Smt. Pramila Jain

17.04.2025 1OS 25/2017

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ADILABAD

Present: - Dr. Pramila Jain,

Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad.

THURSDAY, THIS THE 17th DAY OF APRIL, 2025

O.S.No. 25 of 2017

Between:-

Kadam Vinayak S/o. Dev Rao, Aged about: 62 years, Occ: Retired Employee, Municipality, Adilabad, R/o. H.No.3-4- 74/62/4/8/1, Dwarakanagar, (Hameedpura), Adilabad Town & District. … Plaintiff //AND//

Municipality, Adilabad, Represented by its Commissioner. …Defendant

This suit is coming on before me on 15.04.2025 in the presence of Sri Mohammed Ghouse, Sri Mujahid Hussain, Advocates for the plaintiff and Sri K. Sriram, Advocate for defendant and having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff under Order VII Rule 1 r/w Section 26 of

C.P.C for declaration of title and consequential perpetual injunction in favour of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property viz., Plot No.32 (House bearing its

MPL Door No.4-3-74/62/4/8/1) measuring 20 x 50 = 1000 Sq. Fts = 111.11 Sq.

Yards covered by the Document No.987/1991, situated at Dwarakanagar,

Hameedpura, Adilabad, by restraining the defendant, it’s men, employees, workers, successors-in-interest from entering and interfering into the suit schedule property and also award costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that the Plaintiff is a retired 17.04.2025 2OS 25/2017

Municipal employee and was working in the Municipal Department and he retired from his services on 31.10.2013, during the year 1991 the plaintiff worked as bill Collector in the office of Municipal council / Municipality,

Adilabad, under the provisions of Rule 4 (1) of the A.P. Municipalities (Act of

Immovable properties) Rule, 1967, the then District Collector, Adilabad through Proc.No.(i)/D5/299/90, dated 30.01.1990 and D5/51/91 dated 06.07.1991 has accorded permission for the allotment of Plot No.32 to Sri

Kadam Vinayak/Plaintiff, Bill Collector on nominal value of Rs.1,500/-, accordingly the Chairman, Municipal Council, Adilabad vide Proc.No.

G1/5005/82 dated 22.07.1991 has also allotted the Plot No.32 to Sri Kadam

Vinayak, Bill Collector of Municipality, Adilabad.

It is further submitted that, the plaintiff was directed to submit the required stamp papers for registration of the said plot and the plaintiff as per the directions has deposited the required stamp duty on that, the then

Chairman, Municipal Council, Adilabad Sri R.Laxman Rao has executed a

Regd. Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff on 26.07.1991 vide Doc.No.

987/1991.

It is further submitted that, on the Page No.4 of the Regd. Sale Deed the

Schedule of property is referred as "All that piece of land Plot No.32 in T.P.

No.15/55 situated in Hameedpura locality, Adilabad adjacent to H.No.4-3- 74/62/G1 belonging to Sri Ganesh Jairam Mukkawar. The said plot is not assigned land, as defined under AP POT ordinance No.9 of 1977 and it is not 17.04.2025 3OS 25/2017 in a Notified area. The Market value of the above plot is Rs.160/- per Sq.

Yards, hence total market value worked out to Rs.26,700/- (Rupees Twenty six thousand seven hundred only) hence deed is executed on stamp paper of

Rs.2,960/- (Rupees two thousands nine hundred sixty only ) which is situated at Hameedpura/Dwarakangar, Adialbad Town within Municipal limits of

Adilabvad Municipality and Dist. Adilabad and in the Registration Sub Dist.

Adilabad bearing plot No.32 in T.P.No.15/55, admeasuring 166 Sq. Yards, only an open plot without any construction therein in Ward No.4, Block No.3 the nearest H.No.4-3-74/62/G1 the boundaries of the above said plot are as under; East:Proposed Road, West: Plot No.35 over which there is a Municipal

Basement, North: House of Smt. Laxmi Teacher, South: Plot No.31 of Darsha

Ramesh Watchman Municipal Council, Adilabad, situated at Hameedpura,

Adilabad."

It is further submitted that as per the Reg. Sale Deed vide Doc.No.

987/1991 the Chairman, Municipal Council, Adialbad, executed the said deed in respect of the above said land and handed over the possession of the land which was situated within the four corners of the above mentioned boundaries, as per the said document there is no Municipal land on any of the direction adjacent to the piece of land/plot No.32, which was sold by the Municipal

Council, Adilabad to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is in the possession of the land covered by document No.987/1991 in the plot No.32 as shown above continuously and peacefully to the knowledge of one and all including the 17.04.2025 4OS 25/2017 defendants herein since 26.07.1991. Though in the schedule of property the extent of land was shown as 166.66 Sq. Yards, infact the actual measurement of the land within the boundaries, as shown in the suit schedule property is measuring 277.77 Sq. Yards, and the defendants handed over the possession of 277.77 Sq. Yards of the land to the plaintiff.

It is further submitted that, after execution of the registered sale deed vide Doc.No.987/1991 by the defendant on 26.07.1991 the plaintiff on 06.09.1991 made an application before the Commissioner, Municipal Council,

Adialbad for mutation of the said land covered by the Doc.No.987/1991, on that the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Adialbad, on 22.11.1991 vide Proc.

No.3787/1991 issued the Mutation proceedings in favour of the plaintiff, after mutation of the ownership of the said plot the plaintiff made an application to

Commissioner, Municipal Council, Adilabad for grant of permission for construction of RCC residential house, on that, the Commissioner, Municipal

Council, Adialbad granted the permission to the plaintiff for the construction of residential house vide order dated 25.01.1992.

It is further submitted that, as per the condition made in the permission proceeding and also in the approved plan the concerned authorities have given the mark out of the plot and there upon the construction was started by the Plaintiff and Plaintiff constructed the ground floor RCC residential house, after competition of the house the house tax assessment was made and the

Municipality have allotted the house No. as 4-3-74/62/4/8/1 to the house 17.04.2025 5OS 25/2017 constructed by the Plaintiff and the tax was also assessed and the Plaintiff is making the payment of the tax regularly to the Municipal Council of Adilabad, the Plaintiff is ready to make the payment of the Market Value of the extra land which is in the possession of the Plaintiff.

It is further submitted that, though the Municipal Council of Adilabad has executed Registered Sale Deed in favour of the Plaintiff and mutated the ownership of the plot in the name of the Plaintiff, granted permission to the

Plaintiff for the construction of residential house and also made assessment of the tax and collecting the tax regularly from Plaintiff, some of the elected members of the Municipal Council of Adilabad, are going on harassing the

Plaintiff on the ground that the land within the boundaries as mentioned in the

Register Sale Deed is more than the extent of land mentioned in the sale deed.

It is further submitted that, the Plaintiff by virtue of the sale deed

Document No.987/1991 has become the owner of the land to an extent of 277.77 Sq. Yards as the said extent of land is within the said boundaries by virtue of the said Register sale Deed the Plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title to an extent 111.11 Sq. Yards, the defendant at the instance of the elected members of Municipal Council of Adilabad are interfering in the peaceful possession of the Plaintiff over the land covered by the Doc.No.987/1991 the

Commissioner Municipality on 22.01.2016 issued a notice to the Plaintiff alleging that the Plaintiff without permission of Municipal Council of Adilabad 17.04.2025 6OS 25/2017 encroached the land and constructed extra rooms and subsequently the notice also men of the defendant are subsequently visiting to the house of the plaintiff and threatening the Plaintiff that they will dismantle the compound wall and disposes the Plaintiff there from the plot of the Plaintiff.

It is further submitted that, the defendants by hook or crook are trying to forcibly dispose the Plaintiff there from the land to an extent 20 x 50 = 1000

Sq. fts = 111.11 Sq. Yards out of the land in Plot No.32 situated at

Hameedpura (Dwarakanagar) Adilabad. The defendant though executed

Register Sale Deed in favour of the Plaintiff vide Doc.No.987/1991 are disputing the title of the Plaintiff and trying to interfere with the peaceful possession of the Plaintiff over the suit schedule property and issued the notice dated 22.01.2016 to the Plaintiff and also interfering frequently and lastly the men of the defendants i.e., Town Planning Officers came to the suit schedule property on 19.05.2017 and threatened the plaintiff that they will dismantle the compound wall and they will disposes the plaintiff there from the suit schedule property, hence the necessity for filing the suit for Declaration of

Title and for Perpetual injunction. Hence the suit.

3.On the other hand the defendant filed written statement and submitted that this Municipality was allotted a plot bearing No.32 in L.P.No.15/55 measuring 30 x 50 equivalent to 1500 Sq. Feets equivalent to 166 Sq. Yards i.e., 139.99 Sq. Meters for the sale price of Rs.1500/- on nominal cost as per the permission accorded by the District Collector, Adilabad under Rule 4 (1) of 17.04.2025 7OS 25/2017 the A.P. (TS) Municipalities Act (Acquisition of transfer of immovable

Properties), 1967, but this Municipality did not allot the piece of land situated beside Sri. Kadam Vinayk on which he is claiming ownership, he had illegally occupied the place initially, made compound wall with thatched and then constructed permanent compound wall which is totally illegal, the ownership title on which he is claiming is totally baseless.

Further submitted that, this Municipally has registered the Plot No.32 only measuring 30 x 50 equivalent to 1500 Sq. Feets vide Registered

Document No.987/91, Dated 26.07.2017 in favour of Sri. Kadam Vinayak S/o.

Dev Rao and no any document has been executed to allot adjacent piece of land to the plaintiff except the above Plot No.32.

Further submitted that, there is Municipal land adjacent to plot of plaintiff but as per the registered documents the Plaintiff mentioned the boundary at the North side house of Smt. Laxmi, Teacher which is totally baseless, misguided the Municipality during the course of execution of documents as the plot allotted to him is only 30 x 50 = 1500 Sq. Feets, as such the extent of land

I.e., 30 x 50 = 1500 Sq. Feets which was allotted to the plaintiff itself proved that this Municipality did not sell any piece of land in addition to the Plot No.32, as such the averment as made in this plaint is totally false, baseless, null and void.

