Smt R.M. Subhavalli

1 of 19 CC.No.1208 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE:

MAHILA COURT, HYDERABAD.

Present: Smt.R.M.Subhavalli, XIII Addl. Chief Judicial

Magistrate, (MAHILA COURT), Hyderabad

Monday, This The 19 th Day of March, 2025.

C.C.No.1208 of 2019

(OLD C.C.No. 381 of 2011)

Between: The state of Telangana,Rep, S,I of police, W.P.S, CCS, DD, Hyderabad. … COMPLAINANT.

AND

1. David Ben Gurian, S/o Benhur, Aged 36 years, Occupation: Pvt. Service, R/o Η.ΝΟ. 18-3-498/5, Laxmi Nagar, Lal Darwaza, Hyderabad. (Case Against A1 Abatted on 22-06-2023)

2. Smt. Smt. Leelavathi, W/o Benhur, Aged 64 years, Occupation: Housewife, R/o Η.ΝΟ. 18-3-498/5, Laxmi Nagar, Lal Darwaza, Hyderabad.

3.Smt. Esther, W/o Divakar, Aged 45 years, Occupation; Housewife, R/o H.NO. 18-3-498/5, Laxmi Nagar, Lal Darwaza, Hyderabad.

4.Divakar S/o J.S. Rao, Aged 48 years, Occupation: Pvt Service, R/o H.No. 8-35/E, New Hyma Nagar, Nacharam, Hyderabad.

RMSV

2 of 19 CC.No.1208 of 2019

5.Smt. Jhansi, W/o Victor Paul, Aged 50 years, Occupation; Housewife, R/o H.No. 4-100/1, Sun City, Borstrate Hyudershah Kotla, Bhagya Nagar Colony, Hyderabad.

6.Kiran Kumar, S/o Late T. Silas, Aged 50 years, Occupation; Pvt Service, R/o B-204, Iqbal manzil Complex, Golconda X-roads, Hyderabad. … Accused Nos.1 to 4, 6 and 7.

This case is coming before me on 17-03-2025 for final hearing in the presence of Smt.Roopa, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Defacto Complainant/State and Sri. K.V. Janardhan Rao, Advocate for Accused and after perusing the case records and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, this court delivered the following :-

:: JUDGMENT::

Case is U/s. 498A, 406 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 and 6 of DP Act.

1.

This case is filed by Sub-Inspector of Police, W.P.S, CCS, DD,

Hyderabad against accused nos.1 to 4, 6 and 7 in Cr.No. 205/2011 for the offence u/Sec.498-A,406 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 and 6 of DP

Act.

2. The brief averments of the Charge sheet contents are as follows:

(i)on 08-06-2011 at 1715 hours S. Jyothi Lakshmi, Inspector of police received a English written typed complaint from the defacto complainant in from Smt. M.Rama Devi, W/o. David Ben Gurion, aged 34 years, Occ:

Pvt.Service, R/o. H.No.C 85, Road No.12, Income Tax Quarters, Banjara

RMSV

3 of 19 CC.No.1208 of 2019

Hills, Hyderabad (LW-1), in which she stated that her marriage was solemnized with David Ben Gurion on 08-02-2010 at Catherin Church at

Lakdi-ka-pool, Hyderabad and it was an arranged marriage by the elders of both sides. After the marriage, she went to her matrimonial house, but from the beginning itself, her husband, mother, sisters and other family members started harassing her mentally and physically, by demanding to bring dowry frem her parents. Earlier to the marriage. her husband was represented that he had completed MBA and working as a Marketing

Manager. But, later she came to know that her husband even did not complete his graduation and was suffering from mental illness too. After the marriage, when she along with her husband were prepared for honeymoon trip, her mother-in-law did not agree for the same and canceled it. Her husband's younger sister with her husband Mr. Divakar used to visit their house and both of them used to instigate her husband, in harassing her for bringing additional dowry from her parents. On the instigation of his family members, he used to beat her mercilessly and on one occasion he also tried pour kerosene on her person. On another occasion, her mother-in-law abused her in filthy language and gave one tablets bottle to consume it.

Immediately, she had taken few tablets from the bottle and fell unconscious.

Then, immediately they called one Nurse by name Rajakumari of Care

Hospital and given treatment. Her husband and in-laws did not allow her to talk with her parents over phone. Her husband used to take her

RMSV

4 of 19 CC.No.1208 of 2019

photographs secretly in indecent manner, while she was in sleep. In the month of February, when she had fallen ill, her husband and in-laws sent her to her parents house, but did not look-after her welfare. Her husband other sister always used to insist/demand her to get her parents' house sold and to bring the sale proceedings to them. On one occasion, when she made a phone call to her parents, noticing the same, her husband got annoyed and had broken the phone instrument and he pressed her neck forcibly and necked her from their house. Later, an elders meeting was held to settle the issue, but in vain. Her husband further warned her not to visit church, otherwise he will kill her by pouring acid on her. Due to their harassment, she could not concentrate on her examinations also. From the last one year, she is taking shelter at her parents house. Hence, she requested to take necessary action against her husband and in-laws namely David Ben

Gurian, Smt. Leelavathi, Smt. Esther, Divakar, Sent. Rojamma, Smt. Jhansi and Kiran Kumar, as per law.

(ii) Basing on the complaint of the defacto complainant Smt. M. Rama

Devi, the Smt. S. Jyothi Lakshmi, Inspector of police registered a case in

Cr.No. 205/2011, U/Sec. 498-A, 406 Indian Penal Code and Sec. 4 and 6 of

Dowry Prohibition Act and handed over the FIR to Smt P. Mary Women

Sub-Inspector of Police for investigation.

(iii)During the course of investigation, after securing the presence of defacto complainant Smt. M. Rama Devi, and her two elder brothers Sri M.

RMSV

5 of 19 CC.No.1208 of 2019

Rajendar and M. Ramesh the Smt P. Mary Women Sub-Inspector of Police examined and recorded their detailed statements in part-II of the case diary,

Visited the localities of the defacto complainant Smt. M. Rama Devi, accused and other probable places, caused enquires about the issue and after securing the presence of two independent witness namely Mr. P.V.L.N.

Murthy and Mr. S.Chandra Kanth the Smt P. Mary Women Sub-Inspector of

Police examined and recorded their statements in part-ll of the case diary.

Deputed WPS staff with instructions to make further enquiries and to collect some more evidence and also to nab the accused persons and report compliance.

(iv)While the efforts were in progrens, on 14-07-2011 at 0730 hours the deputed WPS staff i.e., WPCs, 8739 and 8473 apprehended the prime accused David Ben Gurian, S/o. Benhur, aged 64 years, Occ: Pvt.Service,

R/o. H.No. 18-3-498/5, Laxmi Nagar, Lal Darwaza, Hyderabad at his residence, brought him to Police Station and produced before the Smt P.

Mary Women Sub-Inspector of Police. On interrogation, he voluntarily admitted his guilt in the commission of offence. Accordingly, the Smt P.

Mary Women Sub-Inspector of Police affected his arrest by issuing arrest memo and after preparing remand report, produced him before this Hon'ble

Court on same day with a pray to remand him to judicial custody.

(v)While the investigation was in progress, some of the remaining accused A2 to A4 A6 and A7 obtained anticipatory bail from the Hon'ble VIII

RMSV

6 of 19 CC.No.1208 of 2019

Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, vide Crl. M.P. No. 2268 of 2011, Dt. 26-07-2011 and as per the directions of the Hon'ble Court, they themselves surrendered before the Hon'ble XIII ACMM Court, Hyd on 02-08- 2011 by furnishing sureties and they were released on, bail.

(vi)In this case, inspite of making all possible efforts, there is no prima- facie offence is established against the remaining accused namely Smt.

Rojamma (A-5). As such, her name was deleted from this case, after obtaining permission from the Superior Officer. Further, the Smt P. Mary

Women Sub-Inspector of Police has collected the copies of marriage photos, wedding invitation etc from the defacto complainant Smt. M. Rama Devi, as documentary evidence. After completion of his investigation Smt P. Mary

Women Sub-Inspector of Police field Charge Sheet against accused 1 to 4, 6 and 7 offence u/Sec.498-A r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act hence the Charge Sheet.

3.This Court took cognizance against accused nos.1 to 4, 6 and 7 for the offence u/Sec.498-A, 406 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 and 6 of

Dowry Prohibition Act. and numbered as C.C. 381/2011 and issued summons to the accused nos.1 to 4, 6 and 7.

4.On appearance of the accused nos. 1 to 4, 6 and 7 copies were furnished to them as required u/sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5. The accused nos. 1 to 4, 6 and 7 are examined u/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C,

RMSV

7 of 19 CC.No.1208 of 2019

charges for the offence u/Sec.498-A, 406 Indian Penal Code, Section 4 and 6 of DP Act is framed and same is read over and explained to them in their vernacular language for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has adduced the evidence of the defacto complainant Smt. M. Rama Devi examined as PW1 and marked Ex.P1 on their behalf and Case is transferred to Honorable XV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate form this court as per

Honorable Metropolitan Sessions Judge order Dis. No. 17455/MSJ.OP

Cell/2018 dated 29-11-2018 and Honorable XV Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate given new CC. No. 1208/2019 and again as per order of

HonorableMetropolitanSessionsJudgeVideDis.No.

3878/MSJ/OPCELL/2024 dated 22-07-2024 CC.No. 1208 of 2019 transferred to this court on the point of Jurisdiction and case against A1 is abetted on 22-06-2023.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence the accused nos. A2 to A4 A6 and A7 are examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. as there is incriminating material evidence found against them from the evidence of prosecution witness and the same was read over and explained to them in their vernacular language for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Arguments heard both side : HEARD.

RMSV

8 of 19 CC.No.1208 of 2019

9.Now the point for determination is :

1.Whether the accused nos. A2 to A4 A6 and A7 harassed the defacto complainant Smt. M. Rama Devi physically and mentally as enshrined in sec 498-A r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2.Whether the accused A2 to A4 A6 and A7 committed an offence U/sec. 406 of Indian Penal Code.

3.Whether the accused A2 to A4 A6 A7 comitted an offence U/Sec 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act or not?

4.Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused nos. A2 to A4 A6 and A7 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence u/Secs. 498-A, 406 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act Act.

