.

ii) In Murari Lal Gupta Vs.Gopi Singh reported in 2005 13 SCC 699 it was held that merely because agreement of sale was entered into which the agreement the petitioner failed to honour it cannot be said that the petitioner has cheated the respondent.

iii)In Anil Mahajan Vs. Bhor Industries Ltd and Another (2005)10 SCC 228 it was held that fraudulent and dishonest intention must be shown to be existence from the very beginning of the transaction, from mere failure to keep the promise at subsequent stage offence of cheating cannot be made out- Distinction between offence of cheating and mere breach of contract would not be sufficient – Substance of the complaint has to be seen. Relying on the 8 judgmentofNagavva Vs.Veeranna Shivalingappa

Konjalgi in Para No.10 which reads as follows:

“The facts in the present case have to be appreciated in the light of various decisions of this Court. When somebody suffers injury to his person, property or reputation, he may have remedies both under civil and criminal law. The injury alleged may form the basis of civil claim and may also constitute the ingredients of some crime punishable under criminal law. When there is dispute between the parties arising out of a transaction involving passing of valuable properties between them, the aggrieved person may have a right to sue for damages or compensation and at the same time, law permits the victim to proceed against the wrongdoer for having committed an offence of criminal breach of trust or cheating. Here the main offence alleged by the appellant is that the respondents committed the offence alleged by the appellant is that the respondents committed the offence under section 420 of IPC and the case of the appellant is that the respondents have cheated him and thereby dishonestly induced him to deliver property. It must also be shown that there existed a fraudulent and dishonest intention at the time of commission of the offence. There is no allegation that the respondents made any willful misrepresentation. Even according to the appellant, the parties entered into a valid lease agreement and the grievance of the appellant is that the respondents failed to discharge their contractual obligations. In the complaint there is no allegation that there was fraud or dishonest inducement on the part of the respondents and thereby the respondents parted with the property. It is trite law and common sense that an honest man entering into a contract is deemed to represent that he has the present intention of carrying it out but if having accepted the pecuniary advantage involved in the transaction, he fails to pay his debt, he does not necessarily evade the debt by deception.

iv)In Inder Mohan Goswamy and another Vs. State of

Uttaranchal and others reported in 2007(12) SCC in Para 22

reads as follows:

9 “The veracity of the facts alleged by the appellants and the respondents can only be ascertained on the basis of evidence and documents by a civil court of competent jurisdiction. The dispute in question is purely of civil nature and initiating criminal proceeding is clearly an abuse of process of the Court.”

v)In Thermax Limited and others Vs. K.M.Johny & others (2011)13 SCC Page: 412 it was held that if there is flavour of civil nature the same cannot be agitated in the form of criminal proceedings. At Paragraphs 35 to 37 it was held that the dishonest intention right from the beginning of the transaction must be established before convicting the accused for the offence U/s.420 of

IPC and in paragraph 35 it was held that when the disputes arose out of contract a constituts remedy only before civil Court using the machinery of criminal courts for private gains and for exerting unjust, undue and unwarranted”

19. As per all the above facts and circumstance and also material evidence on record this court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused dishonestly induced PW-1 to part with property and there by failed to establish the necessary ingredients of the provisions Sec. 420 and 406 of IPC against the accused and therefore the prosecution has also failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the above said offences beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly the accused are entitled for acquittal.

20.The investigation in this case has not been done properly and the charge sheet has been filed in a mechanical manner. The I.O failed to collect any of the documents such as bank account details, bank account statement and other document to show that accused collected money from public by offering to sell plots.

10

In the result, the accused (A1 to A6) are acquitted u/s.

248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence U/s. 420 406 of

Indian Penal Code. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after the expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of March, 2014.

J.M.F.C., SPL. MOBILE COURT

:CUM: XI M.M. CYBERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE

PW1: M.Rama Sheshamma -NIL- Pw2: M.Rama Rao Pw3: V.Ram Reddy Pw4: S.Narsimha Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE Ex.P1: Complaint NIL Ex.P2: Bank statement Ex.P3: Another Bank statement Ex.P4: FIR

Material objects -NIL-

J.M.F.C., SPL. MOBILE COURT

:CUM: XI M.M. CYBERABAD 11

IN THE COURT OF J.M.F.C., SPL. MOBILE COURT CUM:

XI METROPOLITAN MAGISRTRATE, CYBERABAD

CALENDER CASE No. 237 OF 2006

Cr. No.846/2002

1. Offence U/s : U/s. 406 and 420 of IPC

2. Date of Offence: 26.11.2002

3. Date of Complaint : 26.11.2002

4. Beginning of Trial : 7.5.2012

5. Closure of Trial : 7.8.2012

6. Date of Judgment: 14.9.2012

7. Name of the Complainant : P.S. Chaitanyapuri

8. Name of the accused : 1.P.Madhuri, 2.P.Srinivas Rao

9. Finding of sentence if any : In the result, the accused (A1 and

A2) are acquitted u/s. 248(1) of Code of

Criminal Procedure for the offence U/s.