Further submitted that, the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land at any time, initially the plaintiff made compound wall with thatched and after 17.04.2025 8OS 25/2017 wards recently constructed the compound wall illegally without notice of the

Municipally and as when it came to the notice of this Municipality the said compound wall was removed departmentally and further the suit land is not covered in the Registered Document No.987/1991, showing the wrong boundaries in the said documents, the plaintiff cannot take the advantage of the ownership by illegally constructing the compound wall covering the

Municipal land by showing wrong boundaries in the Registered Documents.

Further submitted that, this Municipality was allotted the Plot No.32 measuring 30 x 50 = 1500 Sq. Feets = 166.66 Sq.Yards and this Municipality handed over the possession to the said extent and this did not handed over the possession to an extent 277.77 Sq, Yards to the plaintiff as the plaintiff falsely stated in the plaint that he was handed over the possession of 277.77 of land, as such the above averment is not tenable, null and void.

Further submitted that, this office was effected Mutation on the Plot No.

32 duly vide Proc.No.A1/3787/1991, Dated 22.11.1991 in favour of petitioner as per the Registered Document No.987/91, Dated 26.07.1991 but did not affect mutation the open Municipal site situated to the adjacent Plot No.32 and it is also fact the permission for construction of Residential RCC Building granted at in open Plot No.32 measuring 30 x 50 1500 Sq. Feets and the

Property Tax was assessed to an extent of constructed building which is less than 1500 Sq. Feets allotted Plot, further as alleged by the plaintiff that he is ready to pay the market value of the land, this Municipality cannot allot the suit 17.04.2025 9OS 25/2017 land as presently the Government stopped the allotment of lands to anyone and moreover he was already allotted Plot No.32 as usual with other Municipal employees, as such this Municipally cannot collect Market Value of the suit plot from the plaintiff.

Further submitted that, decision taken by the Municipality to remove the compound wall as constructed recently illegally to safeguard the Municipal property, the plaintiff cannot take the advantage of boundaries which was wrongly mentioned in the Registered Document and this office has also issued a notice to plaintiff under Section 228 (1) (2)/2017, Dated 22.01.2016 informing that without obtaining permission, the plaintiff commenced the construction of compound wall and informed the said illegally construction will be removed departmentally and also the expenditure to be incurred in removing the said construction will be recovered from the plaintiff as per rules, as such the said construction made illegally has been removed departmentally

Further submitted that, the plaintiff is not at all owner of the suit land and this Municipality having no any alterative way except to remove the plaintiff as he is illegally tried to grab the land, it is a fact that the Municipal officials came to the spot one day before the removal and informed the plaintiff to remove the compound wall, if the plaintiff did not remove the compound wall, the same shall be removed departmentally.

Further submitted that, this Municipality is empowered to remove any construction made illegally on Municipal land and plaintiff having no right to 17.04.2025 10OS 25/2017 construct on the suit land, further the plaintiff is not entitled to seek any relief as he has illegally occupied the Municipal land.

Further submitted that, the plaintiff who was an employee of Municipality was allotted the Plot No. 32 to an extent of 30 x 50 = 1500 Sq. Fts by this

Municipality vide Registered Document No.987/91, Dated 26.07.1991 and since then the plaintiff was trying to grab the suit land and gradually made thatched compound wall and planted certain plants in the said land and recently constructed compound wall illegally which was removed by this office, as such the plaintiff is trying to grab the land and he may kindly be punished under Land Grabbing Act, further the plaintiff has not followed Section 80 of

C.P.C and Section 379 of Municipality Act, hence the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable under the law.

4.In support of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself was examined as PW1,

Arla Giribabu Yadav was examined as PW2, Chirla Gangadhar was examined as PW3 and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 on his behalf. On behalf of defendant,

C.V.N. Raju who is Commissioner of Municipality, Adilabad, was examined as

DW1 and no documentary evidence is marked on it’s behalf.

5.Heard the arguments on both sides. Perused the material available on record.

6.On the basis of the above pleadings the following issues were framed.

i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for Perpetual Injunction 17.04.2025 11OS 25/2017 against defendant in respect of Plot No.32 i.e., suit schedule property as prayed for?

ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as owner in respect of the suit schedule plot to an extent of 111.11 Sq. Yards as prayed for?

iii) Whether the suit is not maintainable for non-compliance of

Sec.80 C.P.C and also Sec.379 of Municipality Act?

iv) To what relief?

7. ISSUE NO.I AND II:

The case of the plaintiff is that the Chairman, Municipal Council,

Adilabad, vide Proc.Dis.No.G1/5005/82, Dated 22.07.1991 executed the registered sale deed vide Doc.No.987/1991 in favour of the plaintiff on 26.07.1991 in respect of the land within the boundaries of

East : Proposed Road,

West : Plot No.35 over which there is Municipal basement,

North : House of Smt. Laxmi Teacher,

South : Plot No.31 of Darsha Ramesh, Watchman, Municipal

Council, Adilabad, situated at Hameedpura, Adilabad and handed over the possession of the land which was situated within the four corners of the above mentioned boundaries as such the plaintiff is in the possession of the land covered by the document No.987/1991 in the plot

No.32. Further the contention of the plaintiff is that though in the schedule of property the extent of land was shown as 166.66 Sq. Yards, infact the actual measurements of the land within the boundaries as shown in the suit schedule property is measuring 277.77 Sq. Yards and the defendant handed over the 17.04.2025 12OS 25/2017 possession of 277.77 Sq. Yards of the land to the plaintiff. Accordingly after execution of the registered sale deed vide Doc.No.987/1991 by the defendant on 26.07.1991 the plaintiff on 06.09.1991 made an application before the

Commissioner, Municipal Council, Adilabad for mutation of the said land covered by the Doc.No.987/1991, on that the Commissioner, Municipal

Council, Adilabad, on 22.11.1991 vide Proc.Dis.No.3787/1991 issued the mutation proceedings in favour of the plaintiff and after mutation of the ownership of the said plot the plaintiff made an application to the

Commissioner, Municipal Council, Adilabad, for grant of permission for construction of RCC residential house, on that the Commissioner, Municipal

Council, Adilabad, granted the permission to the plaintiff for the construction of residential house vide order dated 25.01.1992 and as per the condition made in the permission proceedings and also in the approved plan the concerned authorities have given marked the mark out of the plot and there upon the construction was started by the plaintiff and plaintiff constructed ground floor

RCC residential house and the plaintiff was allotted the house No.4-3- 74/62/4/8/1 and accordingly the plaintiff paying the tax regularly but looking into the Ex.A1 i.e., transfer of the sale the Defendant has executed the transfer of sale with regard to property i.e., all that piece of land (plot) No.32 in

T.P.No.15/55 situated in Hameedpura locality, adjacent to house No.4-3- 74/62/G1 belonging to Sri Ganesh Jairam Mukkawar, the said plot is not assigned land as defined under A.P. P.O.T. Ordinance No.9 of 1977, and it is 17.04.2025 13OS 25/2017 not in a Notified Area. The market Value of the said plot is Rs.160/- per square yard. Hence total market value worked out to Rs.26,700/-, hence this deed is executed on stamp papers of Rs.2,960/-, which is situated at Hameedpura locality of Adilabad town, within Municipal limits of Adilabad Municipality and

District Adilabad in the Registration Sub-District Adilabad in the Registration

District Adilabad, bearing Plot No.32 in T.P.No.15/55, admeausring 166.66 Sq.

Yards, equivalent to 139.99 Sq. Meters, it is only an open plot without any construction therein and is included in Ward No.4, Block No.3, the nearest

House No.4-3-74/62/G1. The boundaries of the above said plot are as under:-

Towards North: House of Smt. Laxmi Teacher,

Towards South: Plot No.31 of Darsha Ramesh, Watchman,

Municipality, Adilabad.

Towards East: Proposed Road,

Towards West: Plot No.35 over which there is a Municipal basement, (More particularly shown in the sketch plan, which is enclosed herewith)

Which shows that the defendant has allotted the plot No.32 to the plaintiff in T.P.No.15/55 admeasuring 166.66 Sq. Yards equivalent to 139.99

Sq. Meters only but not the land measuring 277.77 Sq. Yards to the plaintiff.

Further looking into the Ex.A3 the Commissioner of Municipal Council has given the permission to construct the residential RCC Building in the open plot

No.32 measuring 30 x 50 = 1500 Sq. Feets = 166.66 Sq. Yards but the plaintiff 17.04.2025 14OS 25/2017 has not got the permission to construct the house in the excess land of municipality i.e., 111.11 Sq. Yards out of the land in plot No.32 situated at

Hameedpura / Dwarakanagar, Adilabad as per the Ex.A3. Further looking into the Ex.A2 i.e., mutation Proc.No.3787/1991 issued by the Commissioner,

Municipal Council, Adilabad is with regard to the plot No.32 but not effected the mutation with regard to the open municipal site situated at adjacent to plot

No.32. Further Ex.A4 to Ex.A6 showing the payment of the tax i.e., property tax and water tax with regard to H.No.4-3-74/62/4/8/1 constructing with an area 30 x 50 = 1500 Sq. Feets = 166.66 Sq. Yards as per Ex.A3 but not with regard to excess municipal land with an area 111.11 Sq. Yards out of the land in plot No.32 situated at Hameedpura / Dwarakanagar, Adilabad. Further looking into the evidence of PW1, PW1 admitted that PW1 is a municipal employee and the Government allotted plots to the municipal employees vide

Proc.No.D5/299/90, Dated 30.01.1991 as such the plaintiff was allotted a plot

No.32 measuring 30 x 50 = 1500 Sq. Feets as per the registered sale deed.

Further looking into the evidence of PW3 who is one of the attesting witness of

Ex.A1 admitted that the plaintiff was allotted 30 x 50 plot as per the document i.e., Ex.A1 and also admitted that the plaintiff occupied the excess land which is more than his allotted plot and the said land is within boundaries mentioned in the suit schedule property which all shows that Ex.A1 executed by defendant in favour of the plaintiff with regard to the plot No.32 in T.P.No.15/55 admeasuring 166.66 Sq. Yards is equivalent to 139.99 Sq. Meters. No doubt 17.04.2025 15OS 25/2017 the defendant has executed the transfer of sale with regard to plot No.32 in

T.P.No.15/55 admeasuring 166.66 Sq. Yards equivalent to the 139.99 Sq.