10. POINT:

It is case of matrimonial offence allegedly done by the accused nos.1 to 4, 6 and 7 against the defacto complainant Smt. M. Rama Devi alleging that in which she stated that her marriage was solemnized with David Ben

Gurion on 08-02-2010 at Catherin Church at Lakdi-ka-pool, Hyderabad and immediately after marriage her husband sister and his mother said that her husband, he got married with her, only for the purpose of money or he has to marry her grand daughter Pesheestha and on second day she asked her husband quarreled with her After galata in their house and after one week i.e February 14th 2020 she was joined at her in laws house along with Cheerasarelu pelliki mundu na bhartha MBA, Mraketing Manager

ga job chestunnaru eni chepparu. Iyete ataniki Degree kudaa

cheyaledu. Paiga ataniniki mental undhani 6 nelalaga hospital

RMSV

9 of 19 CC.No.1208 of 2019

unnadani, neevu dabbu kanuka teesukarakapote ninnu

champestadani roju anevaru. Pellikimundhu idemi maku

cheppakunda vallu akkabava vallu ammagaru ee pelli sambandham

matladaru. Nenu vellinappatanundi pratiroju tragi vachi kodutu

himsinchevaru. Na bartha chinnakka, vala bartha Diwakar intiki

vachi idi dabbulu teeskoniraka pote champaiee, maropelli chestamu,

ni yadiki ea casu rakunada mem chuskuntamu ani astamanam

anevaru. Appatinundi na bartha nannu champalani talanu balanga

kottadu. Nenu vere roomloki vellanu, marala rendovasari kerosene

dabba teeskoni vachi antinchalani prayatninchadu. Ma atta,

adapaduchu estiru atanini baga rechagottevaru. Oka roju ma

attagaru Tab bottle teesukavachi ivve vesukoni chachipo

pidapotundhi annaru. Nenu vendane vesukunnanu Atarvath pedda

kuturu, intlo unchi care Hospital lo nursuga panichese Rajakumari

chetha cari intlo treatment icharu. Naku spruha vachina tarvatha

Suicide note rasivunte mam treatment kuda ipinchuvaram kadu ani

attevaru.

Ee sanghatalanni kuda ma anngariku em cheppaledu. Ma inti

nundi phone cachina speaker on chesi matladinchevaru. Nenu

nidrincha samayamlo na photolu asabhyanga teesadu. Avi nenu

chusi adigite ma akkabavalu teeyamannaru annadu. Na barthani

nannu okkaganthakuda matladukoledu. Honeymoonku ma annayya

RMSV

10 of 19 CC.No.1208 of 2019

pamputanante avasaram ledani ma attagaru godavachesaru.

Nenu Feb 14 na kapuram ku vellite March 9 varaku, 14 na ae

annam vandaro ade fridge lo 9 tedivaraku nannutinamanevaru.

Andhuki anarogyam vachi spruhatappi padipote doctor bed rest

ivvalani cheppite tappanisari paristulaloo ma attagaru chepite ma

intiki teesukavachi vadilivesadu. Tarvatha curfewvidinchaga ma

intlo vachiundi. Nannu matalato himsinche, neeku doctor rasi

ichhadani open chesina tab ichevadu. Curfewiyina tarvatha

rendavasari valla intiki teeskellaru.

Marala valla akka vachi ni peritillu undakunda ammi dabbulu

teesukura ani pratiroju himsinchi, Dabbuluteesukarakapote champay

ani cheppi vellipoyaru. Marala itanu modatilagane

pravarthinchevadu. Ma intiki phone cheste phone palagottesadu.

Appudu Tab vesendhaku gontupisiki notlo balanga veyaboga nenu

addukunnanu. Na noru pagalakotesari raktham ravadamto

vadilivesi, Ma intiki teeskuvachi vadilesipoyadu.

Ma annyya vallu akkabavalaku phone cheste oka varam

tarvatha vacharu. Quarts lo andarikinda samavesham pedite maade

tappani atani cheta letter vrayincharu. Ataniki treatment ippistam

ani vallu poyaru. Tarvatha nenu chruch ki vellite akkadiki neevu

ekkadipoyav acid posi champestavani, ekkadiki vellina follow avutuu

unnaru. Dani mulanga ea exam prepare kalekapotunnanu. Ea job

RMSV

11 of 19 CC.No.1208 of 2019

chesedaniki kuda veeluledu. Kabatti dayaunchi pranabiksha

pedatarani ento asha tho meedeggariki vastunnanu. Appatinundi 1

year nundi intlone undalsivastundi. Due to their harassments, she could not concentrate on her examinations also. From the last one year, she is taking shelter at her parents house. Hence, she requested to take necessary action against her husband and in-laws namely David Ben

Gurian, Smt. Leelavathi, Smt. Esther, Divakar, Sent. Rojamma, Smt. Jhansi and Kiran Kumar, as per law.. Then she gave complaint agaisnt accused as in Ex.P1.

11.To establish the same, the prosecution adduced the defacto complainant Smt. M. Rama Devi examined as PW1. Before court PW1 deposed her evidence in 16 pages, levelled allegation without mentioning in her complaint she exagirated her evidence, her main contention,is that prior to marriage, at the time of marriage the accused family informed that her husband studied MBA and doing marketing Job. But he did not even done

Degree and her husband stayed in hospital for 6 months as he is having mental. Further when she consumed tablets the nurse by Name Smt

Rajakumari who is working in Care Hospital came and gave treatment to her. Further February 14th she joined her in laws house to till March 9th she was forced to eat rice which was kept in fridge, due to that she fell sick then accused dropped her at her parent house except these, what ever she stated

RMSV

12 of 19 CC.No.1208 of 2019

in her chief examination are all improved version of PW1.

12.But during her further cross examination PW1 changed her entire version and taken U turn. On saying the same the prosecution given up the

Sri M. Rajender, M. Ramesh, Sri P.V.L.N. Murthy, Sri S. Chandrakanth,

Evidence. If they examined the real facts may be established.

13. Before going to appreciation of witnesses evidence once again we observe the provision of Law.

As per Sec.498A Indian Penal code....

Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a women, subject such women. To cruelty, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extent to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation : For the purpose of this section CRUELTY means :

a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the women to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health(whether mental or physical ) of the women, or

b) harassment of the women,where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

Cruelty of husband: For applicability of Sec 498A Indian Penal

RMSV

13 of 19 CC.No.1208 of 2019

Code are cruelty and harassment. In Sec.498A Indian Penal Code there are two elements in that section which includes the explanation, which clearly indicates “ CRUELTY “ it means by way of harassment driving a women to commit suicide or to suffer injury, second element of the said section is that the harassment should be in connection with demand of dowry.

The ingredients of Sec.498-A Indian Penal Code are:-

1. The woman must be married

2. She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment and

3. Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by husband or by the relatives of husband.

14.

(i).The first and foremost the prosecution has to establish the alleged harassment meted by the defacto complainant Smt. M. Rama Devi from the hands of accused nos.1 to 4, 6 and 7, as per PW1 she alleged against accused as mentioned in her 16 pages Cheif Examination but her further cross examination dated 27-01-2025 as per Crmp 468 of 2025 PW1 changed her earlier version and withdraw her earlier version.

(ii).During her cross examination PW1 stated that she is intended to withdraw the case filed by her against accused as in Ex-P1 and said there is no force on her or undue influence from anybody and she is voluntarily withdrawing the case and she has no Objection for closing the case against

RMSV

14 of 19 CC.No.1208 of 2019

the accused. PW1 clearly admitted that she is withdrawing whatever she had stated in her chief examination.

(iii).When we see PW1 cross examination she specifically admitted that she is with drawing what ever stated in her chief examination and she specifically stated she has no objection for closing the case against accused, as she is intended to withdraw the case filed by her against accused as in

Exhibit P1 and PW1 further stated that there is no force on her or undue influence form anybody and she voluntarily withdrawing the case.

15.From the evidence of PW1 nothing was established against accused and assume if her Chief Examination might be taken into consideration for her evidence and for giving complaint prosecution fails to establish the primafice registering case against accused basing on PW1 complaint due to non examination of Smt. Jyothi Lakshmi, Inspector of Police and Smt. P.

Mary, Women Sub-Inspector of Police who are Investigation Officers who issued FIR and who recorded the statement of PW1, Sri M. Rajendar and M.

Ramesh, Sri. P.V.L.N. Murthy, Sri. S. Chandrakanth who are two brother of

PW1 and two independent witnesses. As such there is no evidence against accused to clinch them U/sec 498A of IPC as prosecution fails to establish their guilty.

16. As per Sec.406 Indian penal code ....

406. Punishment for criminal breach of trust.—Whoever

commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment

RMSV

15 of 19 CC.No.1208 of 2019

of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or

with fine, or with both.

The prosecution has to establish that to bring the A1 and A2 under this section preview, it has to prove the following ingredients : they are

1. There must be entrustment.

2. Such entrustment must be in trust .

3. There must be misappropriation or conversion to his own use

As the prosecution fails to prove that how much property entrusted to accused at the time of marriage and how the accused misappropriated the same. For that there is no evidence on record, Hence prosecution fails to prove the guilty of accused U/sec. 406 of Indian Penal Code.

As per Section 4 in the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

Penalty for demanding dowry — If any person demands, directly

or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride

or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable

with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months,

but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to

ten thousand rupees:" Provided that the court may, for adequate and

special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of

imprisonment for a term of less than six months.

Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act

RMSV

16 of 19 CC.No.1208 of 2019

Dowry to be for the benefit of the wife or her heirs.—

(1) Where any dowry is received by any person other than the woman in

connection with whose marriage it is given, that person shall transfer it

to the woman— —(1) Where any dowry is received by any person other

than the woman in connection with whose marriage it is given, that

person shall transfer it to the woman—"

(a) if the dowry was received before marriage, within 1[three months] after the date of marriage; or

(b) if the dowry was received at the time of or after the marriage, within 1[three months] after the date of its receipt; or

(c) if the dowry was received when the woman was a minor, within

1[three months] after she has attained the age of eighteen years, and

pending such transfer, shall hold it in trust for the benefit of the

woman. 2[(2) If any person fails to transfer any property as required by

sub-section (1) within the time limit specified therefor, 3[or as required

by sub-section (3),] he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a

term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to

two years or with fine 4[which shall not be less than five thousand

rupees, but which may extend to ten thousand rupees] or with both.]

1[(2) If any person fails to transfer any property as required by sub-

section (1) within the time limit specified therefor, 2[or as required by

sub-section (3),] he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term

which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two

years or with fine 3[which shall not be less than five thousand rupees,

RMSV

17 of 19 CC.No.1208 of 2019

but which may extend to ten thousand rupees] or with both.]"

(3) Where the woman entitled to any property under sub-section (1)

dies before receiving it, the heirs of the woman shall be entitled to

claim it from the person holding it for the time being: 3[Provided that

where such woman dies within seven years of her marriage, otherwise

than due to natural causes, such property shall,— 2[Provided that

where such woman dies within seven years of her marriage, otherwise

than due to natural causes, such property shall,—"

(a) if she has no children, be transferred to her parents; or

(b) if she has children, be transferred to such children and pending

such transfer, be held in trust for such children.] 5[(3A) Where a person

convicted under sub-section (2) for failure to transfer any property as

required by sub-section (1) 3[or sub-section (3)] has not, before his

conviction under that sub-section, transferred such property to the

woman entitled thereto or, as the case may be, 6[her heirs, parents or

children] the Court shall, in addition to awarding punishment under

that sub-section, direct, by order in writing, that such person shall

transfer the property to such woman or, as the case may be, 6[her heirs,

parents or children] within such period as may be specified in the order,

and if such person fails to comply with the direction within the period

so specified, an amount equal to the value of the property may be

recovered from him as if it were a fine imposed by such Court and paid

to such woman or, as the case may be, 6[her heirs, parents or children].