406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after the expiry of appeal time.

J.M.F.C., SPL. MOBILE COURT

:CUM: XI M.M. CYBERABAD

To

The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad.

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPL MOBILE COURT: CUM: XI METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, CYBERABAD: L.B.NAGAR.

PRESENT: Sri P.Kiran MA.,LLM., Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Spl. Mobile Court cum: XI M.M. Cyberabad

Dated this the 25th day of March, 2014

C.C. No. 1142 of 2010

Between:

The State through Chaitanyapuri Police Station .. Complainant

AND 1.N.Rangaswamy S/o.Venkataiah Age: 37 years R/o.Yosuf Guda Hyderabad.

2.N.Srinivas S/o.Venkateswarlu Age: 36 years Occ: PC R/o.Yosufguda Hyd.

3.N.Suresh Kumar S/o.Narayana R/o.Yosufguda Hyderabad. …Accused

a)Serial No. of the Case:1142/2010

b)Date of the commission of offence:6.10.2010

c)Name of the Complainant:State through Chaitanyapuri Police Station

d)Name of the accused person : 1.N.Rangaswamy & 2 others

e)Offence complained of:Section 363, 506 R/w.109 of IPC

f)Plea of the accused on his examination:Not guilty

g)Final Order:Acquittal u/s. 248 (1) Cr.P.C.

h)Date of Order:25.3.2014

This case came before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri H.Sudhakar Rao, Counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following: -

J U D G M E N T

The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows: That on 6.10.2010 at 2030 hours one Sk.Kasim Vali resident of 2222 Ramakrishna Puram lodged a complaintstatingthaton 6.10.2010 at 6.00 PM he along with his daughter were returning after attending the Court proceedings at LB.Nagar and when they reached near Kothapet Ruthu Bazar two unknown persons came on a motor cycle bearing No. AP7-AR-3769 and forcibly kidnapped his daughter

Kaleeda Nasreem on the said motor cycle. It is alleged that since he is a physically handicapped he cannot protest them. Finally requested to take action.

02. Basing on the above complaint, LW9 registered a case in

Cr. No. 374/2010 u/s. 363 of Indian Penal Code and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet before this Court.

03. Basing on the said charge sheet, this court had taken cognizance for the offences punishable u/s. 363 and 506 R/w.109 of

Indian Penal Code and registered the case as CC No. 1142/2010. On their appearance, the accused were furnished with copies of the documents as required u/s. 207 of Cr. P.C. On that this court has examined the accused u/s. 239 of Cr. P.C. and framed alternative charges for the offence u/s. 363 and 506 R/w.109 of Indian Penal

Code, read over and explained to them for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

04.During the course of trial the prosecution examined PWs1 to 10 and got marked Exs. P1 to P12.

05.The accused were examined U/s.313 of Cr.P.C with the incriminating evidence appearing against them, for which they denied the said evidence and opted for no defence evidence on their behalf.

06. Heard both sides and perused the record.

07. Now the point for consideration is whether the prosecution proved the case against the accused for the offence U/s. 363 and 506

R/w.109 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubts?

3333

08.PW1isthe complainant and father of the victim girl deposed that on 6.10.2010 at 6.00 PM when he was returning from court along with his daughter and reached near

Kothapet two persons came on a Suzuki motor cycle bearing No.AP-7-

AR-3769 forcibly took away his daughter on their two wheeler. He deposed that he was unable to follow them on his vehicle and went to

Chaitanyapuri PS and lodged complaint. He identified A2 who had taken his daughter and he added that he failed to notice the other person since the said person was wearing helmet. Ex.P1 complaint marked through his evidence. In his cross examination Pw1 stated that he had no case on 6.10.2010 at LB.Nagar Court and stated that two wheeler proceeded towards LB.Nagar from Rythu Bazaar at 6.00 PM and he was with the police till 7.00 PM on that day. He stated that he has been facing trial before VII ACMM's Court at the instance of A2 and he stated that he did not know that news was published in papers with regard to apprehension of A2 on 8.10.2010. He himself stated that he had not stated before the police that he can identify the persons who kidnapped his daughter. He stated that he came to know that Radha Rani also lodged complaint at 7.00 PM with PS Abids in

Cr.No. 317 of 2010. He denied to have stated that he had filed this case to pressurize the accused to surrender and that he has been prosecuting the A1 only to pressurizing him to pay money.

9.Pws2 and 3 are cited as eye witnesses to the incident.