Meters with the wrong boundaries but the plaintiff cannot become the owner of the excess municipal land within the above said boundaries simple by taking the advantage of mentioning the wrong boundaries in Ex.A1.

Further the oral arguments of the plaintiff counsel that the plaintiff is ready to pay the market value of the excess land in which he is in possession and also filed the market value certificate i.e., Ex.A8, but the municipality cannot allot the suit land as presently the Government has stopped allotment of land to any body which itself shows that the plaintiff is not the owner of the excess municipal land i.e., 111.11 Sq. Yards, further the defendant also filed

Ex.A9 i.e., Notice for allotment of excess municipal land to others but it is not an hard and fast rule that if the municipality allotted the excess land to others it should be also allot the same to the plaintiff, it is upto the municipality to allot the excess land to the plaintiff, eventhough he was ready to pay market value of excess land in which he is in possession as such the plaintiff is not entitled to declare as owner in respect of excess land suit schedule property to an extent of 111.11 Sq. yards as prayed for. But in view of above discussed circumstances it is proved that the plaintiff is owner and possessor of the Plot

No.32 to an extent of 166.66 Sq. Yards which is equivalent to 139.99 Sq.

Meters as such the plaintiff is entitled to perpetual injunction against the defendant in respect of plot No.32 to an extent of 166.66 Sq. Yards which is 17.04.2025 16OS 25/2017 equivalent to 139.99 Sq. Meters and he is not entitled for perpetual injunction against the defendant in respect of excess land covered under the plot No.32 as he does not own that property and having illegal possession on it.

8. ISSUE NO.III:

As per Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) mandates that a written notice must be given to the government or a public officer before a suit can be instituted against them for any act done in their official capacity. This notice period is two months, during which the government or public officer has time to consider the claim

But in the present case the plaintiff is a retired municipal employee at the time of filing of the suit as such the requirement under Section 80 of CPC is not applicable to the plaintiff herein. Accordingly this issue is answered.

9. ISSUE NO.IV:

iv) If so, to what relief?

In view of the above discussions and findings given under issue No.I to

III the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.

IN THE RESULT, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17 th day of April, 2025.

PRAMILA

Digitally signed JAINby PRAMILA JAIN

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ADILABAD.

17.04.2025 17OS 25/2017

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT: PW1: Kadam VinayakDW1: C.V.N. Raju

PW2: Arla Giribabu Yadav

PW3: Chirla Gangadhar

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.A1: Registered Sale Deed vide document No.987/1991 executed by the Defendants in favour of the plaintiff.

Ex.A2: Mutation Proc.No.3787/1991 issued by the Commissioner Municipal Council, Adilabad.

Ex.A3: Permission Proc.No.BA-G1/3700/05/1991-92 issued by the Commissioner Municipal Council, Adilabad.

Ex.A4: Tax Payment Receipt for the period from 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 in respect of the H.No.4-3-74/62/4/8/1 situated at Dwarakanagar, Hameedpura, Adilabad, issued by Mee for the Commissioner Municipal Council, Adilabad.

Ex.A5: Water Tax Payment Receipt for the period from 2013-2014 in respect of the H.No.4-3-74/62/4/8/1, situated at Dwarakanagar, Hameedpura, Adilabad, issued by the Commissioner Municipal Council, Adilabad.

Ex.A6: Notice of Property Tax New Assessment issued by the Commissioner Municipality, Adilabad.

Ex.A7: Notice issued by the Municipality, Adilabad to the plaintiff.

Ex.A8: Valuation Certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar, Adilabad.

Ex.A9: (31) notices 1 to 17 dt. 06.12.2013, notice 18 dt. 22.04.2014, notice 18 dt. 22.12.2014, notice 19 dt. 06.12.2013, notice 20 dt. 22.04.2014, notice 21 dt. 06.12.2013, notice 22 and 23 dt. 22.04.2014, notices 24 to 31 dt. 06.12.2013.

FOR DEFENDANT:

- NIL - PRAMILADigitally signed by PRAMILA JAIN JAIN

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ADILABAD.

17.04.2025 1 SC.No.13 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT ADILABAD

Present:- Dr. Pramila Jain, Assistant Sessions Judge, Adilabad,

Thursday, this the 17th day of April, 2025

S.C. No. 13 of 2024

(On committal by the learned Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Adilabad, by order, dated: 18.01.2024 in P.R.C.No.14/2023 in Cr.No.195/2023 of P.S. Adilabad I Town)

Name of ComplainantThe Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Adilabad I Town

Name of accusedA1) Shaik Adil S/o. Shaik Norr, Age: 23 years, Occ:Business,R/o.H.No.2-1-267, Bokkalguda, Adilabad.

A2) Shaik Abid S/o. Shaik Norr, Age: 23 years, Occ:Business,R/o.H.No.2-1-267, Bokkalguda, Adilabad.

A3) Md. Toufeeque Ahmed @ Ismail S/o. Md. Ashfaq Ahmed, Age: 31 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.2-1-267, Bokkalguda, Adilabad.

A4) Ateeque Ahmed @ Athiq S/o. Md. Ashfaq Ahmed, Age: 46 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.2-1-267, Bokkalguda, Adilabad.

A5) Mohd. Mujahid @ Pathi Mujju S/o. Mohd. Ameed Hamza, Age: 54 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.3-7-30, Badka Mohalla, Adilabad.

Nature of OffenceU/Sec. 448, 290, 120(b), 307 r/w 34 of IPC

Plea of accusedNot guilty

Finding of the CourtNot guilty

Sentence /OrderIN THE RESULT, A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 448, 17.04.2025 2 SC.No.13 of 2024 290, 120(b), 307 r/w 34 of IPC and as such, they are acquitted for the same under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused persons shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Counsel for the prosecutionAddl. P.P.

Counsel for defenceSri Abdul Kaleem, Advocate

This case is coming on 16.04.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, Sri Abdul Kaleem, Advocate for Accused and having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Station House Officer, Police Station, Adilabad I Town filed charge- sheet against A1 to A5 for the offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 307, 448, 290 r/w 34 of IPC in Cr.No.195/2023 of P.S. Adilabad I Town.

2.The brief facts of the case are that on 25.06.2023 at 0700 hours the complainant / Lw1 / Zaheer Khan went to the Police Station and lodged a report stating that, Lw1 / Zaheer Khan is eking his livelihood by doing broker work for real-estate business, on 24.06.2023 Lw1 / Zaheer Khan sold (03) plots of J.K. Imtiyaz to A5, but A5 postponing in register of said plots and used to abuse Lw1 / Zaheer Khan in filthy language, on 24.06.2023 at 2030 hours

A5 called Lw1 / Zaheer Khan through his phone (9063518786) and told him to come to Vinayak Chowk, on that Lw1 / Zaheer Khan went to Vinayak Chowk and requested A5 to register said said plots on 26.06.2023, if any delay in 17.04.2025 3 SC.No.13 of 2024 registration of plots will be forfeited, over this issue A5 abused in filthy language and tried to beat Lw1 / Zaheer Khan, at the time Lw1 / Zaheer Khan left for his house, on the same day night at 2200 hours (8) members i.e., A1 to

A4 and (4) others have went to the house of Lw1 / Zaheer Khan with (4) motorcycles with knifes and iron rods and trespassed into house of Lw1 /

Zaheer Khan and attacked on him, then Lw1 / Zaheer Khan rescued himself by keeping hands, as a result Lw1 / Zaheer Khan sustained injuries on left hand, left hand elbow, right hand, back and head and also attacked on Lw1 /

Zaheer Khan wife Lw2/Naffez Begum in which tore chunni area of her saree, above accused persons have attacked on Lw1 / Zaheer Khan on the instigation of A5 with an intention to kill him. As such Lw1 / Zaheer Khan requested for taking necessary action against the accused persons as per

Law.

3.Basing on the report, Lw12/B. Anjamma, S.I. of Police, P.S. Adilabad registered a case in Cr.No.195/2023 for the offence under Section 120(b), 307, 447, 290 r/w 34 IPC, took up the investigation by issuing FIR, original FIR sent to JFCM Court, Adilabad, copies of FIR were communicated to all the concerned, examined and recorded the statement of Lw1 / Zaheer Khan, gave a requisition to the Medical Officer, RIMS, Adilabad for necessary treatment and certificate of Lw1 / Zaheer Khan, thereafter visited the scene of offence situated at Khanapur, Adilabad, observed the scene minutely, secured the presence of two mediators i.e., Lw7/Shaik Razaq and Lw8/Shaik Esaq, drafted 17.04.2025 4 SC.No.13 of 2024

Crime Detail Form, drew rough sketch of scene of offence, examined and recorded the statements of Lw2/Naffez Khanam and Lw3/Shabeer Mohd.

Khan, enquired in to the matter with Lw4/Jahed Khan and Lw5/Syed Mujahid and recorded their statements.

Subsequently on 26.06.2023 Lw12/B. Anjamma, S.I. of Police examined

Lw6/Sk. Imtiyaz who sold his three plots to A5 under the mediation of

Lw1/Zaheer Khan and later recorded his statement.

While arrest efforts are in progress, meanwhile A1 to A5 went to the police station along with anticipatory bail orders, Lw12/B. Anjamma, S.I. of

Police, pursued the Court Orders and as per the directions of the Hon'ble

District & Sessions Court, Adilabad vide Crl.P.No.109/2023 dated: 06.07.2023, then Lw12/B. Anjamma, S.I. of Police taken them into custody and thoroughly interrogated one by one separately, on interrogation A1 to A5 confessed to have committed this offence, then secured the presence of two mediators i.e.,

Lw9/Abdul Rasheed and Lw10/Shaik Jaleel and recorded confessional statement of A1 to A5, later lead the same mediators to house of A1 vide

H.No.2-1-267, Bokkalguda, Adilabad and seized one knife from the possession of A1 under a cover of panchinama, at 1900 hours issued arrest memos against A1 to A5 and after completion of arrest formalities A1 to A5 were released on bail as per the orders of the Hon'ble District & Sessions

Court, Adilabad.