4[(3A) Where a person convicted under sub-section (2) for failure to

transfer any property as required by sub-section (1) 2[or sub-section

(3)] has not, before his conviction under that sub-section, transferred

such property to the woman entitled thereto or, as the case may be,

RMSV

18 of 19 CC.No.1208 of 2019

5[her heirs, parents or children] the Court shall, in addition to

awarding punishment under that sub-section, direct, by order in

writing, that such person shall transfer the property to such woman or,

as the case may be, 5[her heirs, parents or children] within such period

as may be specified in the order, and if such person fails to comply with

the direction within the period so specified, an amount equal to the

value of the property may be recovered from him as if it were a fine

imposed by such Court and paid to such woman or, as the case may be,

5[her heirs, parents or children]."

(4) Nothing contained in this section shall affect the provisions of

section 3 or section 4.

17.In the above facts and circumstances there is no evidence on record for

establishing the guilt of accused nos. 2 to 4, 6 and 7 as they committed the

offence as alleged by prosecution U/Sec.498-A, 406 of Indian Penal Code and

Section 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act so, the prosecution miserably fails to

prove the guilty of accused nos. 2 to 4, 6 and 7 beyond all reasonable doubt.

18. In the result, the accused nos. 2 to 4, 6 and 7 are found not guilty for

the offence punishable U/s.498-A, 406 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 and

6 of Dowry Prohibition Act the accused nos. 2 to 4, 6 and 7 are acquitted U/s.

248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused nos. nos. 2 to 4, 6 and 7 shall

stands cancelled after six months. Case against A1 is abetted on 22-06-2023.

RMSV

19 of 19 CC.No.1208 of 2019

( Typed by Typist on my dictation, transcribed and, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 19 th day of March, 2025.)

XIII Addl Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Hyderabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

(WITNESSES EXAMINED)

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

1. PW.1: Smt. M. Rama DeviNIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

1. Ex.P1: ComplaintNIL

MO MARKED

-NIL-

XIII Addl Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Hyderabad.

RMSV

1 of 16 CC.No.2592 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE:

MAHILA COURT, HYDERABAD.

Present: Smt.R.M.Subhavalli, XIII Addl. Chief Judicial

Magistrate, (MAHILA COURT), Hyderabad

Friday, This The 04 th Day of April, 2025.

C.C.No.2592 of 2019

Between: The state of Telangana,Rep, S,I of police, W.P.S, CCS, DD, Hyderabad. … COMPLAINANT.

AND 1: Mangalapalli Bala venkata Laxmikantham, S/o M. Balraj, Age: 31 years, Occ: Govt. Employee, R/o H.No. 2-20-8/4/72, Adarashnagar, uppal 2 : M. Balaraj, (Died) S/o M. Balaiah, Age: 68 years, Occ: Rtd Employee, R/o H.No. 2-20-8/4/72, Adarshanagar, uppal, Ranga Reddy dist.

3: Smt. M. Sulochan Devi, W/o M. Balaraj, Age: 65 years, Occ: House wife, R/o H.No. 2-20-8/4/72, Adarashnagar, uppal, Ranga Reddy dist. (Case against A2 is abated on 06-02-2025)

4. Dayanand Babu, Age 41 years, occ: Business, R/o H.No. 2-20-8/4/72,

RMSV

2 of 16 CC.No.2592 of 2019

Adarashnagar, uppal, Ranga Reddy dist.

5. Smt. Haritha (Pinky), Age 35 years, occ: House wife, R/o H.No. 2-20-8/4/72, Adarashnagar, uppal, Ranga Reddy dist.

A6. Srnt. Prasanna Kumari, Age 31 years, Occ: House wife, R/o H.No. 2-20-8/4/72, Adarashnagar, Uppal, Ranga Reddy dist. (Case against A6 Quashed by

Honble High Court hence Case

closed on 02-03-2025) … Accused Nos.1,3, 4, 5.

This case is coming before me on 02-04-2025 for final hearing in the presence of Smt.Roopa, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Defacto Complainant/State and Sri. Purustham Reddy, Advocate for Accused and after perusing the case records and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, this court delivered the following :-

:: JUDGMENT::

Case is U/s. 498A, 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 and 6 of DP Act.

1.

This case is filed by Sub-Inspector of Police, W.P.S, Begumpet

Hyderabad against accused nos.1 to 6 in Cr.No. 261/2018 for the offence u/Sec.498-A, 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 and 6 of DP Act.

2. The brief averments of the Charge sheet contents are as follows:

(i) on 01-11-2018at 12:00 hours Smt. R. Pramodhini, Assistant Sub

Inspector of Police received English typed complainant from Smt M. Divya

Vani @ Veda Divya Vani, w/o Mavenkata Lakshmikantha, age: 26 yrs, R/o

RMSV

3 of 16 CC.No.2592 of 2019

12-11-375/1, Boudhnagar, Warasiguda, Secunderabad cell. No.

9926869517. In which she stated that, her marriage was performed with

Mangalapalli Bala venkata Laxmikantham S/o M Balrajm age: 31 years,

Occ: govt. Employee, R/o H.No. 2-20-8/4/72, Adarashnagar, uppal in the presence of elders through a marriage broker by the name Satyanarayana on 11-04-2018 as per Hindu rites. It was a second marriage for both of them. Her husband and in laws were very well informed about the caste and family background prior to the marriage and performed the engagement ceremony on 20 03-2018 followed by a grand feast and acquired Rs. 10,00,000/-cash and 25 tulas of Gold prior to marriage. After marriage she joined her husband in the matrimonial life after which immediately her husband and parents-in-law by the name balaraj and

Sulochana and her Sister-in-law by the name Pinky started harassing her physically and mentally for an additional dowry of Rs. 5,00,000/- and insulted her saying she belonged to a different caste. Also husband of her sister in-law by the name Dayanand Babu would instigate her husband to harass her and all of them advised him to divorce her as he did with his first wife. They also forced her to take up a job as she failed to fulfil their demand of additional dowry of Rs. 5,00,000/- Meanwhile she got pregnant and when informed the same to her husband and in laws they forced her to abort the child and stated that she was already a burden on him and he wouldn't be able to take an extra burden. Due to their ill treatment and not

RMSV

4 of 16 CC.No.2592 of 2019

providing proper food and medication though the doctor advised, she underwent depression and abortion on 23-08-2018. After that her husband dropped her at her parents house for further treatment and did not take her back, on 30-09-2018 her sister-in-law prasnna came to India from USA and when her husband took her home with him after great persuasion she got furious and abuse her in filthy language stating that she is from a different caste and belonged to a beggars family as she did not get the additional dowry. The harassment has only increased since her visit and her husband and in-laws continued to harass her physically and mentally. She is requesting to take action against her husband and in-laws. No other option she approached to WPS, begumpet and lodged a petition on 29-10-2018 and petition for counseling and the counseling was failed

(ii).Basing on the complaint of the defacto complaint Smt M. Divya Vani @ Veda Divya Vani , Smt. R. Pramodhini, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No. 261/2018 U/s. 498-A. 506 Indian Penal Court

Sec. 4 & 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act and took up investigation.

(iii).During the course of investigation, Smt. R. Pramodhini, Assistant Sub

Inspector of Police examined the defacto complaint Smt M. Divya Vani @

Veda Divya Vani, and recorded her detailed statement in CD Part II in which she corroborated to the facts of the complaint. Smt. R. Pramodhini,

Assistant Sub Inspector of Police collected Marriage wedding card and marriage photos from defacto complaint Smt M. Divya Vani @ Veda Divya

RMSV

5 of 16 CC.No.2592 of 2019

Vani. Further, Smt. R. Pramodhini, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police visited the scene of offence situated at Warasiguda, Secundrabad and examined V.

Nagamani, V. Vijay Kumar, I.V. Chaitanya Kumar, Saikumar, B. Prasad, B.

Vinod. and recorded their detailed statement in CD Part-II in which they stated the same statement of defacto complaint Smt M. Divya Vani @ Veda

Divya Vani, and Smt. R. Pramodhini, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police prepared notice U/s. 41(A) Cr.P.C., and served the same on the accused A1 to A3 under proper acknowledgement and they submitted Xerox copy of

Aadhar cards and two photographs. As per the instructions of superior officer, Smt. T. Jyothsna, Inspector of Police received a case file from Smt. R.

Pramodhini, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police for further investigation. After completion of her investigation Smt. T. Jyothsna, Inspector of Police filed chargesheet against A1 to A6 U/s 498-A, 506 Indian Penal Code, and

Section 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act by showing A4 to A6 absconding with a prayer to issue NBW against A4 to A6. Hence the Chargesheet.

3.The XV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against accused nos.1 to 6 for the offence u/Sec.498-A, 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. and numbered as C.C.

381/2011 and issued summons to the accused nos.1 to 3 and NBW issued against A4 to A6 and case agiant A6 was qaushed by Honorable High Court

Vide CRLP.No. 5239 of 2022 dated 25-01-2023 and Case is transferred from XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court to this court as per

RMSV

6 of 16 CC.No.2592 of 2019

Honorable Metropolitan Sessions Judge order Dis. No. 17455/MSJ.OP

Cell/2018 dated 29-11-2018 and Honorable XV Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate and again as per order of Honorable Metropolitan Sessions

Judge Vide Dis. No. 3878/MSJ/OPCELL/2024 dated 22-07-2024 CC.No.

2592 of 2019 transferred to this court on the point of Jurisdiction A2 Death

Certificate filed hence case agaisnt A2 is abatted on 06-02-2025.

4.On appearance of the accused nos. 1, 3 to 5 copies were furnished to them as required u/sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5. The accused nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 are examined u/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C, charges framed for the offence u/Sec.498-A, 506 Indian Penal Code,

Section 4 and 6 of DP Act and same is read over and explained to them in their vernacular language for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has adduced the evidence of the defacto complainant Smt. M. Divyua Vani @

Veda Divya Vani examined as PW1 alone out of 9 listed witness and marked

Ex.P1 on their behalf.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence the accused nos. 1, 3 to 5 are not examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. as there is no incriminating material evidence not found against them from the evidence of prosecution witness and the examination U/s 313 Crpc is dispenced same is read over and explained to them in their vernacular language for which they

RMSV

7 of 16 CC.No.2592 of 2019

reported no defence evidence.

8.Arguments heard both side : HEARD.

9.Now the point for determination is :

1.Whether the accused nos. A1 A3 to A5 harassed the defacto complainant Smt. M. Divyua Vani @ Veda Divya Vani physically and mentally as enshrined in sec 498-A of Indian Penal Code.

2.Whether the accused A1 A3 to A5 committed an offence U/sec. 506 of Indian Penal Code.

3.Whether the accused A1 A3 to A5 comitted an offence U/Sec 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act or not?

4.Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused nos.A1 A3 to A5 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence u/Secs. 498-A, 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act Act.

10. POINT:

It is case of matrimonial offence allegedly done by the accused nos.

A1 to A6 against the defacto complainant Smt. M. Divyua Vani @ Veda

Divya Vani alleging as mentioned in her complaint. Due to their harassments, she requested to take necessary action against her husband and in-laws namely Mangalapalli Bala venkata Laxmikantham, M. Balaraj,

Smt. M. Sulochan Devi, Dayanand Babu, Smt. Haritha (Pinky), Smt.

Prasanna Kumari, as mention in her complaint.

11. (i). To establish the same the prosecution adduced the defacto complainant Smt. M. Divyua Vani @ Veda Divya Vani examined as PW1 but

RMSV

8 of 16 CC.No.2592 of 2019

before court PW1 deposed that A1 is her husband. A2 to A6 are her inlaws

family and she came to curt for closing the sec 498-A case which was filed by her No one forced here and she is inteded to close the case aginst the accused. PW1 said that Police examined her and recorded her statement”

(ii).On seeing PW1 evidence prosecution given Up the evidence of V.

Nagamani, V. Vijay Kumar, I.V. Chaitanya Kumar, Saikumar, B. Prasad, B.

Vinod. If they examined the real facts may be established.

13. Before going to appreciation of witnesses evidence once again we observe the provision of Law.

As per Sec.498A Indian Penal code....

Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a women, subject such women. To cruelty, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extent to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation : For the purpose of this section CRUELTY means :

a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the women to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health(whether mental or physical ) of the women, or

b) harassment of the women,where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

RMSV

9 of 16 CC.No.2592 of 2019

Cruelty of husband: For applicability of Sec 498A Indian Penal

Code are cruelty and harassment. In Sec.498A Indian Penal Code there are two elements in that section which includes the explanation, which clearly indicates “ CRUELTY “ it means by way of harassment driving a women to commit suicide or to suffer injury, second element of the said section is that the harassment should be in connection with demand of dowry.

The ingredients of Sec.498-A Indian Penal Code are:-

1. The woman must be married

2. She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment and

3. Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by husband or by the relatives of husband.

14.

(i).The first and foremost the prosecution has to establish the alleged harassment meted by the defacto complainant Smt. M. Divyua Vani @ Veda

Divya Vani from the hands of accused nos.1 3 to 5 as per PW1. She want to withdraw this case with the said reason she did not disclose her complainant contents and take U turn and not support prosecution version and alsoe denied her earlier statement as in Exibit P1.

(ii).During her Chief examination PW1 stated that she is intended to withdraw the case filed by her against accused nos.1 3 to 5 and said there is no force on her or undue influence from anybody and she is voluntarily

RMSV

10 of 16 CC.No.2592 of 2019

withdrawing the case and she has no Objection for closing the case against the accused nos.1 3 to 5. PW1 clearly admitted that she is withdrawing the case.

(iii).When we see PW1 cross examination she specifically admitted that she have compromised this case and inteded to close the case and she specifically stated that she has no objection for closing the case against accused as PW1 further stated that there is no force on her and she is intended to close the case against the accused.

15.From the evidence of PW1 nothing was established against accused nos.1 3 to 5 and for giving complaint prosecution fails to establish the primafaice registering case against accused basing on PW1 complaint Smt.

R. Pramodhini, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police registered due to non examination of Smt. R. Pramodhini, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police and

Smt. T. Jyothsna, Inspector of Police who are Investigation Officers who issued FIR and who recorded the statement of PW1, V. Nagamani, V. Vijay

Kumar, I.V. Chaitanya Kumar, Saikumar, B. Prasad, B. Vinod who are mother and father of PW1 and four independent witnesses. As such there is no evidence against accused to clinch them U/sec 498A of Indian Penal

Code as prosecution fails to establish their guilty.

16. As per Sec.506 Indian penal code .…

Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may

RMSV

11 of 16 CC.No.2592 of 2019

extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;

If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc — and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, of with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

The prosecution has to establish that to bring the A1 and A2 under this section preview, it has to prove that due to harassment of accused she underwent depession and abortion took place on 23-08-2018 but PW1 nothing was disclosed against accused about their harrasment,

Hence prosecution fails to prove the guilty of accused U/sec. 506 of Indian

Penal Code.

As per Section 4 in the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

Penalty for demanding dowry — If any person demands, directly

or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride

or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable

with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months,

but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to

ten thousand rupees:" Provided that the court may, for adequate and

RMSV

12 of 16 CC.No.2592 of 2019

special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of

imprisonment for a term of less than six months.

Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act

Dowry to be for the benefit of the wife or her heirs.—

(1) Where any dowry is received by any person other than the woman in

connection with whose marriage it is given, that person shall transfer it

to the woman— —(1) Where any dowry is received by any person other

than the woman in connection with whose marriage it is given, that

person shall transfer it to the woman—"

(a) if the dowry was received before marriage, within 1[three months] after the date of marriage; or

(b) if the dowry was received at the time of or after the marriage, within 1[three months] after the date of its receipt; or

(c) if the dowry was received when the woman was a minor, within

1[three months] after she has attained the age of eighteen years, and

pending such transfer, shall hold it in trust for the benefit of the

woman. 2[(2) If any person fails to transfer any property as required by

sub-section (1) within the time limit specified therefor, 3[or as required

by sub-section (3),] he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a

term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to

two years or with fine 4[which shall not be less than five thousand

rupees, but which may extend to ten thousand rupees] or with both.]

1[(2) If any person fails to transfer any property as required by sub-

section (1) within the time limit specified therefor, 2[or as required by

RMSV

13 of 16 CC.No.2592 of 2019

sub-section (3),] he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term

which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two

years or with fine 3[which shall not be less than five thousand rupees,

but which may extend to ten thousand rupees] or with both.]"

(3) Where the woman entitled to any property under sub-section (1)

dies before receiving it, the heirs of the woman shall be entitled to

claim it from the person holding it for the time being: 3[Provided that

where such woman dies within seven years of her marriage, otherwise

than due to natural causes, such property shall,— 2[Provided that

where such woman dies within seven years of her marriage, otherwise

than due to natural causes, such property shall,—"

(a) if she has no children, be transferred to her parents; or

(b) if she has children, be transferred to such children and pending

such transfer, be held in trust for such children.] 5[(3A) Where a person

convicted under sub-section (2) for failure to transfer any property as

required by sub-section (1) 3[or sub-section (3)] has not, before his

conviction under that sub-section, transferred such property to the

woman entitled thereto or, as the case may be, 6[her heirs, parents or

children] the Court shall, in addition to awarding punishment under

that sub-section, direct, by order in writing, that such person shall

transfer the property to such woman or, as the case may be, 6[her heirs,

parents or children] within such period as may be specified in the order,

and if such person fails to comply with the direction within the period

so specified, an amount equal to the value of the property may be

recovered from him as if it were a fine imposed by such Court and paid

to such woman or, as the case may be, 6[her heirs, parents or children].

4[(3A) Where a person convicted under sub-section (2) for failure to

RMSV

14 of 16 CC.No.2592 of 2019

transfer any property as required by sub-section (1) 2[or sub-section

(3)] has not, before his conviction under that sub-section, transferred

such property to the woman entitled thereto or, as the case may be,

5[her heirs, parents or children] the Court shall, in addition to

awarding punishment under that sub-section, direct, by order in

writing, that such person shall transfer the property to such woman or,

as the case may be, 5[her heirs, parents or children] within such period

as may be specified in the order, and if such person fails to comply with

the direction within the period so specified, an amount equal to the

value of the property may be recovered from him as if it were a fine

imposed by such Court and paid to such woman or, as the case may be,

5[her heirs, parents or children]."

(4) Nothing contained in this section shall affect the provisions of

section 3 or section 4.

16.From the evidence of PW1 nothing was established as PW1 fails to disclose whether accused demanded dowry and also demand addition dowry of Rs 5 lakhs, Pw1 not supported her own version and turned hostile and also denied her earlier statement as in Exhibit P2. So there is no evidence against accused as they committed on offence U/s 4 and 6 of

Dowry Prohibition Act.

17.In the above facts and circumstances there is no evidence on record for establishing the guilt of accused nos. 1, 3 to 5 as they committed the offence as

alleged by prosecution U/Sec.498-A, 506, r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and

RMSV

15 of 16 CC.No.2592 of 2019

Section 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act so, the prosecution miserably fails to

prove the guilty of accused nos. 1, 3 to 5 beyond all reasonable doubt.

18. In the result, the accused nos. 1, 3 to 5 are found not guilty for the

offence punishable U/s.498-A, 506, r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4

and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act the accused nos. 1, 3 to 5 are acquitted U/s.

248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused nos. nos. 1, 3 to 5 shall stands

cancelled after six months. Case agaisnt A2 is abatted on 06-02-2025 and

Case against A6 is quashed on 02-03-2023 by Honourable High Court.

( Typed by Typist on my dictation, transcribed and, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 04 th day of April, 2025.)

XIII Addl Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Hyderabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

(WITNESSES EXAMINED)

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

1. PW.1: Smt M. Divya Vani @ Veda Divya Vani NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

RMSV

16 of 16 CC.No.2592 of 2019

1. Ex.P1: 161 Statement of PW1 NIL

MO MARKED

-NIL-

XIII Addl Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Hyderabad.

RMSV

1 of 14 C.C. No. 8992 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE: MAHILA

COURT, HYDERABAD.

Present: Smt.R.M.Subhavalli, XIII Addl. Chief Judicial,

Magistrate,(MAHILA COURT)

Hyderabad.

FRIDAY, THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH , 2025

C.C.No. 8992 of 2024

Between:

The state of Telangana, through S,I of police ,WPS,CCS P.S. Hyderabad.

….. Complainant

AND

1.Sri. Mohd. Aleemuddin, S/o. Late Mohd.Nizamuddin, Aged 31 years, Occ: Business. R/o. H.No. 1-8-115/1/1, Flat No. 101, Karim Compound, Sahara Manzil, beside Paradise Hotel, Ramgopal pet, Secunderabad.

2. Smt. Amena Begum, W/o. Late Mohd. Nizamuddin, Aged 53 years. (Case against A2 is abetted on 12-07-2018)

….. Accused No. 1 and 2.

This case is coming before me on 25.03.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Smt Roopa, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State and Sri Mohd Ismail, ADVOCATE for accused and after perusing the case records and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, this court doth delivered the following :-

RMSV 2 of 14 C.C. No. 8992 of 2024

:: JUDGMENT::

Case is U/s. 498A,506 R/W 34 of Indian Penal Code.

1.This case is filed by Sub-Inspector of Police,WPS,CCS, P.S. , Hyderabad against accused No.1 and 2 in Cr.No.458/2011 for the offence u/Sec.498-A,506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code .

2. The brief averments of the Charge sheet contents are as follows:

(i). On 22-11-2011 at 1700 hours Smt. P.Mary, Women Sub-Inspector of Police received a complainant of Smt. Rafath Ruksana from Begumpet P.S. on point of jurisdiction. Initially the defacto complainant Smt. Rafath Ruksana complaint received through the Hon’ble XV ACMM court vide Dis. No. 1264/2011, dt: 02-11- 2011 and registered a case in Cr.No. 126/2011 U/sec. 498-A, 506 R/w 34 of

Indian Penal Code by Smt. Shreya, Women Sub-inspector of Police and took up the investigation. Smt. Shreya, Women Sub-inspector of Police examined the deafcto complainant Smt. Rafath Ruksana and transferred the case file for further investigation on point of jurisdiction. The deafcto complainant Smt.