Both of them stated that they did not know Lw4 Kaleeda Nasrin and anything about the case filed by Pw1. Both of them stated that they have not witnessed anything. Pws2 and 3 did not support the case of the prosecution and that they were declared hostile. Both of them denied to have stated as in Ex.P2 and P3 their statements given to police. Pw4 is the victim girl, stated that on 6.10.2010 she came to 4444 District Court premises since CI of Police Anand Bhaskar called her to record her statement. She went out side the court premises after 5.00

PM and at that time police Chaitanyapuri forcibly took her to

Amberpet. She deposed that One Subba Rao constable was kept as guard near a temple at Amberpet and that she was taken to Juvenile home at Kachiguda, she had been stayed in the juvenile home till July 2011. She stated that she did not know anything about the case filed by Pw1 that she was kidnapped. She stated she was never kidnapped and she was in juvenile home and she was in the juvenile home from 6.10.2010 to July 2011. She categorically stated in her chief examination that she was not examined by police on the complaint filed by her father. She denied to have stated as in Ex.P4 her statement given to the police. She was declared hostile by the learned

APPO. In the cross examination by the counsel for accused she stated that she was taken to observation home at 9.00 PM on 6.10.2010.

10. Pws5 to 8 are the panch witnesses for confession and recovery did not support the prosecution. All of them stated that they did not know anything about the case and stated that nothing was recovered in their presence and that they admitted their signatures under Exs.P6 to P8 and they denied to have attested the panchanama.

11.Pw9 is the SI of Police who issued FIR deposed about registration of crime Ex.P9 FIR and MOs1 to 4 are also marked through his evidence. Pw9 also recorded the confession and recovery panchanama of A2 under Ex.P10. He further deposed about sending the alteration memo under Ex.P11 to the Court by altering Section of law from 366 of IPC to 366-A and 506 of IPC. In his cross examination Pw9 stated that Ex.P1 report was received at 20.30 hours. In the cross examination the GD extract dt. 6.10.2010 was marked as Ex.D1. Again he stated that Ex.P9 was issued at 2010 5555 hours and Ex.P11 was sent to Courton11.10.2010and confession of A2 was recorded by that time. He admitted that as per

Ex.D1 extract of GD entries the accused was produced before him on 11.10.2010 at 9.00 AM and he recorded the confession of A2 on 11.10.2010. He stated that the victim girl was produced before State

Home on 6.10.2010 after 21.30 hours.

12.Pw10 is the investigating officer who filed charge sheet deposed about recording of statements of Pws1 to 4. He also deposed about surrender of the accused and taking custody of A1 for a period of one day, conducting of confession recovery panchanama of A1 in the presence of Pws7 and 8. Ex.P12 is the confession statement of A2 marked through his evidence.In his cross examination Pw10 stated that on 6.10.2010 he went to Vizag along with inspector. He stated that by the time he recorded the statement witness i.e., Pw4,he had not filed any memo altering section of law and he admitted that in the statement of Pw4 the offence is mentioned as 366-A of IPC. Again he state that the statement of Pw4 recorded at 9 to 10 PM. He stated that he did not know about writer who wrote the statement of Pw4.

He admitted that no document was collected by him to establish the ownership of the vehicle recovered from A2.

13The case of the prosecution and also PW-1 is that the

Accused kidnapped PW-4 when she along with PW-1 were returning from Court and reached at Kothapet rythu bazar at 6 P.M on 6-10- 2010. Out of the 10 witnesses examined by the prosecution Pws 2 and 3 eye witnesses, PW-4 the daughter of PW-1, Pws 5 to 8 mediators of the confession and recovery of A1 and A2 did not support the case of the prosecution and they were declared as hostile. Now remains the evidence of PW-1 complainant and the investigating officers Pws 9 and 10.

6666

14.According to PW-1 he along with his daughter were returning from court and reached Kothapet rythu Bazar she was kidnapped by two persons who came on a motor bike. He stated that he was unable to chase them. PW-1 only identified A2 and failed to identify the other accused. The above evidence of PW-1 is not supported by any of the prosecution witnesses including his daughter

PW-4 who categorically stated that she was not kidnapped by any one.

She stated that she was taken by police Chaitanyapuri forcibly to

Amberpet. She deposed that One Subba Rao constable was kept as guard near a temple at Amberpet and that she was taken to Juvenile home at Kachiguda and stayed there till July 2011. She stated that she did not know anything about the case filed by Pw1 that she was kidnapped. From the above evidence of PW-4 it is evident that the version of PW-1 is not supported by any of the prosecution witnesses.

15.The evidence of Pws 9 and 10 is also tainted with several infirmities. PW-9 stated that the report was received in the Police station at 8-30 p.m again stated that it was received at 8-10 p.m. It was sent to the court on the next day. In his cross examination Pw10 stated that on 6.10.2010 he went to Vizag along with inspector.

Though alteration memo was filed subsequently the provision of law was mentioned as 366-A of IPC in the 161 Statement of PW-4 which was recorded by PW-10 and he admitted the same.