Statements of Lw2/Naffez Khanam, Lw3/Shabeer Mohd. Khan,

Lw4/Jahed Khan, Lw5/Syed Mujahid are not supported to the version of 17.04.2025 5 SC.No.13 of 2024

Lw1/Zaheer Khan, basing on the statements and according to confession of

A1 to A5 only accusation of A1 to A5 is established in this case and accused persons have not used any motorcycle in the commission of offence, A1 to A4 have trespassed into the house of Lw1/Zaheer Khan, hence the section of law 448 IPC is attracted in this case instead of 447 IPC. The Lw12/B. Anjamma,

S.I. of Police has filed a requisition before the JFCM Court, Adilabad for alter the section of law from Section 120(b), 307, 447, 290 r/w 34 IPC to Section 120(b), 307, 448, 290 r/w 34 IPC.

On 13.07.2023 Lw12/B. Anjamma, S.I. of Police has received wound certificate of Lw1/injured from Lw11/Dr. B. Sreelekha, Casualty Medical

Officer, RIMS, Adilabad, in which she opined that, sustained injuries of

Lw1/Zaheer Khan is "Simple in Nature". After completion of entire investigation

Lw12/B. Anjamma, S.I. of Police filed the charge sheet against the accused persons.

4.On filing the charge sheet, the learned Magistrate took the cognizance of the offence on file under Sections 448, 290, 120(b), 307 r/w 34 of IPC against A1 to A5 and furnished the copies of case documents to them under

Section 207 of Cr.P.C and committed the case to the Hon’ble Court of

Sessions, Adilabad vide P.R.C. No.14/2023. The Hon’ble Court of Sessions,

Adilabad made over the case to this court to dispose of according to law vide

SC No.13/2024.

17.04.2025 6 SC.No.13 of 2024

5.On appearance of A1 to A5 before this Court, charges for the offence punishable under Sections 448, 290, 120(b), 307 r/w 34 of IPC are framed against them, the contents of the same were read over and explained to them in their vernacular language. Accused persons denied the accusations levelled against them, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial on behalf of prosecution, PW1 to PW5 were examined, Ex.P1 to Ex.P14 were marked on its behalf. Ex.P1 is signature of

PW1 on Police Report, Ex.P2 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1, Ex.P3 is 161

Cr.P.C statement of PW2, Ex.P4 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3, Ex.P5 is 161

Cr.P.C statement of PW4, Ex.P6 is Police Report, Ex.P7 is FIR, Ex.P8 is CDF,

Ex.P9 is rough sketch, Ex.P10 is true copy of anticipatory bail orders, Ex.P11 is confession panchanama of A1 to A5 dt. 07.07.2023 at Police Station,

Adilabad I Town at 1700 hours, Ex.P12 is seizure panchanama dt. 07.07.2023 at the house of A1 at 1810 hours, Ex.P13 is Section Alteration Memo, Ex.P14 is MC of PW1 issued by Lw11.

7.After closing the prosecution evidence, A1 to A5 were examined under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C on the incriminating material and circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. A1 to A5 denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8.Heard arguments from both sides.

17.04.2025 7 SC.No.13 of 2024 9 .Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A1 to A5 for the

offence punishable under Sections 448, 290, 120(b), 307 r/w 34 of

IPC beyond all reasonable doubts?”

POINT:

10.In this case prosecution examined PW1 to PW5 and marked Ex.P1 to

Ex.P14 in support to their case. PW1 is defacto-complainant and victim; PW2 is wife of victim/PW1; PW3 is son of PW1; PW4 is Eye witness; PW5 is

Investigation Officer. The Ld. APP has given up the evidence of Lw5/Syed

Mujahid – Eye witness, Lw6/Sk. Imtiyaz – Real Estate Businessman,

Lw7/Shaik Razaq – Mediator for Crime Detail Form, Lw8/Shaik Esaq -

Mediator for Crime Detail Form, Lw9/Abdul Rasheed – Mediator for confessional of A1 to A5 and seizure panchanama of A1, Lw10/Shaik Jaleel –

Mediator for confessional of A1 to A5 and seizure panchanama of A1,

Lw11/Dr. B. Sreelekha – Medical Officer.

11.On considering the evidence of PW1, PW1 deposed that in the year 2023 at 10:00 p.m., between PW1 and accused persons a small dispute arouse and in that dispute PW1 himself fell on the ground and received injuries to his hands and head and other parts of the body, immediately PW1 went to the hospital there the Police I Town Adilabad came to the hospital and obtained his signature on some white papers. PW1 identified his signature on report. PW1 admitted that except this he does not know anything about this case and police never examined and recorded his statement.

17.04.2025 8 SC.No.13 of 2024

PW2 deposed that in the year 2023 at 10:00 p.m., between PW1 and accused persons a small dispute arouse and in that dispute PW1 himself fell on the ground and received injuries to his hands, head and other parts of the body, immediately PW1 went to the hospital there the Police I Town Adilabad came to the hospital and obtained his signature on some white papers. PW2 admitted she does not know anything about the facts of the case and police never examined and recorded her statement.

PW3 and PW4 deposed that PW3 and PW4 do not know anything about the facts of the case. PW3 and PW4 admitted that police never examined and recorded their statements.

PW1 to PW4 turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution.

Whereas the cross examination of PW1 to PW4 is reported nil by defence counsel for accused.

On considering the evidence of PW5, PW5 deposed that on 25.06.2023 at 7.00 hours PW1 came to the Police Station and lodged police report, based on it PW5 registered a case in Cr.No.195/2023 for the offence punishable under Section 120-B, 307, 447, 290 r/w 34 of IPC, issued FIR to all concerned, examined and recorded the statement of PW1, later gave a requisition to medical officer for treatment and certificate of PW1, thereafter PW1 visited the scene of offence situated at Khanapur, Adilabad, conducted CDF and drawn rough sketch in the presence of Lw7/Shaik Razaq and Lw8/Shaik Esaq, examined and recorded the statements of PW2 to PW4, Lw5/Syed Mujahid, on 26.06.2023 examined and recorded the statement of Lw6/Sk. Imtiyaz, later A1 17.04.2025 9 SC.No.13 of 2024 to A5 came to the Police Station with anticipatory bail orders, PW5 pursued the court orders and as per the directions of Hon’ble District and Sessions Judge,

Adilabad, vide Crl.P.No.109/2023 dt. 06.07.2023, later PW5 taken A1 to A5 into custody and on interrogation they confessed that they have committed this offence, later secured the presence of Lw9/Abdul Rasheed and Lw10/Shaik

Jaleel, conducted confession panchanama along with seizure panchanama, seized one knife from the possession of A1 under the cover of panchanama, issued arrest memos against A1 to A5, after completion of legal formalities

PW5 released A1 to A5 on bail as per the orders of the Hon’ble District and

Sessions Judge, Adilabad, later filed a requisition before the JFCM Court,

Adilabad, for alteration of Section of Law from Sections 120-B, 307, 447, 290 r/w 34 IPC to Section 120-B, 307, 448, 290 r/w 34 IPC, on 13.07.2023 PW5 received wound certificate of PW1 from Lw11/Dr. B. Sreelekha in which it is opined that the injuries sustained to PW1 is simple in nature, after completion of investigation PW5 filed charge sheet against A1 to A5 under Sections 120-

B, 307, 448, 290 r/w 34 of IPC.

During the course of cross examination by defence counsel of accused

PW5 admitted that there is a delay of one day in lodging complaint and stated that she has mentioned the reasons of delay in column No.8 of FIR, further admitted that she has not collected any sale deed document from PW1 to show that any transaction relating to land is executed in between accused and

PW1, further admitted that PW1 has not stated in Ex.P6 about the survey number and bike number in report. Further denied every suggestion put to her.

17.04.2025 10 SC.No.13 of 2024

On considering the material available on record, PW1 to PW4 who are the victim, wife of victim, son of victim and eye witness did not depose anything about the incident. Further PW1 and PW2 stated that PW1 himself fell on the ground and received injuries to his hands, head and other parts of the body. Further PW3 and PW4 stated that they do not know anything about the facts of this case. PW1 to PW4 became hostile and did not support the prosecution version as such there is no incriminating evidence is elicited against the Accused from the evidence of PW1 to PW4.

As per the evidence of PW5, based on the report PW5 registered this case, issued FIR to all concerned, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, gave a requisition to medical officer for treatment and certificate of

PW1, visited the scene of offence, conducted CDF, drawn rough sketch in the presence of Lw7/Shaik Razaq and Lw8/Shaik Esaq, later A1 to A5 came to the

Police Station with anticipatory bail orders, PW5 pursued the court orders of

Hon’ble District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad, vide Crl.P.No.109/2023 dt.

06.07.2023, later PW5 taken A1 to A5 into custody, on interrogation they confessed that they have committed this offence, secured the presence of

Lw9/Abdul Rasheed and Lw10/Shaik Jaleel, conducted confession panchanama along with seizure panchanama, seized one knife from the possession of A1 under the cover of panchanama, issued arrest memos against A1 to A5, after completion of legal formalities PW5 released A1 to A5 on bail, later filed requisition before the JFCM Court, Adilabad, for alteration of

Section of Law from Sections 120-B, 307, 447, 290 r/w 34 IPC to Section 120- 17.04.2025 11 SC.No.13 of 2024

B, 307, 448, 290 r/w 34 IPC, received wound certificate of PW1, after completion of investigation PW5 filed charge sheet against A1 to A5 under

Sections 120-B, 307, 448, 290 r/w 34 of IPC.

The prosecution has failed to examine the panch witnesses for confession panchanama of Accused persons and CDF as such the prosecution has failed to prove that the police visited the scene of offence, seized the knife from the scene of offence and conducted confession panchanama of Accused persons. Further except reiterating the averments of charge sheet nothing much incriminating evidence is elicited against the

Accused persons from the evidence of PW5 as such the evidence of PW5 is of nominal importance.