Rafath Ruksana mentinoed in her complaint that her marriage was performed with the accused No.1 on 10-04-2009 at Suhana Function Hall, Musheerabad,

Hyderabad for a defer dower of Rs.11,000/- according to Sunni Muslim Rights and customs, accused No.1 is her husband, A-2 is his mother, A-3 an 4 are his brothers all are residing in the same house. The accused persons approached the

RMSV 3 of 14 C.C. No. 8992 of 2024 elders of the complainant through as mediator and represented that, accused No.l is completed his Intermediate and doing Sale and purchase or business transport buses and also he is mechanic and earning Rs.2,00,000/- per month and having own two flats and he does not have any responsibilities and they selected the her and requested her parents to give her to the marriage of A-1. After due, inquiry her parents accepted for the marriage, upon which the accused No.1 to 4 and their family member demanded 8 tulas of gold, and huge jahez articles worth of

Rs.1,50,000/- and they demanded to perform the engagement ceremony in grand manner, upon which her parents arranged engagement ceremony in Suhana

Function Hall, in grand manner and incurred Rs.80,000/- and the same was video graphed and on the demand of accused persons, her parents gave 8 tulas of gold ornaments and a huge jahez articles to the complainant on the same day of marriage and her parents incurred Rs.2,00,000/- on the marriage function and the accused persons shifted the jahez articles to their house and a list of jahez articles was prepared at the time of marriage and the same was acknowledged by the accused No.3. Thereafter the deafcto complainant Smt. Rafath Ruksana joined the company of the accused no.1 at his residence along with her belongings and the accused persons brought 7 tulas of gold ornaments to the complainant towards Chawada articles. After the marriage the spouse lead a happy marital life for a period of two months, thereafter the accused no.1 to 4 started harassing the defacto complainant Smt. Rafath Ruksana by stating that they are not satisfied with the jahez brought by her and they passed sarcastic remarks over it and harassed her and they did not provide minimum necessities

RMSV 4 of 14 C.C. No. 8992 of 2024 to the complainant and the accused No.2 and 3 forcibly snatched away her gold ornaments and the same were kept in the custody of the accused No.2 and even they did not wear the same even in the functions and the accused No.1 to 4 did not provide minimum necessities to her and insisted her to do entire household work. The accused No.1 neglected her and did not take care her.

(ii). Thereafter the defacto complainant Smt. Rafath Ruksana conceived pregnancy and the same was informed to the accused persons, but they did not happy and insisted her to undergo abortion, when she refused for the same, they beat her and accused No.1 kicked on her stomach and the accused No.2 used to give some Medicine to her forcibly for her abortion. The accused No.1 to 4 forcibly tried to compel to undergo abortion her by torturing her and even they did not provide minimum necessities to the complainant which a pregnant woman require, due to their ill-treatment and harassment she became sick, but the accused persons even did not proved minimum necessities to her including treatment, hereafter on 17-06-2010 the complainant gave birth to a female physically challenged child due to harassment, ill-treatment, torture and mental agony of accused No.1 to 4, all the medical and delivery expenses were bared by the parents of the deafcto complainant Smt. Rafath Ruksana and on the demands of the accused persons. After the birth of said child, the deafcto complainant Smt.

Rafath Ruksana joined the accused No.1 at his residence, by seeing the health condition of the minor child, the accused No.1 to 4 used to demanded amounts from her parents for the treatment of minor daughter, several times her parents arranged the amount and given to them and whenever the deafcto complainant

RMSV 5 of 14 C.C. No. 8992 of 2024

Smt. Rafath Ruksana showed her parents inability, the accused No.1 to 4 abused her in filthy language by stating she belongs to beggars family and tortured her and the accused No.2 to 4 abused her by stating that the complainant is not suitable match for accused No.1 if they perform his marriage they would have get more dowry etc. and the accused no.1 to 4 used to pick up quarrel with the deafcto complainant Smt. Rafath Ruksana on petty issues and abused her and insisted her to leave the minor child in a Orphan, house, when she refused for the same they tried to kill her by pressing her neck and abused that the deafcto complainant Smt. Rafath Ruksana is bad luck for them. The accused No.2 to 4 used to instigated the accused No.1 to pronounce divorce to the deafcto complainant Smt. Rafath Ruksana and also they insisted her to take Qula from accused No.1 and abused her and on one occasion, the accused No.4 tried to beat her and the accused No.1 to 4 insisted and compelled the deafcto complainant

Smt. Rafath Ruksana to commit suicide, if she failed to arrange Rs.1,50,000/- towards additional dowry from her parents, otherwise they will kill her and create suicidal case and they used to give life threats to the deafcto complainant Smt.

Rafath Ruksana and there is an apprehension of danger to her life from the accused persons.

(iii).On knowing the behaviour and attitude of the accused persons several times the elders of the defacto complainant Smt. Rafath Ruksana approached the accused person to pacify the matter, but the accused persons demanded to bear all the expenses of minor daughter and also demanded Rs.1,50,000/-towards

additional dowry or otherwise they will see the end of the deafcto complainant

RMSV 6 of 14 C.C. No. 8992 of 2024

Smt. Rafath Ruksana and finally on 15-10-2011 the accused No.1 to 4 again picked up quarrel with the deafcto complainant Smt. Rafath Ruksana by demanding additional dowry of Rs.1,50,000/- when she showed her parents inability, the accused No.1 to 4 beat her and driven out her from their house with minor daughter by keeping all her belongings and threatened her until and unless their demand if fulfill their will not allow when in marital life, thereafter on 24-10- 2011 the deafcto complainant Smt. Rafath Ruksana and the elders went to the house of the accused persons, but they are adamant on their illegal demands and did not allow the deafcto complainant Smt. Rafath Ruksana in the house and threatened her with dire consequences and insisted her to take divorce from the accused no.1 and force her to sign on some black papers n non-judicial stamp papers. Thereafter the defacto complainant Smt. Smt. Rafath Ruksanamade her sincere efforts to join, the marital house, but the accused person did not allow her for marital life and they caused cruelty on the deafcto complainant Smt.

Rafath Ruksana and made her life as miserable. The accused No.1 is puppet in the hands of the other accused and he totally neglected her for want of additional dowry and they are misappropriating her gold ornaments and jahez articles etc.

Hence the charge sheet.

3.Basing on the complainant of the deafcto complainant Smt. Rafath

Ruksana, Smt.P. Mary, Women Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.

458/2011 U/sec. 498-A, 506 R/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and handed over to

Smt. Vijay Kumari, Women Sub-Inspector of Police for investigation and during the course of investigation, Smt. Vijay Kumari, Women Sub-Inspector of Police

RMSV 7 of 14 C.C. No. 8992 of 2024 examined the deafcto complainant Smt. Rafath Ruksana and Sri. Mohd. Kaleel and recorded their detailed statements in part-II case dairy. They stated and corroborated the contents of FIR. The deafcto complainant Smt. Rafath Ruksana produced marriage photos and copy of marriage certificate as documentary evidence. Smt. Vijay Kumari, Women Sub-Inspector of Police visited the locality of the deafcto complainant Smt. Rafath Ruksana and Al and caused discrete enquiries. While investigation is in progress, on credible information on 02-12- 2011 Smt. Vijay Kumari, Women Sub-Inspector of Police deputed WPCs 8495, 8497 to apprehend the accused persons in this case, the deputed staff rushed to

Ramgopalpet, Hyderabad and found the Al Mohd. Aleemuddin and brought him to WPS, CCS, Hyderabad and produced before Smt. Vijay Kumari, Women Sub-

Inspector of Police at 10:00 hours. After examining him, Smt. Vijay Kumari,

Women Sub-Inspector of Police affected his arrest by issuing arrest memo after completing all legal formalities of arrest. The arrested Al produced before the

Hon'ble court for judicial remand. Inspite of all making enquiries about the

involvements of the A3 and A4, no prima facie made out against the A3 and A4.

Hence, deleted the names of A3 and A4 and after completionof her investigation

Smt. Vijay Kumari, Women Sub-Inspector of Police filed charge-sheet against A1

A2 U/sec. 498 A, 506 R/w 34 of Indian Penal Code with a prayer to issue NBWs against A2 as by showing as A2 absconding.

4.This Court took cognizance against accused A1 and A2 for the offence u/Sec.498 A, 506 of Indian Penal Code by this court and numbered as C.C.196 of 2012 and issued summons to the accused A1and A2 by this court , after that on

RMSV 8 of 14 C.C. No. 8992 of 2024 05.12.2018 this case is transferred to XV ACMM .

5.On appearance of the accused No.1 and A2 copies were furnished to them as required u/sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.

6. The accused NO.1 and A2 were examined u/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C, charges for the offence u/Secs.498 A , 506 of Indian Penal Code is framed, and same is read over and explained to them in vernacular language for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. and case against the A2 is abetted on 12.07.2018.

7.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, prosecution has adduced the defacto complaint Smt.Rafath Ruksana examined as PW1 and also adduced PW2 evidence out of 5 listed witnesses and Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 are marked on their behalf.

8.After closure of prosecution evidence the accused No.1 is examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C as there is incriminating material evidence found against him from the evidence of prosecution witness and the same was read over and explained to him for which he denied the same and reported no evidence.

9.Both side Arguments heard : HEARD.

10. Now the point for determination is

1.Whether the accused No.1.harassed the defacto complainant Smt. Rafath Ruksana physical and mentally as enshrined in sec 498A of Indian Penal Code or not ?

RMSV 9 of 14 C.C. No. 8992 of 2024

2.Whether the accused No.1 threatened the defacto complainant Smt.Rafath Ruksana as enshrined under sec, 506 IPC.?

3.Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence u/Secs.498-A,506 of Indian Penal Code ?

10. POINT.1 to 3:

It is a case of matrimonial offence allegedly done by accused No.1 as he harassed the defacto complainant Smt.Rafath Ruksana and also threatened her as she alleged in her complainant .

To establish the same the prosecution adduced the defacto complainant

Smt.Rafath Ruksana examined as PW1. But before court she stated that she does not remember anything about the case and also said that she does not know whether police examined her or not and PW1 specifically said that Accused never harassed her mentally and physically and for Dowry and said that She has no intention to proceed the case further as she has settled out of court. PW1 identified her signature in complaint as in Ex.P1. The PW1 not supported the prosecution version and turned hostile and denied her earlier statement as in

Ex.P1. The reason best known to her.

11. On seeing the PW1 evidence the prosecution adduced the evidence of

PW2 , who is father of PW1. PW2 also stated that he does not remember anything about the case. He does not know whether police examined him or not and PW2 specifically said that accused never harassed his daughter mentally and physically and for Dowry and said he has no intention to proceed the case further as he has settled out of court, the PW2 not supported the prosecution version

RMSV 10 of 14 C.C. No. 8992 of 2024 and turned hostile by denying his earlier statement as in Exhibit P3. The reason best known to him.

12. On seeing PW1 and PW2 evidence prosecution given up the evidence of Smt. Shreya, Women Sub-inspector of Police, Smt.P. Mary, Women Sub-

Inspector of Police, Smt. Vijay Kumari, Women Sub-Inspector of Police who are

Investigating Officers.

13. Before going to appreciation of witnesses evidence once again we observe the provision of Law.

As per Sec.498A Indian Penal code....

Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a women, subject such women. To cruelty, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extent to three years and shall also be liable to fine .

Explanation : For the purpose of this section CRUELTY means :

a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the women to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life ,limb or health(whether mental or physical ) of the women ,or

b) harassment of the women,where such harassment is with a view to coerceing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such dema02-07-2025nd.