17.In view of the above discussion this court is of the view that the evidence of Pws 1 ,9 and 10 do not inspire confidence to hold that PW-4 was kidnapped by the Accused and that the prosecution has utterly failed to establish the guilt of the Accused for the offences under Sec. 363,506 R/w 109 of IPC and accordingly they are entitled to acquittal.

7777

18. In the result, the accused (A1 to A3) are acquitted

U/s. 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence u/s. 363, 506 R/w.109of Indian Penal Code. The MOs1 to 4 shall be confiscated to the State after the appeal time is over. The bail bonds of accused and his sureties shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of March, 2014.

J.M.F.C., SPL. MOBILE COURT:CUM:

XI M.M. CYBERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE PW1- Sk.Kasimvali-NIL- PW2- B.T.Venkatesh PW3- R.Ramakrishna PW4- Sk.Kaleedanarsin PW5- Jagana PW6- P.Anjaiah PW7- Laxminarayana PW8- G.Satish Reddy PW9- Prabhakar PW10-Vishnuvardhan Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P1: ComplaintEx.D1: Extract of GD Entries Ex.P2: Statement of Pw2 Ex.P3: Statement of Pw3 Ex.P4: Signature of Pw2 Ex.P5: Signature of Pw3 Ex.P6: Signature of Pw7 Ex.P7: Signature of Pw8 Ex.P8: Signature of Pw9 Ex.P9: FIR Ex.P10: Panchanama of A2 Ex.P11: Alteration memo

Material Objects

MOs1 to 4 Nokia cell phones and cash Rs.1300/-

J.M.F.C., SPL. MOBILE COURT:CUM:

XI M.M. CYBERABAD

8

IN THE COURT OF J.M.F.C., SPL. MOBILE COURT: CUM:

XI METROPOLITAN MAGISRTRATE, CYBERABAD

CALENDER CASE NO. 1512 OF 2007

Cr. No. 1153/2006

1. Offence U/s : U/s. 342, 506 and 363 of IPC

2. Date of Offence : 22.9.2006

3. Date of Complaint : 10.11.2006

4. Beginning of Trial : 17.4.2012

5. Closure of Trial : 9.1.2013

6. Date of Judgment: 20.3.2013

7. Name of the Complainant : P.S. Chaitanyapuri

8. Name of the accused : Jyostna & 2 others

9. Finding of sentence if any : In the result, the accused (A1 to

A3) are acquitted U/s. 248(1) of Code of

Criminal Procedure for the offence u/s.

363, 342, 506 (1) of Indian Penal Code.

The bail bonds of accused and his sureties shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over.

J.M.F.C., SPL. MOBILE COURT:CUM:

XI M.M. CYBERABAD

To

The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad.

1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPL MOBILE COURT: CUM: XI METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, CYBERABAD: L.B.NAGAR.

PRESENT: Sri P. Kiran, M.A., L.L.M., Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Spl. Mobile Court cum: XI M.M. Cyberabad

Dated this the 25th day of March, 2014

CC No. 762 of 2007

Between:

The State through Chaitanyapuri Police Station ..Complainant

AND 1.V.Kumar Goud S/o.Venkataiah Age: 39 years Occ: Business R/o.Kothapet Uppal Mandal.

2.V.Krishna S/o.Raja Mallaiah Age: 50 years R/o.Chaitanyapuri RR.District.

3.K.Srinivas S/o.Venkatesham Age: 35 years Occ: Business

R/o.Kothapet RR.District...Accused

a)Serial No. of the Case:CC 762/2007

b)Date of the commission of offence:24.6.2007

c)Name of the Complainant:State through Chaitanyapuri Police Station

d)Name of the accused person: V.Kumar Goud & 2 others

e)Offence complained of:Section 447 and 506 of IPC

f)Plea of the accused on his examination:Not guilty

g)Final Order:Acquitted u/s.255 (1)Cr. P.C.

h)Date of Order:25.3.2014

This case came before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri K.G.Janardhan Reddy, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following: -

J U D G M E N T

The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows: That on 24.6.2007at 1330 hours one Muthyam Reddy son of Manohar 2

Reddy lodged a complaint stating that they were the owners of Plot

Nos. 34 and 40 situated at Srungeri colony and at about 12.30 hours while they were constructing compound wall and getting repair to the gates, three persons namely Vazeer Kumar, Vazeer Krishna and

Srinivas came to the site trying to demolish the compound wall. It is alleged in the complaint that they got sanction permission from the municipality and commenced the work of construction while so the above said persons threatened them with dire consequences. Finally requested to take action. Basing on the above complaint, a case in

Cr. No. 721/2007 u/s. 447 and 506 of Indian Penal Code was registered.

02.On 26.6.2007 the accused were arrested and produced

before the Court. After completion of investigation, the Sub Inspector

of Police, Chaitanyapuri Police Station filed charge sheet before this court.