12.On considering the material available on record and testimonies of material witnesses, it does not establish any nexus between the Accused persons and the alleged incident of attempt to kill PW1, further it does not establish any overt acts of accused persons and intention of accused persons to kill PW1. Further it does not establish that the Accused persons agreed to do criminal conspiracy to kill PW1 and criminally trespassed into the house of

PW1 for commission of offence. Further it does not establish that the Accused persons committed nuisance by abusing PW1 in vulgar language. Hence, it can be said that the accused persons are no way concerned with the said alleged incident.

17.04.2025 12 SC.No.13 of 2024

13.In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that there is no convincing evidence to bring home the guilt of A1 to A5, hence it can be said that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge under Sections 448, 290, 120(b), 307 r/w 34 of IPC against A1 to A5 beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence A1 to A5 are entitled for acquittal. Therefore, this point is answered accordingly.

14. IN THE RESULT, A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 448, 290, 120(b), 307 r/w 34 of IPC and as such, they are acquitted for the same under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused persons shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period.

The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17 th day of April, 2025. PRAMILADigitally signed by PRAMILA JAIN JAIN Assistant Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

PW1:ZaheerKhan@Zaheer -None- Mohammad/Defacto complainant and victim

PW2:Naffez Khanam / Wife of PW1

PW3:Shabeer Mohd. Khan / Son of PW1

PW4:Jahed Khan / Eye witness

PW5:B. Anjamma / Investigation Officer 17.04.2025 13 SC.No.13 of 2024

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:- FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P1:Signature of PW1 on Police Report - Nil -

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.P5:161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4

Ex.P6:Police Report

Ex.P7:FIR

Ex.P8:CDF

Ex.P9:Rough sketch

Ex.P10: True copy of anticipatory bail orders

Ex.P11: Confession panchanama of A1 to A5 dt. 07.07.2023 at Police Station, Adilabad I Town at 1700 hours

Ex.P12: Seizure panchanama dt. 07.07.2023 at the house of A1 at 1810 hours

Ex.P13: Section Alteration Memo

Ex.P14: MC of PW1 issued by Lw11

MATERIAL OBJECTS

- NIL - PRAMILADigitally signed by JAIN

PRAMILA JAIN

Assistant Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

17.04.2025 14 SC.No.13 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT ADILABAD.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

S.C.No. 13 of 2024

1.Date of offence:24.06.2023

2.Date of complaint:25.06.2023

3.Date of appearance of accused:25.04.2024

4.Committal order:18.01.2024

5.Date of commencement of trial:15.04.2025

6.Date of closure of trial:16.04.2025

7.Date of Judgment:17.04.2025

8.Explanation if delay if any:---

9.Complainant: The State of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Adilabad I Town.

10.Accused:

A1) Shaik Adil S/o. Shaik Norr, Age: 23 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.2-1- 267, Bokkalguda, Adilabad.

A2) Shaik Abid S/o. Shaik Norr, Age: 23 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.2-1- 267, Bokkalguda, Adilabad.

A3) Md. Toufeeque Ahmed @ Ismail S/o. Md. Ashfaq Ahmed, Age: 31 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.2-1-267, Bokkalguda, Adilabad.

A4) Ateeque Ahmed @ Athiq S/o. Md. Ashfaq Ahmed, Age: 46 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.2-1-267, Bokkalguda, Adilabad.

A5) Mohd. Mujahid @ Pathi Mujju S/o. Mohd. Ameed Hamza, Age: 54 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.3-7-30, Badka Mohalla, Adilabad.

11.Offence : U/sec. 448, 290, 120(b), 307 r/w 34 of IPC 12Finding of Court: Found not Guilty 17.04.2025 15 SC.No.13 of 2024 17.04.2025 16 SC.No.13 of 2024

13.Sentence/order:

IN THE RESULT, A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 448, 290, 120(b), 307 r/w 34 of IPC and as such, they are acquitted for the same under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused persons shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Assistant Sessions Judge, Adilabad

17.04.2025 1 SC.No.100 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT ADILABAD

Present:- Dr. Pramila Jain, Assistant Sessions Judge, Adilabad,

Thursday, this the 17th day of April, 2025

S.C. No. 100 of 2023

(On committal by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Boath, by order, dated: 02.11.2023 in P.R.C.No.4/2023 in Cr.No.56/2023 of P.S. Gudihathnoor)

Name of ComplainantThe Circle-Inspector of Police, Ichoda.

Name of accusedDava Narayana S/o. Dava Poshetty, Age: 41 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o. Tosham Village of Gudihathnoor Mandal.

Nature of OffenceU/Sec. 304-II of IPC

Plea of accusedNot guilty

Finding of the CourtNot guilty

Sentence /OrderIN THE RESULT, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-II of IPC and as such, Accused is acquitted for the same under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period.

Counsel for the prosecutionAddl. P.P.

Counsel for defenceSri A. A. Raheem, Advocate

This case is coming on 16.04.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, Sri A. A. Raheem, Advocate for Accused and having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Circle-Inspector of Police, Ichoda filed charge-sheet against the

Accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-II of IPC in

Cr.No.56/2023 of P.S. Gudihathnoor.

17.04.2025 2 SC.No.100 of 2023

2.The brief facts of the case are that on 22.05.2023 at 11:00 hours, the complainant / Lw1 / Kolluri Naveen Kumar went to Police Station,

Gudihathnoor and lodged a written Telugu petition stating that his deceased father by name Kolluri Narsaiah, grandmother by name Narsamma were residing at Tosham Village, deceased has (3) children and Lw1/ Kolluri

Naveen Kumar is the elder among them, Lw1/ Kolluri Naveen Kumar and his two sisters got married, now Lw1/ Kolluri Naveen Kumar is residing at Nirmal

Town with his children by doing Painter work, Lw1/ Kolluri Naveen Kumar mother died during his childhood and now his deceased father and grandmother were residing at Thosham village, on 20.05.2023 in the evening hours a quarrel took place in between deceased and Accused on petty issues, during the quarrel Accused pushed the deceased on the ground in the absence of Narsamma who went to attend the marriage of relatives, as a result deceased received severe bleeding injury over his head, on 21.05.2023 in the morning hours on receipt of such information through Lw6/Palepu

Shankar, immediately Lw1/ Kolluri Naveen Kumar went there and found deceased in unconscious state and shifted deceased to RIMS Hospital,

Adilabad for treatment. On examination Duty Doctor informed that deceased sustained head injury. Further Lw1/ Kolluri Naveen Kumar stated that delay in lodging complaint occurred due to shifting deceased at Hospital. As such Lw1/

Kolluri Naveen Kumar requested for taking necessary action against Accused as per Law.

17.04.2025 3 SC.No.100 of 2023

3.Basing on the contents of the above complaint a case in Cr.No.56/2023 for the offence under Section 324 of IPC has been registered by Lw16 /

L.Praveen, SIP, PS Gudihathnoor, issued FIR, took up investigation by issuing

FIR to the all concerned, examined and recorded the statement of Lw1/Kolluri

Naveen Kumar, visited RIMS Hospital, Adilabad, observed the injured Kolluri

Narsaiah who was undergoing medical treatment and unable to speak due to which could not examine and record his statement, issued Injury Form to Lw1/

Kolluri Naveen Kumar for providing medical treatment to injured/victim, visited the scene of offence located at Tosham village of Gudihathnoor Mandal, secured the presence of two mediators i.e., Lw7/Sageerkhan and Lw8/Apkam

Swami, drafted the rough sketch of scene of offence, prepared Crime Detail form in their presence.

On 23.05.2023 at 16:20 hours Lw16 / L. Praveen, SIP, PS Gudihathnoor had received the death intimation of the injured person through Police outpost,

RIMS, Adilabad, that on 23.05.2023 at 16:10 hours, the injured Kolluri

Narsaiah has succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment at RIMS

Hospital. On receipt of such information immediately Lw16 / L. Praveen, SIP,

PS Gudihathnoor visited to RIMS Adilabad, where he re-examined and re- recorded the statement of Lw1/Kolluri Naveen Kumar, based on the statement of Lw1/ Kolluri Naveen Kumar and death intimation the section of law was altered from 324 IPC to 304-II IPC and section alteration memo was submitted to the JFCM, Boath for consideration, thereafter handed over the CD file to 17.04.2025 4 SC.No.100 of 2023

Lw17/N. Nylu, CIP, Ichoda Circle for further investigation as it is grave in nature.

On receipt of the section alteration memo and CD file, Lw17/N. Nylu rushed to RIMS Hospital, Adilabad and caused discreet enquiry about the incident by observing dead body, then the Lw17/N. Nylu examined

Lw2/Kutikela Rajitha, Lw3/Nallolla Vijayalaxmi, Lw4/Kolluri Dubbanna who are the blood relatives of the deceased and eye witnesses to the incident and recorded their statements, taken the photos of the deceased with the help of the Lw5/Konda Prashanth, then secured the presence of the two mediators i.e., Lw9/Badugu Gangaiah and Lw10/Elkapalli Sadanandam, conducted

Inquest Panchanama over the dead body of the deceased, after completion of the Inquest Panchanama, the dead body of the deceased was subjected for

PME under proper escort to know the actual cause of death of the deceased,

Lw13/Dr. Pruthviraj and Lw14/Y. Ramu are the team of Medical officers who held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, preserved the viscera of the deceased for forwarding the same for analysis and report. After completion of the PME the dead body of the deceased was handed over to Lw1/ Kolluri

Naveen Kumar under proper acknowledgement for funeral.

Later Lw17/N. Nylu had visited the scene of offence situated at Tosham village, observed the scene of offence minutely, examined and recorded the statement of Lw6/Palepu Shankar and dispatched the Police Parties in the various directions to nab the accused.

