Page 1 of 18 CC.No. 227 of 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS, AT IBRAHIMPATNAM, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT
(Monday, this the 27th day of April, 2026)
PRESENT: Smt. Mudavath Himabindu, XVI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, At Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District.
Calendar Case No. 227 of 2019
Between:
The State of Telangana through The Sub-Inspector of Police, Yacharam. …Complainant
AND
1. B. Vignesh Yadav S/o. B. Yettaiah, age: 36 years, Occ: Employee, R/o. H.No.17-1-383/N/80/A/30, Brundavan Nagar Colony, Champapet, Hyderabad.
2. K. Ramesh Goud S/o. K. Srisailam, age: 33 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. H.No.5-5-98, Chintalkunta, LB Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.
3. Y. Rajesh Goud S/o. Y. Ganesh Goud, age: 33 years, Occ: Government Employee, R/o. H.No.1-54, Taramatipet Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. …Accused Nos.1 to 3
This case came before this court for final hearing in the presence of Smt. G. Aruna, Lea rned Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri B. Anil Kumar, Learned Counsel for Accused Nos.1 to 3 and having learned and considered the record till date, this court delivered the following.
XVI AJMFC
Page 2 of 18 CC.No. 227 of 2019
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Yacharam Police Station filed a charge sheet in Crime No.276 of 2018 against the Accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Section 420, 120-B, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
On 06/10/2018 at 1300 hours, LW15/Mr. M. Madhu Kumar, Inspector of
Police, Yacharam Police Station received complaint from the complainant/Polepally Kishan S/o. Late Parvathalu and others in which he stated that in the capacity of owners and possessors, the accused have offered to sell their lands bearing Sy.Nos.465/AA, measuring Ac.1-25 guntas,
Sy.No.465/AA/2, measuring Ac.1-10 guntas, total measuring Ac.2-35 guntas, situated at Nallavelly Revenue Village, Yacharam Mandal, R.R.District in favour of complainants herein for the total sale consideration of
Rs.25,87,500/(Rs. Twenty five lakhs eighty seven thousands and five hundreds only) and accordingly entered into an agreement of sale on 09/04/2016 by the accused with the complainants herein in respect of the said lands. The complainants paid an amount of Rs.7,02,000/- (Rupees Seven
XVI AJMFC
Page 3 of 18 CC.No. 227 of 2019
Lakhs Two Thousand Only) out of the above said total sale consideration of
Rs.25,87,500/- to the accused herein as advance cum part sale consideration.
As per the terms of the Agreement of Sale dated 09/04/2016, the complainants shown the eastern side boundary of said lands as 15 feet wide Donka. After entering into the said agreement of sale, the complainants verified the boundaries on the field and surprisingly found that, there is no 15 feet wide
Donka on the eastern side of said lands. Meanwhile, as per the agreement of sale dated 09/04/2016, the balance amount of Rs.18,85,500/- (Rupees
Eighteen lakhs eighty five thousands and five hundred only) will be paid by the complainants to the Accused subject to actual measurement of land available at site within a period of five months. After the completion of said five months period, the Complainants approached the Accused and demanded that, the
Complainants are ready to pay balance amount to the Accused, if the Accused provide the above said 15 feet wide Donka on the eastern side of said land and to measure and to fix the boundaries as shown by the Accused in the agreement of sale. In this regard, on 01/10/2016 the Accused came forward and agreed to execute registered sale deed in favour of the Complainants after obtaining mutation proceedings in their favour and after entering of their names in online pahanies as on 05/10/2016. In this regard, on the same day i.e., on 01/10/2016, the Accused have also received part sale Consideration of
XVI AJMFC
Page 4 of 18 CC.No. 227 of 2019
Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) out of the said balance sale consideration amount from the Complainants and also executed agreement- cum cash receipt dated 01/10/2016 in favour of the Complainants. Thus, in total the Accused received an amount of Rs.9,02,000/- (Rupees Nine lakhs two thousands only) as part sale consideration, out of the above said total sale consideration from the Complainants. As per the further agreement-cum-cash receipt dated 01/10/2016, the Accused have agreed to execute register sale deed by receiving balance sale consideration from the Complainants by obtaining mutation proceedings and online pahanies as on 05/10/2016. On 05/10/2016, the Complainants have approached the Accused with the balance sale consideration of Rs.16,85,500/- (Rupees Sixteen lakhs eighty five thousands five hundreds only) and demanded the Accused that, to execute register sale deed by receiving the said balance sale consideration and by handing over the mutation proceedings and online pahanies of Accused as agreed in the agreement-cum-cash receipt dated 01/10/2016. In this regard, the Accused informed the Complainants stating that, some boundaries disputes are pending in between the Accused and their vendors in respect of subject lands, as such, the Accused requested the Complainants to give some further period to clear the said boundary dispute and to mutate the name of
Accused and entering of Accused names on online pahanies. As such, seeing
XVI AJMFC
Page 5 of 18 CC.No. 227 of 2019 the inconvenience of Accused, the Complainants waited patiently with the remaining sale consideration amount of Rs.16,85,500/-. The Accused got issued a legal notice on 08/08/2017 to the Complainants through their counsel with false and baseless allegations with a view to harass and cause loss to the
Complainants. Immediately, on 14/08/2017 the Complainants have issued suitable reply notice by narrating the above said facts. Recently, the
Complainants came to know that, the Accused without get ready for the execution of registered sale deed in favour of Complainants by showing the correct boundaries in respect of said lands and by showing the their mutation proceedings and online pahanies, with a view to cheat the Complainants in a dishonest and fraudulent manner, the Accused have sold the subject lands in favour of third parties namely Kontham Shekar Reddy, Kommidi Srinivas
Reddy and Doodipala Muthyam Reddy and executed agreement of sale cum-
G.P.A. vide document No.8640/2017, dated 23/10/2017 and thereby committed cheating against the Complainant in a conspiracy manner. Hence, requested to take necessary action.
3. Basing on the contents of complaint LW15/Mr. M. Madhu Kumar,
Inspector of Police, Yacharam, registered a case in Crime No.276 of 2018
XVI AJMFC
Page 6 of 18 CC.No. 227 of 2019 under Section 420, 120-B, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and entrusted investigation to LW16.
4.During the course of investigation, the investigating officer has examined the material witnesses and issued notice U/Sec.41-A Cr.P.C to the Accused and filed charge sheet against the Accused.
5.The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under Section 420, 120-B of IPC against the Accused Nos.1 to 3 and numbered as Calendar
Case Number 227/2019.
6.On appearance of accused persons, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of Code of Criminal
Procedure.
7.Accused persons were examined under Section 239 of Code of Criminal
Procedure explaining the substance of accusation levelled against them.
Charges were framed for the offences under Section 420, 120-B of IPC, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
XVI AJMFC
Page 7 of 18 CC.No. 227 of 2019
8.During the trial proceedings PW1 to PW9 were examined i.e., LW1 was examined as PW1, LW2 was examined as PW2, LW3 was examined as PW3,
LW4 was examined as PW4, LW6 is examined as PW5, LW9 is examined as
PW6, LW11 is examined as PW7, LW13 is examined as PW8 and LW16 is examined as PW9 and Exhibits P1 to P15 were marked for prosecution and the evidence of remaining witnesses were closed by this court. On the other hand, none were examined on behalf of the accused and no documents were marked in support of their contention.
9.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure with reference to the incriminating material available against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.
10.Heard both sides. Perused the record.
11.Now the point for determination are as follows:
1. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused
persons for the offence punishable under section 420 and 120-B IPC
beyond reasonable doubt?
2. To what result?
XVI AJMFC
Page 8 of 18 CC.No. 227 of 2019
12.The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons, representing themselves as owners and possessors of land admeasuring Ac.2-35 guntas situated at Nallavelly Village, offered to sell the same to the complainants for a total consideration of Rs.25,87,500/-. Accordingly, an Agreement of Sale dated 09.04.2016 (Ex.P2) was executed. The complainants paid Rs.7,02,000/- as advance under Ex.P4 and subsequently paid Rs.2,00,000/- under Ex.P5, totaling Rs.9,02,000/-. And specific specific allegation is that the accused represented that there exists a 15 feet Donka road on the eastern side of the land, which was shown as a boundary in Ex.P2. However, after entering into the agreement, the complainants allegedly found that no such Donka road exists. It is further alleged that despite repeated demands and readiness on the part of the complainants to pay the balance consideration, the accused failed to execute the sale deed and ultimately sold the property to third parties under documents marked as Ex.P3 and Ex.P7. Hence, the present case alleging cheating and criminal conspiracy.
As stated supra, in order to support its case, the prosecution has examined 8 witnesses i.e., PW1 to PW9 and 15 documents got marked as
Exhibits P1 to P15. On the other hand, none were examined on behalf of the accused and no documents were marked in support of their contention.
Hence, the evidence of PWs 1 to 9 stands for scrutiny.
XVI AJMFC
Page 9 of 18 CC.No. 227 of 2019
13.Out of the witnesses examined by the Prosecution, PW1 is the complainant, PW2 to PW4 are the witnesses, PW5 is the circumstantial witness, PW6 and PW7 are the Vendees of 8640/2021 and 11680/2017 of
SRO, Ibrahimpatnam, PW8 is the panch witness for scene of offence and PW9 is the Investigating Officer and filed charge-sheet. Ex. P1 is the complaint.
Ex.P2 is the Agreement of sale dated 09.04.2016, Ex.P3 is the CC of
Agreement of sale cum GPA dated 23.10.2017, Ex.P4 is the Receipt dated 09/04/2016 for Rs.7,02,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Two thousand only),
Ex.P5 is the Receipt dated 01/10/2016 for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only), Ex.P6 is the Oppanda Pathram cum Cash receipt dated 01.10.2016,
Ex.P7 is the CC of Sale deed dated 16/12/2017. Ex.P8 is the Signature under witness in Sl.No.2, Ex.P9 is the Signature under witness in Sl.No.2 on Ex.P4.
Ex.P10 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of the PW6. Ex.P11 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW7. Ex.P12 is the Scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P13 is the
Rough Sketch, Ex.P14 is the True copy of the sale deed vide Doc.Br. No. 5310 of 2015 dated 01.06.2015. Ex.P15 is the First Information Report.
Now, let us discuss each framed points individually:
XVI AJMFC
Page 10 of 18 CC.No. 227 of 2019
POINT:
14.Before adverting to the appreciation of evidence, it is pertinent to consider the relevant provisions of law. In order to constitute an offence under
Section 420 IPC, the prosecution must establish the following essential ingredients:
(i) Deception of a person;
(ii) Fraudulent or dishonest inducement;
(iii) Delivery of property or valuable security;
(iv) Existence of dishonest intention at the time of inducement.
15.In order to establish the offence under Section 420 IPC, the prosecution must prove that there was deception of the complainant, that such deception was with dishonest intention from the inception of the transaction, that the complainant was induced to deliver property, and that such inducement resulted in wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful gain to the accused.
It is well settled that mere breach of contract or failure to honour an agreement does not constitute cheating unless it is shown that the intention to deceive existed at the very inception.
XVI AJMFC
Page 11 of 18 CC.No. 227 of 2019
16.Coming to the evidence on record, PW1, the complainant, deposed in line with the complaint/Ex.P1 and relied upon Ex.P2 agreement of sale, dated 09/04/2016, Ex.P4/ report and Ex.P5/ receipts dated 01/10/2016, Ex.P6 agreement-cum-cash receipt dated 01/10/2016, Ex.P3/ AGPA dated 23/10/2017, and Ex.P7/ CC of sale deed dated 16/12/2017. However, his cross-examination reveals material admissions which go to the root of the prosecution case. PW1 admitted that he is engaged in real estate business as a commission agent without any registration and that he is a local resident well aware of the property. He further admitted that the boundaries mentioned in
Ex.P2 are the same as those mentioned in Ex.P3 and Ex.P7. This admission is crucial because the entire allegation of deception revolves around misrepresentation of boundaries and existence of a 15 feet Donka. When the boundaries remain consistent across all documents, the allegation of false representation loses its force. PW1 also admitted that a civil suit is pending between the parties, thereby indicating that the dispute is civil in nature.
Further, he admitted that no prior complaint was lodged before the police, contradicting the contents of Ex.P1.
17.PW2 and PW3, who are co-purchasers, supported PW1 in chief examination, but their cross-examination exposes serious deficiencies. PW2
XVI AJMFC
Page 12 of 18 CC.No. 227 of 2019 admitted that no documents were filed to show readiness and willingness to pay the balance consideration, no proof of financial capacity was produced, and no survey report was filed to establish absence of the Donka road. He also admitted that no possession was taken. PW3, on the other hand, inconsistently claimed possession but admitted that no document evidencing delivery of possession exists. These contradictions regarding possession are significant because they affect the credibility of the prosecution case. Both witnesses admitted that they did not issue any legal notice prior to filing the complaint and that they came to know about alleged cheating only after receiving notice from the accused, which indicates that the dispute escalated after contractual disagreements.
PW4, who is an attesting witness to Ex.P2 and Ex.P4, failed to recall the date, time, and material particulars of the transaction. He admitted that he does not remember denominations of currency and that his personal details are not mentioned in the documents. His testimony appears mechanical and does not inspire confidence.
PW5 is admittedly a hearsay witness who came to know about the transaction through PW1 and others. His evidence does not prove any fact in issue and is of no assistance to the prosecution.
XVI AJMFC
Page 13 of 18 CC.No. 227 of 2019
PW6 and PW7, who are vendees under Ex.P3 and Ex.P7, resiled from thier previous statements as per the prosecution. Though confronted with their 161 Cr.P.C statements /Ex.P10 and Ex.P11, they denied the prosecution case.
Importantly, they admitted execution of AGPA and sale deed and further admitted that payments were made through cheques which were honoured.
Through PW7, Ex.D1 /bank statement and Ex.D2 /cheque copy were marked, which demonstrate that the transaction between accused and subsequent purchasers was conducted through banking channels. This circumstance probabilises a bona fide transaction rather than a fraudulent one. PW8, the panch witness, merely spoke about the scene of offence panchanama /Ex.P12 and rough sketch/ Ex.P13. He admitted lack of knowledge about the dispute and his evidence is purely formal.
PW9, the Investigating Officer, admitted several lapses in investigation.
He admitted that he did not collect original documents, did not verify legal notices referred in the complaint, did not issue summons under Section 91
Cr.P.C for production of documents, did not obtain expert opinion regarding the alleged Donka, and did not compare boundaries of documents in a scientific manner. He further admitted that Ex.P2 does not mention delivery of possession and that he did not collect documentary proof of possession.
XVI AJMFC
Page 14 of 18 CC.No. 227 of 2019
Importantly, he admitted that boundaries in Ex.P2 and Ex.P14 /earlier sale deed of 2015 are identical. This admission demolishes the prosecution case that the accused misrepresented boundaries. The investigation appears to have proceeded on assumptions rather than concrete evidence.
18.Coming to documentary evidence, Ex.P2 /agreement of sale is a contractual document which does not contain any clause indicating fraudulent intention or delivery of possession. Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 only establish payment of amounts but do not prove that such payments were induced by deception.
Ex.P6 indicates continuation of contractual obligations rather than termination.
Ex.P3 and Ex.P7 show subsequent transactions, but mere subsequent sale does not establish cheating unless initial dishonest intention is proved. Ex.P12 and Ex.P13 do not establish deception. Ex.P14, on the contrary, supports the defence by showing identical boundaries. Ex.P15 /FIR being a court-referred
FIR has limited evidentiary value.
19.The entire evidence, when read as a whole, indicates that the dispute arises out of an agreement of sale, alleged boundary issue, and failure to execute sale deed, followed by sale to third parties. These are typical features of a civil dispute relating to enforcement of contractual rights. There is
XVI AJMFC
Page 15 of 18 CC.No. 227 of 2019 absolutely no evidence to show that at the time of entering into Ex.P2, the accused had dishonest intention to cheat the complainant. The law is clear that subsequent conduct or breach cannot retroactively establish initial fraudulent intention.
As regards Section 120-B IPC, there is no evidence whatsoever to establish any agreement between the accused to commit an illegal act. No witness has spoken about conspiracy, no circumstance suggests meeting of minds, and no document indicates coordinated illegal action. The charge of conspiracy is thus wholly unsubstantiated.
20.On cumulative appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, this
Court finds that the prosecution has failed to establish essential ingredients of both offences. The evidence of PWs suffers from contradictions, lack of corroboration, and admissions favouring the defence. The documentary evidence does not support the prosecution case. The investigation is defective and incomplete. The defence evidence, though minimal, probabilises a bona fide transaction.
21.In criminal jurisprudence, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt must always go to the
XVI AJMFC
Page 16 of 18 CC.No. 227 of 2019 accused. In the present case, not only does reasonable doubt arise, but the material on record positively indicates that the dispute is civil in nature.
Accordingly, this Court holds that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.
POINT NO.2:
22. In the result, Accused Nos.1 to 3 are found not guilty and are hereby acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the offences punishable under
Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period. There is no order as to property as seen from the record there is no case property, hence no specific order is passed in that regard.
Typed by the Stenographer, to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 27 hday of April, 2026.
XVI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
IBRAHIMPATNAM, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
XVI AJMFC
Page 17 of 18 CC.No. 227 of 2019
LIST OF PROSECUTION AND DEFENCE WITNESSES
A-PROSECUTION WITNESSES
PW1LW1Polepally KishanComplainant
PW2LW2Polepally JaganWitness
PW3LW3Nagilla BuchaiahWitness
PW4LW4Karingula ShankerWitness
PW5LW6Kanamoni Ashok Kumarcircumstantial witness,
PW6LW9Kontham Shekar Reddy Vendeeof8640/2021and 11680/2017 of SRO, Ibrahimpatnam
PW7LW11Kamidi Srinivas Reddy Vendeeof8640/2021and 11680/2017 of SRO, Ibrahimpatnam
PW8LW13Kanamoni JangaiahPanch for scene of offence
PW9LW16Mr. B. Venkataiah, SI of Investigating Officer Police, Yacharam
B- DEFENCE WITNESSES
-NIL-
LIST OF PROSECUTION AND DEFENCE EXHIBITS
A-PROSECUTION EXHIBITS
Exhibit.P1/PW106/10/2018 Complaint
Exhibit.P2/PW109/04/2016 Agreement of sale.
Exhibit.P3/PW123/10/2017 CC of Agreement of sale cum GPA.
Exhibit.P4/PW109/04/2016 Receipt for Rs.7,02,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Two thousand only).
Exhibit.P5/PW101/10/2016 Receipt for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only).
Exhibit.P6/PW101/10/2016 Oppanda Pathram cum Cash receipt.
XVI AJMFC
Page 18 of 18 CC.No. 227 of 2019
Exhibit.P7/PW116/12/2017 CC of Sale deed
Exhibit.P8/PW408/10/2018 Signature under witness in Sl.No.2.
Exhibit.P9/PW4-Signature under witness in Sl.No.2 on Ex.P4.
Exhibit.P10/PW6 25/10/2018 161 Cr.P.C statement of the PW6.
Exhibit.P11/PW7 25/10/2018 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW7.
Exhibit.P12/PW8 08/10/2018 Scene of offence panchanama
Exhibit.P13/PW8-Rough sketch.
Exhibit.P14/PW9 06/10/2018 True copy of the sale deed vide Doc.Br. No. 5310 of 2015 dated 01.06.2015.
Exhibit.P15/PW9 06/10/2018 First Information Report.
B-DEFENCE EXHIBITS
Exhibit.D1/PW718/10/2025 Bank statement
Exhibit.D2/PW723/01/2018 Copy of Cheque bearing No.675960
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
-NIL-
XVI ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
IBRAHIMPATNAM, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
XVI AJMFC