03.Basing on the said charge sheet, this court had taken cognizance for the offence punishable u/s. 447 and 506 of Indian Penal

Code and registered the case as CC No. 762 of 2007. The accused were examined u/s. 251 of Cr. P.C. after furnishing the copies of the documents as required u/s. 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by explaining the substance of accusation for the offence u/s. 447 and 506 of Indian Penal Code to him. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

04.To prove its case the prosecution examined Pws 1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P18. The prosecution has failed to examine one circumstantial witness Lw3 and filed report stating that the whereabouts of the Lw3 are not known. Hence her evidence is closed.

05.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined U/s. 313 Cr. P.C. by explaining the incriminating 3 evidence available on record. For which the accused denied and opted for no defence.

06.Heard both sides.

07. Now the point for consideration is whether the prosecution proved the case against accused for the offence U/s. 447 and 506 of

Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubts?

08.The learned APPO has contended the evidence ofPws1 and 2 also mediators for the scene of offence panchanama coupled with the evidence of investigating officer establishes the case of the prosecution. Therefore prayed to convict the accused.

09.On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused vehemently contended that prosecution utterly failed to establish necessary ingredients U/s.447and 506 of IPC. It has been contended by him that the prosecution failed to establish the ownership of Pws1 and 2 and the documents filed by the prosecution are not supporting the case of Pws1 and 2. He also contended that the accused have nothing to do with the offence and prayed for acquittal.

10. Pw1 is the complainant deposed that he was the registered owner of the plots to an extent of 400 sq.yards even plot

No. 34 and 40 in Sy.No. 132 and 133 situated Sringery colony. He deposed that he obtained permission from the municipality and constructed a room in the said plot. He also deposed that on 24.6.2007 at 12.00 hours Vazeer Kumar, Krishna and Srinivas came to his site and they abused him in filthy language threatened him with dire consequences with a view to grab their property and he lodged complaint. Ex.P1 complaint is marked through his evidence. He identified A1 and A3 as Vazeer Kumar, Srinivas. Ex.P2 to P4 are marked through the evidence of Pw1. In his cross examination Pw1 denied to a suggestion that Ex.P2 is nothing to do with his ownership.

He denied to a suggestion that they have fabricated documents.

4

11.Pw2 is no other than the younger brother of Pw1 deposed reiterating the evidence of Pw1. He deposed that at 12.00 hours on 24.6.2007 Vazeer Kumar Goud, Krishna and Srinivas tried to occupy their place and threatened them. He stated that he did not remember whether Pw1 handed over the document to the police along with the complaint.

12.Pw3 is the circumstantial witness did not support the case of the prosecution. He deposed that he did not know anything about the case and he had not witnessed anything. He also deposed that he was not examined by police. In his cross examination Pw3 stated that he had not stated to police as in Ex.P13 his statement

before the police and in the cross examination by counsel for the

accused Pw3 stated the land in Sy.No. 34, 132, 133 belongs to Vazir

Kumar and they were in possession of the said plot.

13.Pws4 and 5 panch witnesses for scene of offence deposed about their observation scene of offence. Both of them admitted their signatures on the panchanamas Exs.p14and P15. In his cross examination pw4 stated that he did not know the contents of panchanama and stated that the contents were read over to him. Pw5 in his chief examination deposed that Muthyam Reddy was threatened by Kumar, Krishna and Srinivas.

14.Pw6 investigating officer deposed about registration of FIR and recorded the statements of witnesses by Lw8 another eye witness. Ex.P16 FIR, Ex.P17 scene of offence marked through his evidence. In his further chief examination the prosecution got marked

Ex.p18 photograph alleged to have taken at the scene of ofence and the counsel for the accused raised an objection to the said documents since they were not accompanied by negatives or any other source from which they were taken.

5

15.The case of the prosecution and Pws1 and 2 is that the Pws1 and 2 are the owners of the plot No. 34 out of Sy.No.s 132 and 133 and on 24.6.2007 they were engaged for construction activity the accused came there threatened Pws1 and 2 and abused them in filthy language and tried to occupy the plot. Out of the six witnesses examined by the prosecution Pw3 did not support its case. The evidence of Pw4 is not incriminating against the accused since he identified his signature on the scene of offence panchanama. Though

Pw5 stated that Vazeer Kumar, Krishna, Srinivas threatened, Pw5 is not an eye witness to the case.

16.Now remains the evidence of Pws1 and 2. Pw1 stated that

Vazeer Kumar, Krishna and Srinivas came to him, abused in filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences. But, Pw1 did not reproduce the actual words used by the accused and in his cross examination he was given a suggestion to the effect that the document filed by him Exs.P2 to P12 are nothing to do with the ownership. He also admitted that he filed document of his vendors.

Pw2 is younger brother of PW-1 is examined and he simply stated that

Vazeer Kumar, Krishna and Srinivas tried to occupy the plots and threatened them. The evidence of Pw2 is not consistent with the evidence of Pw1 since Pw2 did not state that the accused abused Pw1.