17.04.2025 5 SC.No.100 of 2023

On 25.05.2023 at 09.45 hours Lw17/N. Nylu and Police Party apprehended the accused and interrogated him thoroughly, during the course of interrogation the accused disclosed his identity and voluntarily admitted his guilty in commission of the offence, as the accused was in the mood of confession, Lw17/N. Nylu had secured the presence of the two mediators i.e.,

Lw11/Pasthapure Ravinder and Lw12/Avula Ramesh, recorded his confession under cover of the confession panchanama in presence of said mediators, later the apprehended accused was brought to PS Gudihathnoor, affected his arrest by issuing arrest card, later on completion of all legal formalities the accused was produced before the Court for judicial remand.

During the course of further investigation, Lw17/N. Nylu had prepared letter of advice in respect of Viscera of the deceased preserved by the Medical

Officers, RIMS, Adilabad and forwarded the same to RFSL Karimnagar through authorization letter of the SDPO Utnoor for analysis and report.

On 21.06.2023 Lw17/N. Nylu had been transferred from Ichoda circle, on 21.06.2023 Lw18/P. Chandra Shekar, CIP, Ichoda, had taken the charge of the Ichoda circle on transfer and posting from Bhainsa Rural circle to Ichoda circle, and gone through the CD file and the investigation done by

Lw17/N.Nylu and found it to be on proper lines.

Lw15/K. Narsimha, Expert RFSL, Karimnagar who analyzed the Viscera, has issued RFSL report vide file No.RFSL/KNR/808/TOX/518/2023, dt.

07.06.2023 in which he opined that items 1, 2, 3 and 4 are analysed but no poisonous substance is found in them. Basing on the RFSL report, the Medical 17.04.2025 6 SC.No.100 of 2023

Officers, RIMS Adilabad i.e., Lw13/Dr. Pruthviraj and Lw14/Y. Ramu issued

Final Opinion that the cause of death of the deceased was due to “HAEMORRHAGE AND SHOCK DUE TO HEAD INJURY.” After completion of entire investigation Lw18/Sri P. Chandra Shekar, CIP, Ichoda filed the charge sheet against the Accused.

4.On filing the charge sheet, the learned Magistrate took the cognizance of the offence on file under Section 304-II of IPC against the accused and furnished the copies of case documents to accused under Section 207 of

Cr.P.C and committed the case to the Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Adilabad vide P.R.C.No.4/2023. The Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Adilabad made over the case to this court to dispose of according to law vide SC No.100 of 2023.

5.On appearance of the Accused before this Court, charge for the offence punishable under Section 304-II of IPC is framed against him, the contents of the same were read over and explained to him in his vernacular language.

Accused denied the accusations levelled against him, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial on behalf of prosecution, PW1 to PW13 were examined, Ex.P1 to Ex.P15 were marked on its behalf. Ex.P1 is Report, Ex.P2 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3, Ex.P3 is signature of PW4 on CDF, dated 22.05.2023, Ex.P4 is signature of PW5 on CDF panchanama, dated 22.05.2023, Ex.P5 is inquest panchanama, Ex.P6 is signature of PW7 on 17.04.2025 7 SC.No.100 of 2023 confession panchanama dated 25.05.2023, Ex.P7 is signature of PW8 on confession panchanama dated 25.05.2023, Ex.P8 is two photographs, Ex.P9 is PME report, Ex.P10 is final opinion, Ex.P11 is FIR, Ex.P12 is CDF including rough sketch, Ex.P13 is Alteration Memo, Ex.P14 is confession panchanama oftheAccused,Ex.P15isRFSLReportvidefile

No.RFSL/KNR/808/TOX/518/2023, dated 07.06.2023.

7.After closing the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C on the incriminating material and circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard arguments from both sides.

9 .Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of Accused for the

offence punishable under Section 304-II of IPC beyond all

reasonable doubts?”

POINT:

10.In this case prosecution examined PW1 to PW13 and marked Ex.P1 to

Ex.P15 in support to their case. PW1 is complainant & son of deceased; PW2 is elder daughter of deceased; PW3 is Eye witness; PW4 is Panch for CDF;

PW5 is Panch for CDF; PW6 is Panch for Inquest Panchanama of deceased;

PW7 is Panch for confession panchanama of accused; PW8 is Panch for 17.04.2025 8 SC.No.100 of 2023

Confession Panchanama of Accused; PW9 is Photographer; PW10 is Medical

Officer; PW11 is 1st Investigation Officer; PW12 is 2nd Investigation Officer;

PW13 is 3rd Investigation Officer. The Ld. APP has given up the evidence of

Lw3/Nallolla Vijayalaxmi – Younger daughter of deceased, Lw6/Palepu

Shankar – Relative of deceased, Lw10/Elkapalli Sadanandam – Panch for inquest panchanama of deceased, Lw14/Y. Ramu – Medical Officer,

Lw15/K.Narsimha – Regional Head and Asst. Director, RFSL, Karimnagar.

11.It is the evidence of PW1 that on 20.05.2023 his grand mother who resided at Thosham went to marriage at that time at about 08.00 p.m., the accused pushed his father to the ground due to which PW1’s father received severe injury on the back side of the head, on the next day morning PW1 received a phone call from LW6 stating that PW1’s father and accused quarreled and in that quarrel the accused pushed PW1’s father to the ground and caused injury on the back side of the head, immediately PW1 who resided with his family at Nirmal rushed to the Thosham i.e., his father house and noticed that his father is in unconscious condition on bed as such PW1 immediately called 108 and shifted him to RIMS Hospital, Adilabad, there the doctor RIMS Hospital, Adilabad adviced PW1 to take the CT Scan of his father and after taking the CT scan the doctor stated that there internal bleeding is going on head as such PW1 lodged the complaint / Ex.P1 against the accused but as per the prosecution PW1 is residential of Nirmal and had not seen the incident, further the prosecution failed to examine LW6 who intimated about 17.04.2025 9 SC.No.100 of 2023 the incident to the PW1. Further from the evidence of PW2 who is elder daughter of deceased also known about the incident from the PW1. Further

PW1 filed the police report after the two days of alleged incident, further the 1st investigation officer who issued FIR has not recorded the statement of deceased as he was unable to speak. Further from the evidence of PW1 also it is clear that the deceased has not narrated about the incident to him. Further

PW3 who is the eye witness to the incident became hostile and did not support the prosecution version as such there is no eye witness or any other independent witness before the Court in order to prove that the alleged incident occurred on 20.05.2023.

It is the evidence of PW11 that PW11 visited the scene of offence situated at Thosham village of Gudihathnoor, there PW11 secured the presence of PW4 and PW5, conducted CDF and drawn rough sketch but PW4 and PW5 denied the conducting of CDF and drawn of rough sketch in their presence by PW11 as such it does not prove that the police has visited the scene of offence, conducted the CDF and drawn rough sketch in the presence of panchas.

Further from the evidence of PW9 it proves that PW9 had took two photographs of the dead body of the deceased and further from the evidence of PW6 and PW10 it proves the death of deceased which is not at all a question before the court of law.

It is the evidence of PW12 that on 25.05.2023 at 09.45 hours on information about the presence of accused at Thosham Busstop PW12 along 17.04.2025 10 SC.No.100 of 2023 with police party rushed there and apprehended the accused and interrogated him, during the course of investigation accused disclosed his identity and voluntarily admitted his guilty as such PW12 secured the presence of PW7 and PW8 and recorded the confessional panchanama of accused in the presence of PW7 and PW8 but PW7 and PW8 denied the voluntary confession of accused before them as such the prosecution failed to prove voluntary confession of accused before the panchas. Further except reiterating the averments of charge sheet nothing much incriminating evidence is elicited from the evidence of PW11 to PW13, hence the evidence of PW11 to PW13 is of nominal importance.

12.On considering the material available on record and testimonies of material witnesses, it does not establish that the accused forcibly pushed the deceased/Kolluri Narsaiah with hands on the ground knowingly as it cause danger to human life, as a result the deceased fell down on the hard surface and succumbed to injuries. Hence, it can be said that Accused is no way concerned with the said alleged incident.

13.In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that there is no convincing evidence to bring home the guilt of Accused, hence it can be said that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge under Section 304-II of IPC against the Accused beyond all reasonable doubts. In the absence of any corroborating evidence against the Accused, he cannot be 17.04.2025 11 SC.No.100 of 2023 convicted. Hence the Accused is entitled for acquittal. Therefore, this point is answered accordingly.

14. IN THE RESULT, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-II of IPC and as such, Accused is acquitted for the same under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17 th day of April, 2025. PRAMILADigitally signed by PRAMILA JAIN JAIN Assistant Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

PW1:Kolluri Naveen Kumar / Defacto- -None- complainbant & Son of deceased

PW2:Kutikela Rajitha / Elder daugher of deceased

PW3:Kolluri Dubbanna / Eye witness

PW4:Sageerkhan / Panch for CDF

PW5:Apkam Swami / Panch for CDF

PW6:Badugu Gangaiah / Panch for Inquest Panchanama of deceased

PW7:Pasthapure Ravinder / Panch for confession panchanama of Accused

PW8:Avula Ramesh / Panch for confession panchanama of Accused

PW9:Konda Prashanth / Photographer

PW10: Dr. Pruthviraj / Medical Officer

PW11: L. Praveen / 1st Investigation Officer

PW12: N. Nylu / 2nd Investigation Officer 17.04.2025 12 SC.No.100 of 2023

PW13: P. Chandra Shekar / 3rd Investigation Officer

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:- FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P1:Report - Nil -

Ex.P2:161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3

Ex.P3:Signature of PW4 on CDF, dated 22.05.2023

Ex.P4:Signature of PW5 on CDF panchanama, dated 22.05.2023

Ex.P5:Inquest panchanama

Ex.P6:Signature of PW7 on confession panchanama dated 25.05.2023

Ex.P7:Signature of PW8 on confession panchanama dated 25.05.2023

Ex.P8:Two photographs

Ex.P9:PME Report

Ex.P10:Final opinion

Ex.P11:FIR

Ex.P12:CDF including rough sketch

Ex.P13:Alteration Memo

Ex.P14:Confession panchanama of the Accused

Ex.P15:RFSLReportvidefile No.RFSL/KNR/808/TOX/518/2023,

dated 07.06.2023

MATERIAL OBJECTS

- NIL - PRAMILADigitally signed by PRAMILA

JAIN

JAIN Assistant Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

17.04.2025 13 SC.No.100 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT ADILABAD.