Cruelty of husband: For applicability of Sec 498A Indian Penal Code are cruelty and harassment. In Sec.498A Indian Penal Code there are two elements in that section which includes the explanation, which clearly indicates “

RMSV 11 of 14 C.C. No. 8992 of 2024

CRUELTY “ it means by way of harassment driving a women to commit suicide or to suffer injury, second element of the said section is that the harassment should be in connection with demand of dowry .

The ingredients of Sec.498-A Indian Penal Code are:-

1. The woman must be married

2. She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment and

3. Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by husband or by the relatives of husband.

14. The first and foremost the prosecution has to prove the cruelty done by accused against the PW1. But the PW1 not disclosed before court what ever she mentioned in her private compliant, before court the PW1 stated that she does not remember anything about the case and she does not know whether police examined her or not and PW1 specifically said that accused never harassed her mentally and physically and for dowry and PW1 further said that she had no intention to proceed the case further as she have settled out of court , but PW1 identified her signature in her private complainant as in Exhibit P1. PW1 not supported the prosecution version and turned hostile .

15. On seeing PW1 evidence she did not intended to disclose the real facts

before court and she turned hostile and denied her earlier statement as in Exhibit

P2. When we see PW2 evidence ,who is father of PW1 , he too stated that same as

PW1, and PW2 also turned hostile and denied his earlier statement as in Exhibit

P3.

16. On seeing the evidence of PW1 and PW2 nothing was established against

RMSV 12 of 14 C.C. No. 8992 of 2024 the accused as he committed the offence as alleged by PW1 in her private complainant where she admitted her signature , due to compromise with the accused out of court both PW1 and PW2 not disclosed anything against the accused . PW1 and PW2 in one voice stated that the accused never harassed her mentally and physically and for dowry and they further said that they had no intention to proceed the case further as they have settled out of court ,

So, there is no evidence against the accused as he committed the offense under sec .498A Indian Penal Code.

17. As per section. 506 Indian Penal Code:

“Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be

punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may

extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death

or grievous hurt, etc.—And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt,

or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence

punishable with death or 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for

a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a

woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a

term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.”

18. The prosecution has to establish that to bring the A1 under this section preview , it has to be established that the accused demanded illegally and threatened her with dire consequences and insisted her to take divorce from

Accused No.1 and forced her to sign on some blank papers and also non-judicial stamp papers. But before court PW1 and 2 not disclosed anything against the accused as mentioned in complaint where PW1 identified her signature.

19.As the prosecution fails to prove the Sec. 498-A of Indian Penal Code

RMSV 13 of 14 C.C. No. 8992 of 2024 and from the evidence of PW1 and PW2 there is absence of prima facie threatening the PW1 as mentioned in her complaint. As such there is no evidence against the accused no. 1 u/sec. 506 of Indian Penal Code .

20. In the above facts and circumstances there is no evidence on record for establishing the guilt of Accused A1 as he committed the offence as alleged by prosecution , so, the prosecution misarably fails to prove the guilty of Accused

No. 1 beyond all reasonable doubt.

21. In the result, the accused No. 1 is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/S.498 A and 506 of Indian Penal Code and the accused A1 is acquitted U/s. 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused A1 shall stands cancelled after six months. Case against A2 is abetted on 12-07-2018.

( Typed by me, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 28 nd day of March, 2025.)

XIII Addl Chief Judicial

Magistrate, (Mahila court)

Hyderabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

(WITNESSES EXAMINED)

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

1. PW.1 : Smt. Rafath Ruksana -NIL-

2. PW.2 : Sri. Mohd. Kaleel

RMSV 14 of 14 C.C. No. 8992 of 2024

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

1. Ex.P1: Complaint

2. Ex.P2: PW1 Witness 161 Cr.P.C. - NIL - statement

3. Ex.P3: PW2 Witness 161 Cr.P.C. statement

MO’S MARKED

- NIL -

XIII Addl Chief Judicial

Magistrate, (Mahila court)

Hyderabad.

RMSV

1 of 13 CC.No.3985 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE:

MAHILA COURT, HYDERABAD.

Present: Smt.R.M.Subhavalli, XIII Addl. Chief Judicial

Magistrate, (MAHILA COURT),

Hyderabad

Thursday, This The 27 th Day of March, 2025.

C.C.No.3985 of 2022

Between:

The state of Telangana,Rep, S,I of police, W.P.S, CCS, DD, Hyderabad. … COMPLAINANT.

AND

1. M.Srikanth, S/o M.Rajashekar, aged 27 Years, Occ: Business, R/o H No. Flat No.104, 2nd floor, Siddi Sai residency, Kompally, Hyderabad, T.S. … Accused Nos.1 .

This case is coming before me on 25-03-2025 for final hearing in the presence of Smt.Roopa, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Defacto Complainant/State and Sri. Santosh Singh, Advocate for Accused and after perusing the case records and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, this court doth delivered the following :-

:: JUDGMENT::

Case is U/s. 498A of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of DP Act.

RMSV

2 of 13 CC.No.3985 of 2022

1.

This case is filed by Sub-Inspector of Police, W.P.S, CCS, DD,

Hyderabad against accused nos.1 in Cr.No. 34/2022 for the offence u/Sec.498-A, of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of DP Act.

2. The brief averments of the Charge sheet contents are as follows:

(i). On 13-01-2022 at 16:30 hours Sri. Dheeravath Hussian, Inspector of Police received a complaint from the defacto complainant Smt. V.Niharika

Devi W/o M. Srikanth, age 26 years, R/o. H.No.3-5-555, Vittalwadi,

Narayanaguda, Hyderabad, TS in which she stated that she got married to

Sri. Manne Srikanth S/o Sri. M.Rajashekar, It was arranged marriage as per her parents and in-laws decision, her in-laws address is Flat No.104, 2nd floor, Siddi Sai residency, Kompally, Hyderabad and her husband got a business of his own in Kompally itself (lubricants distribution, Medak) and her husband started torturing her by abusing, stabbing, making her as a slave in his house, slapping and beating. When he is torturing her, her mother in-law always supports him she does not like her work neither she likes her. After 4 months of her marriage she came home for Ashadam and send her to her, mother. At that time their elders kept a panchayath and sent her even he also said he will take care of her from now, but after taking her in Aug 10, 2020 he started the same harassment of slapping, beating and kicking for fertility also he was harassing her ever her mother in law to support him, some times her father in-law use to come in between, but he

RMSV

3 of 13 CC.No.3985 of 2022

use to provoke him some times he use to harass for more dowry after marriage and her engagement expenses (6 lakhs) (Rupees six lakhs), her marriage expenses for Gold- 30 tulas, silver 2 Kgs, hall, food, cash Rs.20 lakhs. She got married in S.N.R. gardens, Kompally on their wish on 15th

Feb 2020. He is very vulgar and harassed her for dowry."

(ii).Basing on the complaint of the defacto complainant Smt. V.

Niharika Devi, Sri. Dheeravath Hussian, Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr No. 34/2022, U/Sec 498-A of Indian Penal Code, Sec 3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act, and took up the Investigation.

(iii).During the course of investigation, Sri. Dheeravath Hussian,

Inspector of Police examined and recorded the defacto complainant Smt. V.

Niharika Devi statement which was incorporated into part-ll case diary wherein she corroborated with the facts of FIR and collected copy of ID proof of complainant, wedding card, Copy of affidavit and copy of marriage photos as material evidence and also secured the presence of Sri.

Velagapally Vivekananda and Smt. Velagapally Vishali and recorded their statements in part II CD's. Sri. Dheeravath Hussian, Inspector of Police served the notice U/s 41(A)(1) C.r.P.C to Al under proper acknowledgement on 07-01-2022 and subsequently obtained his undertaking along with ID proofs. Sri. Dheeravath Hussian, Inspector of Police has visited the scene of offence i.e. at Kompally, Hyderabad, T.S.and secured the presence of three independent witnesses and recorded their statements in Part-II CD's

RMSV

4 of 13 CC.No.3985 of 2022

wherein Sri. N. Naga Kanaka Raju, Sri. Venkata Rama Raju, Sri. AhDilip

Rao stated that the neighbors of A3 since many years. Sri. N. Naga Kanaka

Raju, Sri. Venkata Rama Raju, Sri. AhDilip Rao also attended the marriage ceremony of the defacto complainant Smt. V. Niharika Devi and Al and after marriage they stayed separately. After that rarely the defacto complainant

Smt. V. Niharika Devi and Al used to come here to meet A2 and A3 and stays for few hours and after that they returns. During stay of the defacto complainant Smt. V. Niharika Devi and Al at A3's house, Sri. N. Naga

Kanaka Raju, Sri. Venkata Rama Raju, Sri. AhDilip Rao didn't heard any kind of quarreling sounds and they used to come happy and also leaves the house happily. Sri. Dheeravath Hussian, Inspector of Police filed charge sheet against Al by expunging the names of A2 and A3. Sri. Dheeravath

Hussian, Inspector of Police also informed the defacto complainant Smt. V.

Niharika Devi regarding not charging of A2 and A3 through notice under sec 173 (ii) Cr.P.C. and if she have any evidence she shall liberty to approach the Hon'ble Magistrate of XIII ACMM, Nampally, Hyderabad and after completion of his investigation Sri. Dheeravath Hussian, Inspector of Police filed charge-sheet against A1 U/Sec 498-A of Indian Penal Code and Sec 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

3.This Court took cognizance against accused nos.1 for the offence u/Sec.498-A, of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry

RMSV

5 of 13 CC.No.3985 of 2022

Prohibition Act. and numbered as C.C. 3985/2022 and issued summons to the accused nos.1.

4.On appearance of the accused nos. 1 copies were furnished to him as required u/sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. The accused nos. 1 is examined u/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C, charges for the offence u/Sec.498-A, Indian Penal Code, Section 3 and 4 of DP Act is framed and same is read over and explained to him in his vernacular language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has adduced the evidence of the defacto complainant Smt. V. Niharika Devi examined as PW1 and also adduced PW2 evidence out of 7 listed witnesses and also marked Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 on their behalf.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence the accused nos. A1 is not examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. as there is no incriminating material evidence not found against him from the evidence of prosecution witness and same is read over to him for which he reported no defence evidence.

8.Arguments heard both side : HEARD.

RMSV

6 of 13 CC.No.3985 of 2022

9.Now the point for determination is :

1.Whether the accused nos. A1 harassed the defacto complainant Smt. V. Niharika Devi physically and mentally as enshrined in sec 498-A of Indian Penal Code.

2.Whether the accused A1 comitted an offence U/Sec 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act or not?

3.Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused nos. A1 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence u/Secs. 498-A, of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act Act.

10. POINT:

It is a case of matrimonial offence allegedly done by the accused nos.1 against the defacto complainant Smt. V. Niharika Devi as she alleged that:

"she got married to Manne Srikanth S/o M.Rajashekar. it was arranged marriage as per her parents and in-laws decision. Her in-laws address is

Flat No.104, 2nd floor, Siddi Sai residency, Kompally, Hyderabad, and her husband got a business of his own in Kompally itself (lubricants distribution, Medak). Her husband started torturing her by abusing, stabbing, making her as a slave in his house, slapping and beating. When he is torturing her, her mother in-law always supports him she does not like her work neither she likes me. After 4 months of her marriage she came home for Ashadam, and said her mother. At that time their elder kept a panchayath and sent her even he also said he will take care of her from

RMSV

7 of 13 CC.No.3985 of 2022

now, but after taking her in 10th August, 2020 he started the same harrasment of slapping, beating and kicking. For Fertility also he was harrasing her even to her mother-in-law used to support him, sometimes her Father-in-law use to come in between but he used to provoke him sometimes, and he use to harass for more dowry after her marriage.

11.(i). To establish the same, the prosecution adduced the defacto complainant Smt. V. Niharika Devi examined as PW1 but before court PW1 said that A1 is her Husband and she came to court for closing the Sec 498-

A case which was filed by her and said no one forced her and said she intended to close the case against the accused. PW1 said police examined her and recorded her statement.

(ii). On seeing PW1 evidence prosecution adduced PW2 evidence who is mother of PW1, PW2 also stated the same as that of PW1 and PW2 specifically said that A1 is her son in law and she came to court for closing the sec. 498-A case which was filed by her daughter and no one forced her and she has no objection to close the case against accused and also said that police examined her and recorded her statement.

12.On seeing PW1 and PW2 evidence, Prosecution given up V.

Vivekananda , N. Naga Kanaka Raju, Venkata Rama Raju, Ah Dilip Rao,

Dheeravath Hussian, Inspector of Police evidence who are two brother of

RMSV

8 of 13 CC.No.3985 of 2022

PW1 and two independent witnesses. If they examined the real facts may be established.

13. Before going to appreciation of witnesses evidence once again we observe the provision of Law.

As per Sec.498A Indian Penal code....

Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a women, subject such women. To cruelty, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extent to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation : For the purpose of this section CRUELTY means :

a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the women to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health(whether mental or physical ) of the women, or

b) harassment of the women,where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

Cruelty of husband: For applicability of Sec 498A Indian Penal

Code are cruelty and harassment. In Sec.498A Indian Penal Code there are two elements in that section which includes the explanation, which clearly indicates “ CRUELTY “ it means by way of harassment driving a women to

RMSV

9 of 13 CC.No.3985 of 2022

commit suicide or to suffer injury, second element of the said section is that the harassment should be in connection with demand of dowry.

The ingredients of Sec.498-A Indian Penal Code are:-

1. The woman must be married

2. She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment and

3. Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by husband or by the relatives of husband.

14. (i).The first and foremost the prosecution has to establish the alleged harassment meted by the PW1 from the hands of accused nos.1, as per PW1 she did not disclose anything against accused she simply stated that she filed sec. 498-A case and PW1 specifically said that she came to court for closing the case filed by her and also said that no one forced her and said she is intended to close the case against accused,

(ii).But during her cross examination PW1 stated that she compromised this case and she is not intended to proceed further and PW1 also denied her earlier statement as as in Exhibit P1. PW1 not disclosed anything against accused and she turned hostile and not supported prosecution version as she compromise the case with the accused.

(iii). When we see PW2 evidence, she stated that she has no objection to close the case against the accused, PW2 also not supported prosecution version and turned hostile and denied her earlier statement as in Exhibit

RMSV

10 of 13 CC.No.3985 of 2022

P2.

15.From the evidence of PW1 and PW2 nothing was established against accused and prosecution even not tried to confront PW1 complaint as such there is no evidence on record that for giving complaint against accused and prosecution fails to establish the prima faice registering case against accused basing on PW1 complaint due to non examination of Sri Deeravath

Hussain Sub-Inspector of Police who is Investigation Officers who issued

FIR and who recorded the statement of PW1, Sri Velagapally Vivekananda,

Sri. N. Naga Kanaka Raju, Sri. Venkata Rama Raju, Sri. AhDilip Rao father of PW1 two independent witnesses. As such there is no evidence against accused no.1 to clinch him U/sec 498A of Indian Penal Code as prosecution fails to establish guilty of A1.

16. As per Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act:

Penalty for giving or taking dowry.—

(1) If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes

or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable 2[with

imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 3[five years, and

with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the

amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more]: —1[(1)] If any

person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets

the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable 2[with

imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 3[five years, and

with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the

amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more]\:" Provided

that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in

the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less

RMSV

11 of 13 CC.No.3985 of 2022

than 4[five years].] 5[(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to, or in

relation to,— 1[(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to, or in

relation to,—"

(a) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bride

(without any demand having been made in that behalf): Provided that

such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the

rules made under this Act;

(b) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the

bridegroom (without any demand having been made in that behalf):

Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in

accordance with the rules made under this Act: Provided further that

where such presents are made by or on behalf of the bride or any

person related to the bride, such presents are of a customary nature

and the value thereof is not excessive having regard to the financial

status of the person by whom, or on whose behalf, such presents are

given.

As per Section 4 in the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

Penalty for demanding dowry —

If any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other

relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any

dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which

shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years

and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees:" Provided

that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned

in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less

than six months.

17. As the prosecution fails to prove the main offence U/sec. 498-A of

Indian Penal Code as PW1 and PW2 turned hostile, for that with regard to demand of dowry and giving dowry PW1 and PW2 not disclosed anything against accused No.1, as they compromised the case with the accused, as such both PW1 and PW2 not intended to disclose anything about the case

RMSV

12 of 13 CC.No.3985 of 2022

facts, that too PW1 and PW2 also denied their earlier statements as in

Exhibit P1 and P2. Due to non examination of Sri. Dheeravath Hussian,

Inspector of Police, prosecution fails to registering case issuing FIR and recording witness statements and arrest of accused in this case.

Therefore there is no evidence on record as the A1 committed an offence U/sec. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition act.

18.In the above facts and circumstances the prosecution fails to prove the guilty of A1 under section 498-A Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt, Therefore A1 is entitled for acquittal.

19. In the result, the accused no. 1 is found not guilty for the offence

punishable U/s.498-A of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act and the accused no. 1 is acquitted U/s. 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail

bonds of the accused no. 1 shall stands cancelled after six months.

( Typed by Typist on my dictation, transcribed and, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 27 th day of March, 2025.)

XIII Addl Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Hyderabad.

RMSV

13 of 13 CC.No.3985 of 2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

(WITNESSES EXAMINED)

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

1. PW.1: Smt. V. Niharika Devi

2. PW.2: Smt. Vaishali - NIL -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

1. Ex.P1: PW1 witness 161 Cr.P.C. statement - NIL -

2. Ex.P2: PW2 witness 161 Cr.P.C. statement

MO MARKED

-NIL-

XIII Addl Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Hyderabad.

RMSV

1 of 13 CC.No.86 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE:

MAHILA COURT, HYDERABAD.

Present: Smt.R.M.Subhavalli, XIII Addl. Chief Judicial

Magistrate, (MAHILA COURT), Hyderabad

Friday, This The 15 th Day of April, 2025.

C.C.No.86 of 2018

Between: The state of Telangana,Rep, S,I of police, W.P.S., C.C.S. Hyderabad. …COMPLAINANT.

AND

1. Sri. Nomula Laxman Yadav, S/o. N.Mallesh Yadav, Aged: 38 yrs, ( Case against A1 abatted on 08-02-2024)

2. Sri. Nomula Mallesh Yadav, S/o Late Laxman Yadav, Aged: 66 years,

3. Sri. Nomula Mahesh Yadav, S/o N. Laxman Yadav, Aged: 29 years, ( Case against A3 abatted on 08-02-2024)

All R/o. H.No. 21-2-231, Rakabgunj,

Opp: High Court, Madina, Hyderabad. ...Accused Nos.1 to 3.

This case is coming before me on 09-04-2025 for final hearing in the presence of Smt.Roopa, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Defacto Complainant/State and Sri. J. Nagaraju, Advocate for Accused and after perusing the case records and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, this court delivered the following :-

RMSV

2 of 13 CC.No.86 of 2018

:: JUDGMENT::

Case is U/s. 498A, of Indian Penal Code.

1.

This case is filed by Sub-Inspector of Police, W.P.S, CCS Hyderabad against accused nos.1 to 3 in Cr.No. 159/2016 for the offence u/Sec.498-A, of Indian Penal Code.

2. The brief averments of the Charge sheet contents are as follows:

(i).on 10-03-2016 at 1600 hours Smt. T. Jyothsna, Inspector of police received a complaint from the defacto complainant Smt. N. Padma Rani,

W/o N. Laxman Yadav, aged 29 yrs, Occ: House wife, Presently R/o H.No.1- 8-725/A/2, Achaiah Nagar, Nallakunta, Hyderabad in which she stated that her marriage was performed with N. Laxman Yadav on 19-02-2005 in the presence of both side elders. At the time of marriage on the demand of her parent in-laws, given dowry 13 tulas gold, Rs. 2 lakhs net cash for vehicle and expenditure. After the marriage she joined with her husband at parent in-laws house at Madina, Hyderabad. After marriage her husband used to came to house in drunken condition and beat her by creating nuisance, but she keep quit, since one year she is suffering with both kidney problem and he is not looking the welfare of her and their children. Her husband brother

Mahesh used to came in drunken condition and abused her, She came to her parents house at Nallakunta about 9 months as she is suffering with ill health. Her husband, his father and brother harassed her mentally and

RMSV

3 of 13 CC.No.86 of 2018

physically. Hence, she requested to take necessary action against her husband, his father and brother as per law.

(ii).Basing on the complaint of the defacto complainant Smt. N. Padma

Rani, Smt. T. Jyothsna, Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr. No.

159/2016 U/s. 498-A Indian Penal Code and entrusted to Sri. B. Rama

Swamy, Sub-Inspector of police for investigation.

(iii).During the course of investigation, Sri. B. Rama Swamy, Sub-

Inspector of police examined the defacto complainant Smt. N. Padma Rani and recorded her detailed statement in case diary Part-II. She stated and corroborated the contents of FIR. The defacto complainant Smt. N. Padma

Rani produced marriage photo as material evidence. Sri. B. Rama Swamy,

Sub-Inspector of Police also secured the presence of her mother Smt.

Andela Swapna and maternal aunt Smt. Pinjar Vara Laxmi, examined and recorded their detailed statements in case diary Part-II. They stated and corroborated the version of the defacto complainant Smt. N. Padma Rani and he visited the locality of the defacto complainant Smt. N. Padma Rani and accused and caused enquiries and Sri. B. Rama Swamy, Sub-Inspector of Police also secured the presence of Sri. Nadikudi Naresh Kumar and Sri.

Adappa Mahender Kumar, examined and recorded their detailed statements in case diary Part-II. They stated and corroborated the version of the the defacto complainant Smt. N. Padma Rani.

(iv).While investigation is in progress, Sri. B. Rama Swamy, Sub-Inspector

RMSV

4 of 13 CC.No.86 of 2018

of Police prepared Notice U/s. 41 (A) Cr.P.C. and issued to the accused A1 to

A3, with instructions to appear before him along with ID proofs within three days for examination and also to co-operate with the investigation and served the notice and obtained acknowledgment. After receipt of Notice U/s.

41 (A) Cr.P.C to the accused came to WPS, CCS and appeared Sri. B. Rama

Swamy, Sub-Inspector of Police on 05-04-2016 and he taken personal bonds and ID proofs of the accused and directed them to appear before the

Hon'ble court. On transfer of the Sri. B. Rama Swamy, Sub-Inspector of

Police, the case file handed over to Sri. B. Srinivasulu, Sub-Inspector of

Police for further investigation. Sri. B. Srinivasulu, Sub-Inspector of Police visited the locality of the defacto complainant Smt. N. Padma Rani and the accused and caused enquiries. Sri. B. Srinivasulu, Sub-Inspector of Police try to examine the independent witnesses, but no body came forward to give their statements. After completion of his investigation Sri. B.

Srinivasulu, Sub-Inspector of Police filed charge sheet against A1 to A3

U/sec. 498 (A) Indian Penal Code. Hence the charge-sheet.

3.This court took cognizance against accused nos.1 to 3 for the offence u/Sec.498-A, of Indian Penal Code and numbered as C.C. 86/2016 and issued summons to the accused nos.1 to 3.

4.On appearance of the accused nos. 1 to 3 copies were furnished to them as required u/sec.207 of Cr.P.C. On 08-02-2024 case against A1 A3 is abetted as their Death Certificates filed by prosecution.

RMSV

5 of 13 CC.No.86 of 2018

5. The accused nos. 2 examined u/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C, charges framed for the offence u/Sec.498-A, of Indian Penal Code, and same is read over and explained to them for which they denied the same and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution filed the

Death certificate of the defacto complainant Smt. N. Padma Rani and produce PW1 to PW3 evidence out of 8 listed witnesses and marked P1 And

P2 on their behalf.

7.After completion of prosecution evidence the accused no. 2 was not examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. as there is no incriminating material evidence not found against him from the evidence of prosecution witness and the examination U/s 313 Crpc is dispenced and same is informed to him and he reported no defence evidence.

8.Arguments heard both side : Heard.

9.Now the point for determination is :

1.Whether the accused no. A2 harassed the defacto complainant N. Padma Rani physically and mentally as enshrined in sec 498-A of Indian Penal Code.

2.Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused no. A2 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence u/Secs. 498-A, of Indian Penal Code.

10. POINT:

It is a case of matrimonial offence allegedly done by the accused nos.

RMSV

6 of 13 CC.No.86 of 2018

A1 to A3 against the defacto complainant Smt. N. Padma Ranialleging as mentioned in her complaint.

11.To establish the same the prosecution not adduced the defacto complainant Smt. N. Padma Rani evidence and prosecution filed Death

Certificate of the defacto complainant Smt. N. Padma Rani, so her evidence is closed. Sri Adappa Mahender who is independent witness examined as

PW1, he stated before court the he does not know Smt. N. Padma Rani,

Smt. Andela Swapna, Smt. Pinjar Vara Laxmi and Sri. Nadikudi Naresh

Kumar and said he knows A1 to A3 and said he does not know anything about the case and said on the request of police he came to court and PW1 also said that police not examined him and recorded his statement, after that prosecution adduced evidence of the defacto complainant Smt. N.

Padma Rani sister Smt. Andela Swapna examined as PW2 and her sister examined as PW2, before court PW2 said that the defacto complainant Smt.

N. Padma Rani is her elder sister but in list of witnesses memo she was shown as mother of the defacto complainant Smt. N. Padma Rani and Smt.

Pinjar Vara Laxmi is her maternal aunt and PW2 said that the defacto complainant Smt. N. Padma Rani is no more and said that A1 is her

Brother In law, A2 is Father in law and A3 is Brother of A1 and PW2 also said that the defacto complainant Smt. N. Padma Rani has two childrens and for them they have compromised the case with the A2 and as she is the natural guardian of the children of the defacto complainant Smt. N. Padma

RMSV

7 of 13 CC.No.86 of 2018

Rani for their betterment she has compromised with the accused A2.

Further PW2 said that she does not know anything about the present case and also said that, police never examined her and never recorded her statement.

(ii). On seeing PW1 PW2 evidence prosecution adduced PW3 evidence, who is maternal aunt of the defacto complainant Smt. N. Padma Rani as well as

PW2 and before court PW3 stated that the defacto complainant Smt. N.

Padma Rani and Smt. Andela Swapna are her nieces and she does not know

Sri. Nadikudi Naresh Kumar and Sri. Adappa Mahender Kumar. PW3 also stated that the defacto complainant Smt. N. Padma Rani is no more and A1 is her son In law he is no more and A2 is Father in law of the defacto complainant Smt. N. Padma Rani and A3 is Brother of A1 and PW3 said that the defacto complainant Smt. N. Padma Rani has two children and for them they have compromised the case with A2 and as Smt. Andela Swapna is the natural guardian of the children of the defacto complainant Smt. N.

Padma Rani for their betterment they have compromised with the accused

A2. PW3 further stated before court that she does not know anything about the present case and police never examined her and never recorded her statement.

12. On seeing PW1 to PW3 evidence prosecution given Up the evidence of

Sri. Nadikudi Naresh Kumar, Smt. T. Jyothsna, Inspector of Police, Sri. B.

Rama Swamy, Sub-Inspector of Police and Sri. B. Srinivasulu, Sub-

RMSV

8 of 13 CC.No.86 of 2018

Inspector of Police. If they examined the real facts may be established.

13. Before going to appreciation of witnesses evidence once again we observe the provision of Law.

As per Sec.498A Indian Penal code....

Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a women, subject such women to cruelty, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extent to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation : For the purpose of this section CRUELTY means :

a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the women to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health(whether mental or physical ) of the women, or

b) harassment of the women,where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

Cruelty of husband: For applicability of Sec 498A Indian Penal

Code are cruelty and harassment. In Sec.498A Indian Penal Code there are two elements in that section which includes the explanation, which clearly indicates “ CRUELTY “ it means by way of harassment driving a women to commit suicide or to suffer injury, second element of the said section is that

RMSV

9 of 13 CC.No.86 of 2018

the harassment should be in connection with demand of dowry.

The ingredients of Sec.498-A Indian Penal Code are:-

1. The woman must be married

2. She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment and

3. Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by husband or by the relatives of husband.

14. (i). The first and foremost the prosecution has to establish the alleged harassment meted by the defacto complainant Smt. N. Padma Rani from the hands of accused nos.1 to 3 as mentioned in her complaint, but before court PW1 to PW3 not disclosed anything against accused as they compromised with the accused out of court, but PW2 and PW3 also denied their earlier statements as in Ex.P1 and Ex.P2, here the prosecution not tried to establish the contents of complaint whether PW1 to PW3 know the contents as well as gave complaint against the accused. PW1 to PW3 not disclosed whether the accused harassed the defacto complainant Smt. N.

Padma Rani her physically and mentally and PW2 and PW3 stated that they have no interest to proceed with the case, further said that they settled the matter out of the court with the accused no. 2, So, the prosecution fails to establish that the accused harassed the defacto complainant Smt. N.

Padma Rani as mentioned in her complaint.

(ii).On perusal of record the accused nos. 2 is examined U/sec. 239

RMSV

10 of 13 CC.No.86 of 2018

Cr.P.C. on 08-04-2024 and posted for trial by adjourning to 30-04-2024 and on 11-07-2024 prosecution side filed death certificate of the defacto complainant Smt. N. Padma Rani and her evidence was closed on 11-07- 2024 and subsequently Smt. Andela Swapna and Smt. Pinjar Vara Laxmi evidence closed on 26-11-2024. After that the prosecution filed the Cr.M.P.

1820 of 2025 on 09-04-2025 and recalled the Smt. Andela Swapna and

Smt. Pinjar Vara Laxmi evidence. After that on seeing PW1 to PW3 evidence prosecution given up the Sri. Nadikudi Naresh Kumar, Smt. T. Jyothsna,

Inspector of Police, Sri. B. Rama Swamy, Sub-Inspector of Police and Sri. B.

Srinivasulu, Sub-Inspector of Police evidence.

(iii). Due to non examination of Smt. T. Jyothsna, Inspector of Police the prosecution prima facie fails to prove the registering case against accused basing on the complaint of the defacto complaint Smt. N. Padma Rani and issued FIR against accused A1 to A3, Smt. T. Jyothsna, Inspector of Police registered case against A1 to A3, due to non examination of her who is

Investigating Officers who issued FIR so prosecution fails to prove that issuing FIR and Sri. B. Rama Swamy, Sub-Inspector of Police who recorded the statement of the defacto complainant Smt. N. Padma Rani, Smt. Andela

Swapna, Smt. Pinjar Vara Laxmi, who are relatives of the defacto complainant Smt. N. Padma Rani and Sri. Nadikudi Naresh Kumar, Sri.

Adappa Mahender Kumar who are independent witnesses. The prosecution side filed Death Certificate of the defacto complainant Smt. N. Padma Rani

RMSV

11 of 13 CC.No.86 of 2018

on that her evidence closed even if her earlier statement can be taken into consideration for that PW2 and PW3 who are the sister and maternal aunt of the defacto complainant Smt. N. Padma Rani were not disclosed anything against accused and PW2 stated that the defacto complainant Smt. N.

Padma Rani is no more and said that A1 is her Brother In law, A2 is Father in law and A3 is Brother of A1 and PW2 said that the defacto complainant

Smt. N. Padma Rani has two childrens and for them they have compromised the case with the A2 and as she is the natural guardian of the children of the defacto complainant Smt. N. Padma Rani for their betterment she has compromised with the accused A2. Further PW2 stated

before court that she does not know anything about the present case and

PW3 stated that the defacto complainant Smt. N. Padma Rani has two children and for them they have compromised the case with A2 and as Smt.

Andela Swapna is the natural guardian of the children of the defacto complainant Smt. N. Padma Rani for their betterment they have compromised with the accused A2. PW3 further stated before court that she does not know anything about the present case and police never examined her and never recorded her statement. As such there is no evidence against accused A2 to clinch him U/sec 498A of Indian Penal Code as prosecution fails to establish their guilty due to hostile nature of witnesses.

16.From the evidence of PW1 to PW3 nothing was established against accused as PW1 to PW3 fails to disclose whether accused harassed

RMSV

12 of 13 CC.No.86 of 2018

physically and mentally and PW1 to PW3 denied their earlier statements as in Exhibit P1 and Exhibit P2.

17.In the above facts and circumstances there is no evidence on record for establishing the guilt of accused no. 2 as he committed the offence as alleged by prosecution U/Sec.498-A of Indian Penal Code so, the prosecution miserably fails to prove the guilty of accused no. 2 beyond all reasonable doubt.

18. In the result, the accused no. 2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.498-A of Indian Penal Code and the accused no. 2 is acquitted U/s. 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused no. 2 shall stands cancelled after six months. Case against A1 and A3 abetted on 08- 02-2024.

( Typed by Typist on my dictation, transcribed and, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 15 th day of April, 2025)

XIII Addl Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Hyderabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

(WITNESSES EXAMINED)

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

1. PW.1: Sri. Adappa Mahender Kumar

2. PW.2: Smt. Andela Swapna - NIL -

3. PW3: Smt. Pinjar Vara Laxmi

EXHIBITS MARKED

RMSV

13 of 13 CC.No.86 of 2018

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

1. Ex.P1: PW2 161 Cr.P.C. statement. - NIL -

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

MO MARKED

-NIL-

XIII Addl Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Hyderabad.

RMSV