No document has been filed by the prosecution to establish the possession of Pws1 and 2. The prosecution has failed to examine the other independent witnesses to establish the case for the reasons best known, though the scene of offence is located in a busy area. Though the prosecution filed Ex.P18, failed to file negatives or source from which they were taken. The learned counsel for the accused took an objection as to the proof and relevancy and admissibility of said documents. Even if the said documents are presumed to be genuine they did not suggest that they were taken at the scene of offence.

6

17.In view of the above evidence this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused trespassed into the land of Pw1, caused mischief and threatened him to face dire consequences. The prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s.447 and 506 of

IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly he is entitled for acquittal.

18.In the result, accused (A1 to A3) are acquitted U/s. 255(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence punishable under section 447 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. The bail bonds of accused and his sureties shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of March, 2014.

J.M.F.C., SPL. MOBILE COURT

:CUM: XI M.M. CYBERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE

PW1- B.Mutyam Reddy -NIL- PW2- B.Priyatham Reddy PW3- T.Sudheer Singh Pw4- Harikrishna Pw5- P.Jannadham PW6- K.Srinivas Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P1: Complaint-NIL- Ex.P2: CC of Judgment in OS 259/74 Ex.P3: Memorandum of compromise Ex.P4: EC Ex.P5: Registered GPA Ex.P6: Sale deed copy Ex.P7: Sale deed copy Ex.P8: Construction permission Ex.P9: CC of gift settlement deed Ex.P10: EC Ex.P11: Electricity sanction Ex.P12: Original permission map 7

Ex.P13: 161 Statement of Pw3 Ex.P14: Signature of Pw4 Ex.P15: Signature of Pw5 Ex.P16: FIR Ex.P17: Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P18: Two photographs

J.M.F.C., SPL. MOBILE COURT

:CUM: XI M.M. CYBERABAD

1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPL MOBILE COURT: CUM: XI METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, CYBERABAD: L.B.NAGAR.

PRESENT: Sri P. Kiran, M.A., L.L.M., Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Spl. Mobile Court cum: XI M.M. Cyberabad

Dated this the 25th day of March, 2014

C.C. No. 814 of 2009 Between:

The State through Saroornagar Police Station …Complainant

AND

1.N.Ranjith S/o.N.Maheswara Swamy Age: 30 years Occ: Pvt.Job, R/o.Musarambagh Hyderabad.

2.N.Maheswara Swamy S/o.N.Jagannadham Age: 60 years Occ: Rtd.Employee R/o.Musarambagh Hyderabad.

3.N.Prema Latha W/o.N.Maheswara Swamy

Age: 49 years R/o. Musarambagh Hyderabad. ...Accused

a)Serial No. of the Case:814/2009

b)Date of the commission of offence:prior to 21.8.2008

c)Name of the Complainant:State through Saroornagar Police Station

d)Name of the accused person : 1.N.Ranjith & 2 others

e)Offence complained of:Sec. 498-A of IPC & 3&4 DP Act.

f)Plea of the accused on his examination:Not guilty

g)Final Order:Acquittal under section 248 (1) of Cr. P. C

h)Date of Order:25.3.2014

This case came before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri T.Kamalakar, Counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following: -

J U D G M E N T

The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows: The marriage of A1 took place on 21.8.2008 with the defacto complainant 2 and parents of the defacto complainant paid an amount of Rs.8.00

Lakhs cash presented 25 tolas of gold, two acres of land and house hold articles worth of Rs.2.00 Lakhs as per the demand of the petitioners. Both of them lived happily for a short period. Thereafter the accused started demanding the defacto complainant to bring

additional dowry from her parents and subjected her to physical and

mental cruelty. According to her A1 used to say that if he married another woman he would have got more dowry. The defacto complainant went to USA along with A1 and his brother who used to stay together in a house at USA. A1 and A4 continued their harassment for extra dowry and never allowed her to talk with her parents. When she informed the same to her to in laws they too demanded to buy a flat at Hyderabad for persuading their son not to harass her. On 25.1.2001 A1 brought the defacto complainant back to

India, left her at her parents house and threatened her stating that unless a flat is purchased in his name he would not allow the defacto complainant to live with him.

2.Basing on the above complaint police Saroronagar registered a case in Cr.No. 885 of 2009 and this Court taken cognizance of the offence U/s.498-A of IPC and U/s.3&4 of Dowry and

Prohibition Act.

3.This case is taken on file for the offence U/s. 498-A 3& 4 of

DP Act of Indian Penal Code and numbered the case as C.C. No.

814/2009. On their (A1 to A3) appearance, the accused were furnished with copies of the documents as required u/s. 207 of Cr.