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

S.C.No. 100 of 2023

1.Date of offence:20.05.2023

2.Date of complaint:22.05.2023

3.Date of appearance of accused:22.12.2023

4.Committal order:02.11.2023

5.Date of commencement of trial:06.01.2025

6.Date of closure of trial:15.04.2025

7.Date of Judgment:17.04.2025

8.Explanation if delay if any:---

9.Complainant: The State of Telangana through Circle-Inspector of Police, Ichoda.

10.Accused:

Dava Narayana S/o. Dava Poshetty, Age: 41 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o. Tosham Village of Gudihathnoor Mandal.

11.Offence : U/sec. 304-II of IPC 12Finding of Court: Found not Guilty

13.Sentence/order:

IN THE RESULT, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-II of IPC and as such, Accused is acquitted for the same under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period.

Assistant Sessions Judge, Adilabad

17.04.2025 Page 1 of 11 HMOP No.30/2022

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ADILABAD

Present:- Dr. Pramila Jain,

Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad.

Thursday, this the 17th day of April, 2025

H.M.O.P. No. 30 of 2022

Between:

Muneshwer Vijay Kumar, S/o. Muneshwer Vittal, Age: 28 years, Occ: Govt. Teacher, R/o. H.No.1-61, Pippaldhari (vg), Mdl: Adilabad Rural, Dist: Adilabad.

...Petitioner

// AND //

Muneshwer Lavanya @ Netha Lavanya, W/o. M. Vijay Kumar, Age: 31 years, Occ: Govt. Teacher, R/o. H.No.1-151/1, Vinayak Nagar, Village & Mandal Jannaram, Dist: Mancherial.

...Respondent

This petition is coming before me on 15.04.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri G. Vasanth, Advocate for the Petitioner, Sri Sudheer Kumar Sangem, Advocate for the Respondent and having been heard and stood over for consideration till to-day, this Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

1.This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 13 (1) (ib) of Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 praying the Court to pass a decree of divorce in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent dissolving the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent which took place on 29.04.2016 at S.K. Function

Hall, Badampally, Village & Mandal Jannaram, Dist: Mancherial, on the ground of desertion.

2.The brief averments of the petition are that the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 29.04.2016 at S.K. Function Hall, 17.04.2025 Page 2 of 11 HMOP No.30/2022

Badampally, Village and Mandal Jannaram, District Mancherial, as per caste and customs prevailed in their community as per the Neo Buddist customs in the presence of relatives, well wishers and friends, at the time of marriage, the petitioner had not taken any kind of cash, gold ornaments and valuables from the parents of the respondent i.e., without taking any kind of dowry, thereafter respondent joined the company of the petitioner at Pippaldhari Village, Mdl:

Adilabad and marriage was consummated and respondent lead married life for a period of two months.

It is further submitted that, the real facts are that the petitioner and respondent fell in love during the D.Ed training at Adilabad which resulted into love-cum-arranged marriage with the consent of both side parents and at the time of marriage the petitioner used to work in postal department and on the avocation of his job the petitioner and the respondent resided together at

Chincholi Village of Mandal Sarangapur, both of them happily resided for two months only, from there the respondent left the company of petitioner.

It is further submitted that, after blessing of female child, on the day of cradle ceremony not informed by the respondent to the petitioner, however the petitioner's father approached with the respondent and requested to take back the petitioner to her company, finally on the advice of elders, the respondent allowed to her company and resided happily upto two months only, then again the respondent started to harass the petitioner with the silly things, and often use to taunt as the petitioner is doing job and his sources of income is meager 17.04.2025 Page 3 of 11 HMOP No.30/2022 as Branch Post Master at Chincholi Village. The petitioner also states that respondent used to harass him physically and mentally.

It is further submitted that, the petitioner tolerated unbearable torture made by the respondent with fond hope that respondent may change her attitude and lead happy conjugal life in future but in vain, the respondent fled away in the month of August, 2018 from the house of petitioner without knowledge and consent of petitioner and any kind of valid reasons respondent herself fled away from the house of petitioner and petitioner's parents as well as petitioner requested the respondent and her parents, on that respondent adamantly replied to petitioner every time and also respondent insulted the petitioner before the relatives and his friends, after that petitioner sent the caste elders to convince respondent but the respondent has not followed the advice of caste elders, also not given proper response to elders, as such there is no any option to the petitioner except to knock the doors of temple of justice for remedy, finally petitioner himself visited respondent’s house on 04.12.2018 and advised respondent to join the company but in vain, since last three years the respondent is staying at her mother's house and now petitioner is ready to lead happy married life for bright future of respondent and her female child, it is very hard to petitioner to prepare food and maintain himself and petitioner's parents.

It is further submitted that, the respondent parents and relatives stated the age of respondent is 20 years but as per the SSC Memo records the respondent age is 26 years, as such respondent and her relatives knowingly 17.04.2025 Page 4 of 11 HMOP No.30/2022 wantedly cheated petitioner and performed the marriage which is illegal and against the natural principle of justice.

It is further submitted that, on 09.05.2020 the petitioner sent the legal notice through his Advocate by R.P.A.D. to the respondent to come for cohabitation, the said legal notice was received by the respondent. The petitioner has great love on the respondent and his female child but the respondent clearly refused to cohabit with the petitioner, hence this petition was filed.

It is further submitted that, since 2018 the petitioner is residing separately at near his working place and the petitioner has been put to mental pain and agony and after thinking a lot he came to conclusion that he cannot continue his marital life with the respondent and in the circumstance he is not having any other alternate except to get separate from the respondent and dissolve the marriage in an amicable manner. Hence the petition.

3. The respondent filed counter, admitted that the contents of petition are partly correct and denied the rest of the contents. Further submitted that, the marriage of petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 29.04.2016 at S.K.

Function Hall, Badampally village, Mandal Jannaram, Dist: Mancherial, as per the caste and customs prevailed in their community, as per the Neo Buddist customs in the presence of relatives, well wishers and friends.

Further submitted that, at the time of marriage, the parents of the respondent presented half tula gold, house hold articles worth of Rs.1,00,000/- 17.04.2025 Page 5 of 11 HMOP No.30/2022 and the entire marriage expenses which includes function Hall etc., around

Rs.7,00,000/- were spent by the parents of the respondent.

Further submitted that, around one year both the parties stayed at

Chincholi village, at the time of 5th month of Pregnancy the rituals were performed, at the time of delivery the respondent left Jannaram and thereafter the delivery was done at Aditya Hospital, Nirmal, the expenditure of

Rs.10,000/- was incurred by the parents of the respondent, before that the respondent took treatment at Om Sai Hospital, Mancherial and around

Rs.50,000/- was incurred towards medical expenses, meantime a small problems were arose to the respondent, to clarify the problem she took treatment at Padmaja Hospital, Karimnagar and incurred an amount of

Rs.10,000/- by the parents of respondent, the respondent delivered a female daughter by name Adwaitha.

Further submitted that, 21 days function was performed to the child and same was informed to petitioner through the father of petitioner, for which the petitioner came one day before alongwith Jothsana and on the next day the parents of the petitioner came in a Jeep and performed every ritual as per the customs, but the petitioner bluntly refused and created false story to file this case as to blame the respondent and her parents and the respondent never used to harass or used to say that the petitioner is doing a Branch Post Master post and earning meager amount and never harassed the petitioner neither physically nor mentally, only to avoid the family welfare and legitimate duties, the petitioner himself created a false story against the respondent.

17.04.2025 Page 6 of 11 HMOP No.30/2022

Further submitted that, on 23.04.2017 due to the harassment made by the petitioner, the respondent attempted to commit suicide by hanging, immediately the neighbor as well as owner of the house opened the door and rescued her, the original facts of case has been suppressed by the petitioner and filed false case, and at the time of above incident the respondent was carrying 7th months pregnancy. Later they shifted to Priyadarshini colony at

Nirmal and started residing there, due to unbearable torture by the petitioner, the respondent informed the same to parents of respondent, in turn the father of respondent promised to give three equal shares in the house to his daughters and the father of the respondent promised that he will purchase plot at Adilabad or Nirmal and will present the same as gift to the respondent, though the petitioner never changed his attitude, nature, often the petitioner insulting and humiliating the respondent without any reason and cause.

Further submitted that, in the year 2015 the respondent and her parents informed about the date of birth and age of the respondent infront of elders at

Pippaldhari village and the petitioner accepted the same before the elders and states that whatever the age it no bar as he is deeply loving the respondent and he will take back the respondent and lead matrimonial life with her.

Further submitted that, the respondent never fled away without knowledge and consent of the petitioner in the month of August, 2018, the same was denied in toto, due to unbearable harassment made by the petitioner to the respondent, father of respondent took the respondent to his house, hence question of request made by the petitioner and his parents does 17.04.2025 Page 7 of 11 HMOP No.30/2022 not arise, the respondent never insulted the petitioner before the relatives and his friends, same is created one for filing of this petition with false grounds.

Further submitted that, the petitioner he himself admitted the age of respondent, as he deeply loved with the respondent and the said marriage was love marriage, hence question of suppressing the age facts does not arise. The petitioner issued legal notice to the respondent with false allegations and respondent replied to it, the petitioner is not having love on the respondent or their child and he has deserted the respondent.

Further submitted that, the respondent is small employee, how can she bare the legal charges in defending the cases which was filed by the petitioner and how can incur the expenses towards transporting and miscellaneous expenses on the cases, so it clearly shows that the petitioner is intentionally harassing the respondent by filing the false cases against her after necked out her from his company.

4.In order to prove the case of petitioner, the petitioner himself was examined as PW1, Muneshwer Vittal who is father of petitioner was examined as PW2 and got marked Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 on his behalf. On the other side the respondent herself was examined as RW1, Netha Soujanya who is witness and sister of respondent was examined as RW2 and no document was marked on her behalf.

5. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

17.04.2025 Page 8 of 11 HMOP No.30/2022

6.Now the point for consideration is:-

“Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce by

dissolving his marriage with the respondent as prayed for?”

POINT:

7.The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner and respondent got married on 29.04.2016 at S.K. Function Hall, Badampally, Village and Mandal

Jannaram, District Mancherial, as per caste and customs prevailed in their community as per the Neo Buddist customs and the said marriage was also admitted by the respondent in her counter which proves that the petitioner and respondent are legally wedded husband and wife.

The main contention of the petitioner is that after the marriage the petitioner and respondent resided together at Chincholi village of Mandal

Sarangapur and they lived happily for a period of only two months, lateron the respondent left the conjugal society of the petitioner. The further contention of the petitioner is that after blessing with female child, the cradle ceremony was not informed to the petitioner by the respondent but inspite of on the day of cradle ceremony petitioner’s father approached to the respondent and requested to take back her to the petitioner conjugal society, finally on the advice of the elders, the respondent joined the company of the petitioner and lead happily upto two months only then again the respondent started harassing the petitioner with the silly things and often used to taunt the petitioner that petitioner is doing the job and his source of income is meager as

Branch Post Master at Chincholi village but looking into the evidence of petitioner i.e., PW1 the petitioner himself admitted that during the D.Ed course 17.04.2025 Page 9 of 11 HMOP No.30/2022 of two years the petitioner and respondent was well acquaintance with each other and also known well about their personal affairs by each other and after they both understand each other and knowing well each other they got arranged marriage by performing the marriage rituals which shows that the petitioner and respondent known fully well to each other before they got married. Further looking into the evidence of PW2, PW2 admitted that he has attended cradle ceremony/naming ceremony along with other elders of his village as such the allegation by the petitioner that the respondent has not intimated about the cradle ceremony is not believable as along with PW2 and other elders of village have also attended the cradle ceremony.

Further the contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner tolerated unbearable torture made by the respondent with a fond hope that respondent may change her attitude and lead happy conjugal life in future but in vain the respondent fled away in the month of August, 2018 from the house of the petitioner without the knowledge and consent of the petitioner and without any valid reasons as such the petitioner requested the respondent and her parents for joining his conjugal society but the respondent used to insult him before the relatives and his friends as such the petitioner sent the caste elders to convince the respondent but the respondent has not followed the advice of caste elders and also not gave proper response to them as such the petitioner having no other option except seeking the relief of divorce by knocking the doors of court but the petitioner failed to examine any of the caste member in order to prove that the respondent left the conjugal society of petitioner in the 17.04.2025 Page 10 of 11 HMOP No.30/2022 month of August, 2018 and not convinced for joining the conjugal society of the petitioner. Further looking into the evidence of PW2 who is father of PW1,

PW2 admitted that till today the respondent is willing to join the conjugal society of the petitioner and further PW2 do not know why the PW1 has filed the present HMOP, further the PW2 has not seen any kind of dispute or incident from his eyes which occurred between the petitioner and respondent.

Further going into the evidence of PW1, PW1 himself admitted that the respondent has not filed any criminal case against him or his family members even the respondent has not filed any maintenance and Domestic Violence case against him. Further the petitioner himself admitted that petitioner was not interested in living conjugal life with the respondent inspite of she ready to join with him along with their daughter which all shows that the petitioner himself has not interested in leading conjugal life with the respondent and filed the present case in order to get rid it off from the respondent inspite of her interest to lead the conjugal life with the petitioner. Further the petitioner filed the present petition on the ground of desertion but looking into the evidence of

PW1, the respondent joined the conjugal society whenever the elder members adviced the respondent to lead the conjugal life with the petitioner as such it cannot be say that there is a continuation period of separation between the petitioner and respondent for not having their conjugal life as such the court is not inclined to allow the petition.

8.In order to grant the relief of divorce for the petitioner, the petitioner has to prove that the respondent deserted him without any reason and without his 17.04.2025 Page 11 of 11 HMOP No.30/2022 consent. It is for the petitioner to prove his allegations with cogent and convincing evidence but he failed to do so. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed for. Therefore, this point is answered accordingly.

9. IN THE RESULT, the petition is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17 th day of April, 2025. PRAMILADigitally signed by JAIN

PRAMILA JAIN

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

ADILABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner: For Respondent:

PW1:Muneshwer Vijay KumarRW1: Muneshwer Lavanya @ Netha Lavanya

PW2:Muneshwer VittalRW2: Netha Soujanya

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioner: For Respondent:

Ex.A1: Marriage Photo - Nil -

Ex.A2: Wedding Card

Digitally PRAMILAsigned by

JAINPRAMILA

JAIN

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

ADILABAD

16.04.2025 1 EP 28/2024

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ADILABAD

Present:- Dr. Pramila Jain,

Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad.

Wednesday, this the 16th day of April, 2025

E.P. No. 28 of 2024

in

O.S.No. 5 of 2012

Between:-

Kapil Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Legal Officer, B.Ashok, S/o. Devanna, Age: 35 years, Kapil, Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd., Zonal Legal Cell, Nirmal, R/o. Adilabad. ...Decree Holder // AND //

1) Radharapu Srinivas, S/o. Rajaiah, Age: 30 years, Occ: Collection Incharge, Kapil Chit Funds (P) Ltd., Utnoor Service Center, R/o. C/o. Sahajanandam (Teacher) Boyawada, Mdl: Utnoor, Dist: Adilabad.

2) Jadhav Jagdish, S/o. Fakeera, Age: 36 years, Occ: SGT- Govt. Ashram High School (B) – Saidpur, Mdl: Bela, R/o. H.No.6-95/1, Sulthanguda, Mdl: Kerameri, Dist: Adilabad, Present R/o. H.No.2-735/3, Ravindranagar, Adilabad.

3) Rathod Mangilal, S/o. Bhikku, Age: 35 years, Occ: SGT- ZPSS, Indravelly, Mdl: Indravelli, (Presently working at ZPSS Yenda village, Mdl. Utnoor), Dist. Adilabad, R/o. H.No.2-11, Post & Mdl: Indravelly, Dist: Adilabad.

4) Seepally Ankanna, S/o. Ankulu, Age: 41 years, Occ: Attender-Veternary Hospital, Utnoor (V), Mdl: Utnoor, R/o. H.No.6-213, Boyawada, Utnoor, Dist: Adilabad.

5) Radharapu Rajaiah, S/o. Mallaiah, Age: 60 years, R/o. H.No.2-21, Rampur, Huzurabad, Karimnagar.

...Judgment Debtors 16.04.2025 2 EP 28/2024

This petition is coming on before me on 15.04.2025 in the presence of Sri Mekala Narender, Advocate for the Decree Holder, Judgment Debtor No.3 remained exparte, and having been heard and stood over for consideration till to-day, this Court delivered the following:-

: : O R D E R : :

1.This petition is filed under Order XXI Rule 48 of C.P.C praying the Court to issue warrant of attachment of the salary of Judgment Debtor No.3 for realization of E.P amount.

2.The brief facts of the petition are that the Decree Holder has instituted a suit for recovery of amount of Rs.87,394/- with costs and future interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the suit till realization from the defendants vide O.S.No.5/2012 on the file of this Court, after hearing a Decree was passed by this Court on 10.09.2013 in favour of the Decree Holder and against the Judgment Debtors resulting as “The suit of the plaintiff be and hereby is decreed for Rs.87,394/- (Rupees eighty seven thousand three hundred and ninety four only) against defendants jointly and severally. That, the defendants do pay future interest @ 9% per annum on the principal amount of RS.77,125/- (Rupees seventy seven thousand one hundred and twenty five only) from the date of suit till full realization. That, the defendants do also pay a sum of Rs.6,208/- (Rupees Six thousand two hundred and eight only) to the plaintiff towards costs of the suit.” Even then the Judgment

Debtors has failed to comply the Decree inspite of having sufficient means and capacity to pay the Decretal amount. Hence, the present Execution Petition is 16.04.2025 3 EP 28/2024 filed to issue salary attachment warrant of the Judgment Debtor No.3 for realization of the E.P amount. Hence the petition.

3.This E.P is filed only against the Judgment Debtor No.3, hence notice was served on the Judgment Debtor No.3 in person but he did not appear

before the Court, hence he was set exparte on 11.04.2025.

4.During the course of enquiry, no oral or documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of Decree Holder.

5.Heard. Perused the record.

6.Now the point for consideration is“Whether the petition can be allowed as prayed for?”

POINT:

7.The submission of the counsel for Decree Holder is that the Judgment

Debtor No.3 is a Government employee working as School Assistant, Z.P.P.S.

Yenda village, Mandal Utnoor, District Adilabad, attending his duties regularly and drawing salary every month. It is further submitted that the Judgment

Debtor No.3 has source of regular income and capacity to pay the decretal amount. It is further submitted that the suit was decreed in the year 2013 and till today the Judgment Debtor No.3 has not paid any amount inspite of having sufficient source of income as a Government employee. Hence, Decree Holder 16.04.2025 4 EP 28/2024 prayed to attach the salary of the Judgment Debtor No.3 for recovery of decretal amount.

8.On perusal of the record it shows that O.S.No.5/2012 was decreed on 10.09.2013 and this execution petition was filed on 27.11.2024. As can be seen from the record the Judgment Debtor No.3 did not appear before the

Court nor contested the matter, it shows that the Judgment Debtor No.3 is admitting about his employment and monthly income. Absolutely Judgment

Debtor No.3 failed to substantiate as to why he is not in a position to pay amount due to the Decree Holder.

9. As seen from the record the Decree passed by this Court is not set aside and the same is in force and has become final. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the Decree Holder is entitled for the relief as prayed for by way of attachment of salary of Judgment Debtor No.3. The point is answered accordingly.

10. IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed without costs. Issue attachment of salary of Judgment Debtor No.3 on depositing process.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me on this the 16 th day of April, 2025.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

ADILABAD

16.04.2025 5 EP 28/2024

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

Digitally

PRAMILA

signed by

JAINPRAMILA

JAIN

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

ADILABAD