P.C., and they were examined u/s. 239 of Cr. P.C. Charge for the offence u/s. 498-A of Indian Penal Code and U/s.3 & 4 of DP Act was framed against the accused, read over and explained to them for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3

4.In order to prove the case, the prosecution could examine

PW1 and marked Ex. P1.

5.The crime was registered in the the year 2009 the accused were examined on 27.1.2014 inspite of giving several opportunities the prosecution did not produce the witnesses and on the other hand filed a report stating the Lw1 left for USA, Lws2 and 3 are the parents of Lw1 vacated their house. Basing on the report filed by the prosecution this Court passed an order dt. 5.12.2013 by closing the evidence of Lws1 to 3. Lw5 is the investigating officer is only examined as Pw1 and marked Ex.P1.

6.After completion of prosecution evidence, this Court examined the accused U/S. 313 Cr. P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence available on record. They denied the same and opted for defence on their behalf.

7.Heard both sides.

8.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offence U/s. 498-A of Indian

Penal Code and U/s.3&4 of DP Act beyond all reasonable doubts?

9.Pw1 is the investigating officer deposed about the receiving of complaint from Lw1 on 23.7.2009 registration of crime and issuance of FIR for the offence U/s.498-A of IPC and U/s.3 & 4 of

DP Act. Ex.P1 FIR marked through his evidence. Pw1 also deposed about recording of statements of Lws1 to 3, surrender of the accused and filing of charge sheet. In his cross examination Pw1 stated that the FIR was issued for the offence U/s.498-A of IPC only. He admitted that there is no signature of the complainant on the report.

He also stated that he had not done the investigation with regard to the particulars of the land alleged to have given to the accused. He stated that since Lws1 to 3 stated about the giving of amount and other presents he filed charge sheet for the offence U/s.3 & 4 of DP 4

Act. He also stated that no property has been seized from the accused and he did not visit the scene of offence in this case. He stated that no documentary evidence was collected by him and no independent witnesses have been examined. He stated that the FIR was sent to the Court with a delay of six days and the failed to explain the reasons for delay. Exs.D1 and D2 which were given to the Dy.Commissioner of

Police by the accused were marked through his evidence.

10. The prosecution failed to examine the complainant and her parents. The IO filed charge sheet only basing on the statements of Lws1 to 3 as stated by him in his cross examination. Several lapses found in the case of the prosecution such as sending FIR with a delay of six days to the court, and the signature of complainant was not obtained on Ex.P1 report as admitted by the IO. The I.O also had not done the investigation with regard to alleged presents and giving of land. No independent witnesses have been examined and even the prosecution failed to examine Lws1 to 3 by producing them before the

Court inspite of lapse of five years.

11.In view of the above facts and circumstances this Court is of the view that prosecution has utterly failed to establish the fact that

A1 to A3 took dowry from Lws 1 to 3 and that they harassed Lw1 with a demand to bring additional dowry. Accordingly, the accused are entitled for acquittal.

12.In the result, the accused (A1 to A3) are acquitted u/s.

248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence U/s. 498-A of

Indian Penal Code and U/s.3&4 of DP Act. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after the expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of March, 2014.

J.M.F.C., SPL. MOBILE COURT

:CUM: XI M.M. CYBERABAD 5

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE

PW1- P.MadhuNIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P1: FIREx.D1: Endorsement Ex.P2: FIREx.D2: Another endorsement

Material objects -NIL-

J.M.F.C., SPL. MOBILE COURT

:CUM: XI M.M. CYBERABAD 6

IN THE COURT OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: CUM:

XI METROPOLITAN MAGISRTRATE, CYBERABAD

CALENDER CASE NO. 1769 OF 2007

Cr. No. 479/2004

1. Offence U/s : U/s. 498-A of IPC

2. Date of Offence: Prior to 2.7.2004

3. Date of Complaint : 2.7.2004

4. Beginning of Trial : 7.2.2012

5. Closure of Trial : 5.2.2013

6. Date of Judgment: 2.4.2013

7. Name of the Complainant : P.S. Chaitanyapuri

8. Name of the accused : Saralamma & Yadava Reddy

9. Finding of sentence if any : In the result, the accused Nos. 2 and 3 are acquitted u/s. 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence U/s. 498-A of Indian Penal Code. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after the expiry of appeal time.

J.M.F.C., Spl. Mobile Court Cum: XI M.M. Cyberabad

To

The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad.

1111

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIALMAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPL MOBILE COURT: CUM: XI METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, CYBERABAD: L.B.NAGAR.

PRESENT: Sri P. Kiran, M.A., L.L.M., Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Spl. Mobile Court cum: XI M.M. Cyberabad

Dated this the 25th day of March, 2014

C.C. No.655 of 2011 Between:

The State through Saroronagar Police Station …Complainant

AND

1.Ch.Ram Prasad S/o.Ch.Veera Raghavaiah Age: 23 years Occ: Student R/o.P&T Colony Saroronagar, Cyberabad.

2.M.Vijay Kumar S/o.M.Yadagiri Rao Age: 25 years Occ: Pvt.Job R/o.Gaddi Annaram Hyderabad.

3.K.Ramesh S/o.K.Narasimha Age: 25 years Occ: Pvt.Job R/o.

Gaddiannaram Hyderabad. ...Accused

a)Serial No. of the Case:655/2011

b)Date of the commission of offence:6.7.2011

c)Name of the Complainant:State through Saroronagar Police Station

d)Name of the accused person : Ch.Ram Prasad & two others

e)Offence complained of:Sections 325 and 427 R/w.34 of IPC

f)Plea of the accused on his examination:Not guilty

g)Final Order:Acquittal under section 248 (1) of Cr. P. C

h)Date of Order:25.3.2014

This case came before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri P.Srinath, Counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following: -

J U D G M E N T

The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as follows: On 7.7.2011 at 10.30 hours one Ch.Raghavender Goud 2222 resident of Saroronagar lodged a complaint stating that 6.7.2011 at about 10.00 PM when he stopped his Indica car near Red Cross

Hospital for answering calls of nature, Sriram, Vijay and Ramesh abused him in filthy language and beat him, he called his friends

Kumar Goud to rescue him and the above said persons stabbed his uncle on his hand caused bleeding injury. He received injury on his mouth and lost his teeth. Finally requested to take action. Basing on the above complaint, a case in Cr. No. 359/2011 u/s. 325 and 427

R/w.34 of Indian Penal Code is registered and after completion of investigation, Sub Inspector of Police, Saroornagar Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused u/s. 325 and 427 R/w.35 of IPC.

02.This case is taken on file for the offence U/s. 325 and 427

R/w.34 of Indian Penal Code. On their appearance, the accused are furnished with copies of the documents as required u/s. 207 of Cr.

P.C., and they were examined u/s. 239 of Cr. P.C. Charge for the offence u/s.325 and 427 R/w.34 of Indian Penal Code was framed against the accused, read over and explained to them for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

03.In order to prove its case the prosecution examined Pw1 and no documents were marked. The prosecution failed to examine the complainant injured and other material witnesses. Therefore, the evidence of investigating officer Lws7 and 8 is also closed since no useful purpose is going to be served on examining them.

04. The examination of the accused U/s.313 of Cr.P.C is dispensed with for want of incriminating evidence.

05. Heard both sides.

06.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s.325 427

R/w.34 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubts?

07.Pw1 is the injured eye witness to the incident deposed that

Sriram owed an amount of Rs.15000/- to him and when his nephew

Raghavender Goud was returning from Kurnool and when he was near 3333 Red cross hospital at Dilsuknagar they attacked him, when he went there he found 20 persons at that place and they have also beaten him. He deposed that he received injury on his hand and elbow and fell unconscious and thereafter Lw1 and himself went to PS and lodged complaint. Though he stated that he can identify the persons who caused this incident but failed to identify those persons among the accused and stated that the persons who injured him were not present

in the Court Hall.

8.Pw1 one of the eye witness and injured did not support the case of the prosecution though he had spoken about the occurrence of the offence he failed to disclose anything about the accident. In his chief examination itself he stated that the accused are not the persons who injured him. In view of the above evidence of Pw1 alone this

Court is of the view that prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s.325 and 427 R/w.34 of IPC . Accordingly the accused are entitled for acquittal.

9.In the result, the accused (A1 to A3) are acquitted u/s.

248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence U/s. 325 and 427

R/w.34 of Indian Penal Code. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after the expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of March, 2014.

J.M.F.C., SPL. MOBILE COURT

:CUM: XI M.M. CYBERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE PW1- E.Rathnakumar Goud-NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE

-NIL- -NIL-

Material objects -NIL-

J.M.F.C., SPL. MOBILE COURT

:CUM: XI M.M. CYBERABAD 4

IN THE COURT OF J.M.F.C., SPL. MOBILE COURT CUM:

XI METROPOLITAN MAGISRTRATE, CYBERABAD

CALENDER CASE No. 576 OF 2011

Cr. No. 339/2011

1. Offence U/s : U/s. 325 R/w.34 of IPC

2. Date of Offence: 20.7.2011

3. Date of Complaint : 20.7.2011

4. Beginning of Trial : 21.1.2013

5. Closure of Trial : 25.4.2013

6. Date of Judgment: 4.6.2013

7. Name of the Complainant : P.S. Chaitanyapuri

8. Name of the accused : B.Naveen Kumar & B.Chandra Kanth

9. Finding of sentence if any : In the result, the accused (A1 and

A2) are acquitted u/s. 248(1) of Code of

Criminal Procedure for the offence U/s.

325 R/w.34 of Indian Penal Code. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after the expiry of appeal time.

J.M.F.C., SPL. MOBILE COURT

:CUM: XI M.M. CYBERABAD

To

The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad.