Smt.T.Madhavi

Page 1 of 5 C.C.No.570 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF XIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Present : Smt.T.Madhavi, XIII Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

On this Wednesday, the 18 th day of May, 2022

C.C.No.570 of 2017

Between:

The State of Telangana, Rep by,

P.S. W.P.S., C.C.S., D.D.,

Hyderabad....Complainant

AND

1. Tiruvengalaiah Suri, S/o.T.Chakrapani, Aged about 38 years, Occ: Pvt Employee at Tetran, R/o.H.No.49-486, Chinthal, Hyderabad, N/o.Epurupalem Village, Chirala Mandal,

Prakasham Dist, A.P. ...Accused No.1

This case is coming on before me on 16-05-2022 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State and counsel for the accused Sri.A.Hussain and after perusing the case record, this court delivered following:-

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

1.This is a case against sole accused for the offence u/Sec.498 A, 406, 506 of

Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act of police W.P.S.,

C.C.S., Hyderabad.

2.The defacto complainant filed complaint before this Court u/Sec.200 of

Cr.P.C before this Court and this Court referred the same to the police W.P.S.,

C.C.S., u/Sec.156(3) of Cr.P.C for investigation and report. The police received the same on 18.07.2012, basing on which a case in crime No.310 of 2012 was registered on 18.07.2012 for the offence u/Secs.498-A, 406, 506 of IPC and

Sections 4 and 6 of D.P.Act against accused No.1 to No.5. After completion of investigation Sub-Inspector of police W.P.S., C.C.S., Hyderabad filed charge sheet against A1 only for the offence u/Secs.498-A, 406, 506 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of D.P.Act by deleting the names of A2 to A5.

3.The brief case of the prosecution is that on 30.07.2006, the marriage between Lw1 and A1 was performed as per Hindu rites and customs. At that time

Page 2 of 5 C.C.No.570 of 2017

Lws2 and Lw3 gave 35 Savarla Gold and spent marriage expenditure to a tune of

Rs.1,00,000/- on the demand of A1. After marriage, they started their matrimonial life at the house of A1. Thereafter, they shifted to Prem Nagar,

Kairtabad for job purpose wherein A1 started harassing Lw1 physically and mentally for getting more dowry and also threatened her to put signatures on divorce papers also and then only he will return educational certificates of Lw1.

Apart from that the gold given by the parents of Lw1 was also misappropriated by

A1. Hence, this case.

4.This Court took cognizance on 21.10.2017 against A1 for the offence u/Secs.498 A, 406, 506 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of D.P.Act.

5.After appearance of the accused, copies u/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C were furnished to him and he is examined u/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C, charge for the offence u/Secs.498

A, 406, 506 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of DP Act was framed against accused, read over and explained to him in vernacular to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, prosecution has cited Lw1 to

Lw7. Lw4 and Lw6 are examined as Pw1 and Pw2 respectively. After completion of their evidence, the learned Asst.Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of

Lw1 to Lw3, Lw5 and Lw6 i.e., Smt.T.Bharathi (Lw1), Sri.Ch.Kodandapani (Lw2),

Smt.Ch.Bhaghyalakshmi (Lw3), Smt.P.Lalitha (Lw5) and Sri.K.Sudershan Reddy-

Sub-Inspector of Police, W.P.S., C.C.S., D.D., (Lw7). Hence, prosecution evidence is closed.

7.The accused were examined u/Sec.313(1)(b) Cr.P.C on the incriminating evidence spelt out by the prosecution witness for which they denied and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

9.Now the points for determination are:

1.Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused that the accused subjected Pw1 to cruelty by harassing her both mentally and physically by demanding additional dowry and thereby committed offence punishable u/Sec.498 A of IPC?

Page 3 of 5 C.C.No.570 of 2017

2.Whether the prosecution has proved that the accused committed Criminal Breach of Trust towards the defacto complainant/Lw1 and thereby committed an offence punishable u/Sec.406 of IPC?

3.Whether the prosecution has proved that the accused committed Criminal Intimidation towards the defacto complainant/Lw1 and thereby Committed an offence punishable u/Sec.506 of IPC?

4.Whether the prosecution is able to prove that the accused took net cash, gold, silver and other articles as dowry from the father of Pw1 and thereby committed an offence punishable U/sec.4 of D.P. Act?

5.Whether the prosecution is able to prove that the accused demanded dowry of net cash and other articles from the parents of Pw1 at the time of marriage and as per their demands, parents of Pw1 presented said dowry and thereby committed an offence punishable u/Sec.6 of Dowry Prohibition Act?

6.Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of both the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence U/sec.498 A, 406, 506 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act?

10. POINT Nos.1 to No.6:

The brief averments of the case of the prosecution is that on 30.07.2006, the marriage between Lw1 and A1 was performed as per Hindu rites and customs.

At that time Lws2 and Lw3 gave 35 Savarla Gold and spent marriage expenditure to a tune of Rs.1,00,000/- on the demand of A1. After marriage, they started their matrimonial life at the house of A1. Thereafter, they shifted to Prem Nagar,

Kairtabad for job purpose wherein A1 started harassing Lw1 physically and mentally for getting more dowry and also threatened her to put signatures on divorce papers also and then only he will return educational certificates of Lw1.

Apart from that the gold given by the parents of Lw1 was also misappropriated by

A1.

11.To prove the case of prosecution Lw4 entered into witness box as Pw1 and deposed that he knew Lw1 as she is sister of his colleague Narender. He had not attended the marriage. He used to visit the house of Narender, on one such visit,

Lw1 came to the house of Narender and told with her parents and brother that disputes were going on in her matrimonial life with her husband and others and they used to beat her. At that time, he was present in the house of Narender and heard the same. Narender also told with him that he wants to give complaint to police and asked him to accompany with him. Accordingly, they went to police station Nampally, C.C.S. Then, Lw1 gave complaint to the police.

Page 4 of 5 C.C.No.570 of 2017 11.1In the cross examination, by the counsel for the accused, Pw1 admitted that he is not having any personal knowledge on the matrimonial issues of Lw1 and whatever he stated in his chief was what he heard from Lw1 only. At present, he is not having any talking terms with Narender.

12.One of the Investigating Officer entered into witness box as Pw2 and deposed that he worked as S.I of Police, W.P.S., C.C.S., and on 18.05.2013, he took A1 into Custody at Kairtabad and remanded to Judicial Custody on the same day. He also recorded the statements of Lws2, Lw3 and Pw1.

12.1 In his cross examination by the counsel for accused, he deposed that except Pw1, no other independent witnesses came forward to give their statements. He denied a suggestion that one week after the marriage, Lw1 only left the society of accused and accused never harassed her.

13.Though the prosecution has cited Lws1 to Lw7 as witnesses, the prime witness i.e., victim and her parents have not turned up before this Court to give their evidence to strengthen the case of the prosecution. The examination of accused was conducted on 10.07.2019 and on the same day summons to Lw1 and

Lw2 were issued, but till 23.10.2019, Lws1 and Lw2 were not turned up. Hence, on that day, their evidence was closed. Even till today, neither the concerned police nor the defacto complainant/victim took any steps for reopening the evidence of prosecution by producing Lws1 and Lw2. If really Lw1 was a victim of the offence u/Secs.498-A, 406,506 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of D.P.Act., what prevented her to appear before this Court and establish her case. Though Pw1, who was cited as an eye witness deposed that he came to know through Lw1 that there were disputes in her matrimonial life and she was sent back from her in laws house. It is clear that he is not an eye witness either to the marriage of Lw1 with A1 or for presenting any dowry to the accused either at the time of marriage or after the marriage, or else, he is not an eye witness for demanding any

additional dowry after the marriage by any of the accused. Therefore, his evidence

is no where supporting the case of the prosecution. The evidence of Pw2 is also not enough to believe the case of the prosecution that at the time of marriage of

Pw1 and A1, certain dowry was demanded by the accused, it was fulfilled by the parents of Lw1, even though, there was harassment by demanding additional

Page 5 of 5 C.C.No.570 of 2017 dowry, the things of Lw1 was misappropriated by the accused and accused threatened Lw1 with dire consequences. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence

U/sec.498 A, 406 of IPC and sections 4 and 6 of D.P. Act.

14.In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offence u/Secs.498-A, 406, 506 of Indian Penal Cod3e and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Therefore, he is acquitted u/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C for the above section of law. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled and the unmarked property if any shall be given to Pw1 or the owner of the property after expiry of appeal time as if the case may be.

Typed to my dictation by the Copyist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this day the 18 th day of May, 2022.

Sd/-

XIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

Pw1 : Sri.E.Raj Kiran (Eye Witness) - Nil - Pw2 : Sri.Y.Sanjeeva, S.I of Police, W.P.S., C.C.S., D.D., (2nd I.O)

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

- NIL -

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

- NIL -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- NIL -

Sd/-

XIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

Page 1 of 5 C.C.No.12433 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF XIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Present : Smt.T.Madhavi, XIII Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

On this Thursday, the 19 th day of May, 2022

C.C.No.12433 of 2021

Between:

The State of Telangana, Rep by,

P.S. W.P.S., C.C.S., D.D.,

Hyderabad....Complainant

AND

1. Mohammed Fazal Ahmed, S/o.Mohd Mubarsheer Ahmed, Age: 38 years, Occ: Govt.Employee, R/o.H.No.6-2-314, Srinagar Colony, Nalgonda Dist,

T.S. ...Accused No.1

This case is coming on before me on 16-05-2022 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State and counsel for the accused, Sri.Mohd.Ismail, advocate and after perusing the case record, this court delivered following:-

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

This is a case against sole accused for the offence u/Secs.498 A, 406 of 1. Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act of police W.P.S.,

C.C.S., D.D., Hyderabad.

As per the brief averments of the chargesheet filed by the Inspector of Police, 2. W.P.S., C.C.S., D.D., Hyderabad, the defacto complainant gave complaint to police on 02.02.2021, basing on which a case in crime No.99 of 2021 was registered on 02.02.2021 for the offence u/Sec.498-A, 406 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act against Accused No.1 to A4. After completion of investigation

Inspector of police W.P.S., C.C.S., D.D., Hyderabad filed charge sheet against

Accused No.1 only by deleting the names of A2 to A4.

The gist of the case of the prosecution is that on 11.08.2017, the marriage 3. between Lw1 and A1 was solmenized as per Muslim Customs and Rites. Prior to marriage, itself, the elders of Lw1 reported that Lw1 has problem in her right hand since her childhood and they accepted the proposal. At the time of marriage, on

Page 2 of 5 C.C.No.12433 of 2021 the demand of A1, Lw2 presented cash of Rs.1,70,000/-, five tulas gold jewellry and performed marriage in grand scale. From the day of marriage, A1 started torturing Lw1 by demanding additional dowry and also subjected her to mental and physical torture. Due to unbearable harassment of accused, Lw1 lodged a complaint before WP.S Bharosa Center on 09.05.2018. After that, the health condition of mother of A1 was serious. Hence, Lw1 completely attended her mother in law and in September 2018, her mother in law died. After obtaining permanent job at Bhongir Court, A1 started demanding Rs.5,00,000/- by saying that he was in good position and anybody can give more than Rs.10,00,000/- as dowry, so he will go for second marriage. At the time of pregnancy of Lw1 also, A1 harassed her. In the month of April, 2020, Lw1 was sent out of the house. With the intervention of elders, Lw1 again joined A1, but, A1 increased the harassment and confined Lw1 in bathrom during night timings and used to beat her as he planned for second marriage. As Lw1 was unable to bare the harassment of the accused, she came to the parents house with clothes and all her valubale articles including gold jewellry are in the custody of A1.

This Court took cognizance against A1 on 19.07.2021 for the offence 4. u/Secs.498 A, 406 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act.

5.After appearance of the accused, copies u/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C were furnished to him and he was examined u/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C, charge for the offence u/Secs.498 A, 406 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act were framed, read over and explained to him in vernacular to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

In order to prove the case of the prosecution, prosecution has cited Lw1 to 6. Lw6. Lw1 and Lw2 are examined as Pw1 and Pw2. Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 are marked through them. As Pw1 and Pw2 turned hostile to the case of prosecution the learned Asst.Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of Lw3 to Lw6 i.e.,

Sri.Mohammed Irfan Khan (Lw3), Sri.Mohd.Rizwan Khan (Lw4), Sri.Mohammed

Muzaffar (Lw5) and Sri.Deeravath Hussain-Inspector of Police, W.P.S., C.C.S., Hyd (Lw6). Hence, prosecution evidence is closed.

7.As there is no incriminating material in the evidence of Pw1 against the accused, his examination u/Sec.313(1)(b) Cr.P.C was dispensed with.

Page 3 of 5 C.C.No.12433 of 2021

8.Heard both learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

9.Now the points for determination are:

1.Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused that the accused subjected Pw1 to cruelty by harassing her both mentally and physically by demanding additional dowry and thereby committed offence punishable u/Sec.498 A of IPC?

2.Whether the prosecution has proved that the accused committed Criminal Breach of Trust towards the defacto complainant/Lw1 and thereby committed an offence punishable u/Sec.406 of IPC?

3.Whether the prosecution has proved that the accused forced Lw2 to give dowry at the time of marriage and on his force Lw2 presented dowry by way of cash, gold and silver ornaments and thereby committed an offence punishable u/Sec.3 of D.P Act?

4.Whether the prosecution is able to prove that the accused took net cash, gold, silver and other articles as dowry from the father of Pw1 and thereby committed an offence punishable u/Sec.4 of D.P. Act?

5.Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of both the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence u/Sec.498 A, 406 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act?

10. POINT Nos.1 to No.5:

The brief averments of the case of the prosecution is on 11.08.2017, the marriage between Lw1 and A1 was solmenized as per Muslim Customs and Rites.

Prior to marriage, itself, the elders of Lw1 reported that Lw1 has problem in her right hand since her childhood and they accepted the proposal. At the time of marriage, on the demand of A1, Lw2 presented cash of Rs.1,70,000/-, five tulas gold jewellry and performed marriage in grand scale. From the day of marriage,

A1 started torturing Lw1 by demanding additional dowry and also subjected her to mental and physical torture. Due to unbearable harassment of accused, Lw1 lodged a complaint before WP.S Bharosa Center on 09.05.2018. After that, the health condition of mother of A1 was serious. Hence, Lw1 completely attended her mother in law and in September 2018, her mother in law died. After obtaining permanent job at Bhongir Court, A1 started demanding Rs.5,00,000/- by saying that he was good position and anybody can give more than

Rs.10,00,000/- as per dowry, so he will go for second marriage. At the time of pregnancy of Lw1 also, A1 harassed her. In the month of April, 2020, Lw1 was sent out of the house. With the meeting of elders, Lw1 again joined A1, but, A1

Page 4 of 5 C.C.No.12433 of 2021 increased the harassment and confined Lw1 in bathrom during night timings and used to beat her as he planned for second marriage. As Lw1 was unable to bare the harassment of the accused, she came to the parents house with clothes and all her valubale articles including gold jewellry are in the custody of A1.

11.To prove her case, Lw1 entered into witness box as Pw1 and stated in her chief examination that her marriage with accused was performed on 11.08.2018 and they are not blessed with any issues. Because of disputes in between herself and accused, she filed a complaint before the police. She is having no grievance against the accused. She is withdrawing all the allegations made against the accused in the statement given before the police and also in her complaint under

Ex.P1 as they entered into Memorandum of Settlement dated 13.01.2022 and also obtained Khula from the accused on 18.01.2022. Hence, she don’t want to continue this case and prayed to close the case without any action against the accused. She compromised the matter and don’t want to proceed further.

11.1 At this stage, at the request of learned Asst.P.P she was declared as hostile and in her cross examination by the Asst.P.P she denied the contents of her 161

Cr.P.C statement under Ex.P2.

12.Lw2, mother of Pw1 entered into witness box as Pw2 and deposed on the same lines as deposed by Pw1 and as she also turned hostile to the case of prosecution, in her cross examination by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, her 161 Cr.P.C statement under Ex.P3 was marked.

13.It is clearly showing that Pw1 compromised the matter with the accused out the Court. She filed xerox copy of Memorandum of Settlement executed on 13.01.2022 and also xerox copy of Aadhar Card in proof of her identity.

Therefore, in view of the compromise, the prosecution witnesses failed to support the case of prosecution. Hence, the Court came to the conclusion that prosecution failed to elicit any incriminating material on record against the accused with regard to the offences alleged against him in the charge sheet.

Therefore, there is no necessity to discuss each point separately in depth. Hence, they are clubbed together for answering. In the above said facts and circumstances, this Court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt

Page 5 of 5 C.C.No.12433 of 2021 of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence u/Sec.498 A, 406 of

IPC and sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act.

14.In the result, accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offence u/Sec.498-A, 406 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Therefore, he is acquitted u/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C for the above section of law. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled and the unmarked property if any shall be given to Pw1 or the owner of the property after expiry of appeal time as if the case may be.

Directly typed to the dictation by Copyist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this day the 19 th day of May, 2022.

sd/-

XIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION

Pw1 : Smt.Farheen Begum @ Farheen Fatima (Defacto Complainant) Pw2 : Smt.Mohammed Begum (Mother of Pw1)

FOR DEFENCE : - Nil -

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 - Complaint before the PS W.P.S,C.C.S., D.D., Hyderabad.

Ex.P2 - 161 Cr.P.C Statement of Pw1.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

- NIL -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- NIL -

sd/-

XIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

Page 1 of 5 C.C.No.4569 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF XIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Present : Smt.T.Madhavi, XIII Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

On this Thursday, the 19 th day of May, 2022

C.C.No.4569 of 2019

Between:

The State of Telangana, Rep by,

P.S. W.P.S., C.C.S., D.D.,

Hyderabad....Complainant

AND

1. Madhukar Manohar Ingale, S/o.Manohar Kashinath Ingale, Aged 52 Years, Occ: Pvt.Service,

2. Smt.Laxmi Manohar Ingale, W/o.Manohar Kashinath Ingale, Aged 78 years, Occ: Housewife,

3. Sudhakar Manohar Ingale, S/o.Manohar Kashinath Ingale, Aged 46 years, Occ: Pvt.Service,

All are R/o. Manolaxmi, Rajaram Housing Society Limited,

Jedhenagar, Bebvewadi, Pune....Accused No.1 to No.3

This case is coming on before me on 11-05-2022 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State and counsel for the accused and after perusing the case record, this court delivered following:-

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

This is a case against accused A1 to A3 for the offence u/Secs.498 A of 1. Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act of police W.P.S.,

C.C.S., D.D., Hyderabad.

As per the brief averments of the chargesheet filed by the Inspector of Police, 2. W.P.S., C.C.S., D.D., Hyderabad, the defacto complainant gave complaint to police on 10.05.2017, basing on which a case in crime No.265 of 2017 was registered on 10.05.2017 for the offence u/Sec.498-A of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry

Prohibition Act against Accused No.1 to A4. After completion of investigation Sub

Inspector of police W.P.S., C.C.S., D.D., Hyderabad filed charge sheet against

Accused No.1 to No.3 by deleting the name of A4.

Page 2 of 5 C.C.No.4569 of 2019

The gist of the case of the prosecution is that A1 and Lw1 marriage was 3. performed on 16.05.1993 as per Hindu Rites and Customs and it was arranged one. At the time of marriage, the parents of Lw1 presented gold ornaments worth 5 tulas i.e., ring, chain, necklace and ear rings and other household articles. They lived happily for 1 ½ year and A1 was working as Assistant Manager in Raja Shree

Shahu Sahakari Cooperative Bank Limited at Shukaravapet, Pune. On 03.02.2017, Lw1 called A1 to ask about the time of returning home, at that time,

A3 took A1’s phone and started threatening and abusing Lw1. When Lw1 returned home, A3 beat her in front of A1 and A2, due to which she sustained fracture on her left thumb and index fingers. A1 encouraged A3 to beat Lw1 again and again. Second time also, A3 beat her for which, she took treatment in

Sahyadri. She informed the same to her parents who are staying at Hyderabad.

On 08.02.2017, Lws2 and Lw3 went to A1’s house, but A1 to A3 scolded them also by demanding additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-. They expressed their inability.

But A1 to A3 mercilessly thrown out the things of Lw1 from their house. Hence, she came back to her parents house. A1 made phone calls to Lw1 from his office phone and threatened with dire consequences that if Lw1 lodged police complaint against him and his family members, then he will kill her by engaging anti social gundas and also threatened her to come to Pune immediately. Otherwise, he will give divorce notice to her.

This Court took cognizance against A1 to A3 for the offence u/Secs.498 A of 4. IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of D.P.Act.

5.After appearance of the accused, copies u/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C were furnished to them and they were examined u/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C, charge for the offence u/Sec.498 A of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of DP Act were framed, read over and explained to them in vernacular to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

In order to prove the case of the prosecution, prosecution has cited Lw1 to 6. Lw10. Lw1 and Lw2 are examined as Pw1 and Pw2. Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 are marked through them. As Pw1 and Pw2 turned hostile to the case of prosecution the learned Asst.Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of Lw3 to Lw10 i.e.,

Sri.B.Shyamsundar Sharma (Lw3), Smt.B.Jyothi (Lw4), Smt.Asha Kapse (Lw5),

Smt.Kalpana Kishore Damodar (Lw6), Vidya Vijay Khetekar (Lw7),

Sri.K.Sudershan Reddy-S.I of Police, W.P.S., C.C.S., Hyd (Lw8), Sri.G.Ravinder-SI

Page 3 of 5 C.C.No.4569 of 2019 of Police, W.P.S., D.D., (Lw9) and Sri.S.Abhishek Reddy-SI of Police, W.P.S., D.D.,

Hyderabad (Lw10). Hence, prosecution evidence is closed.

7.As there is no incriminating material in the evidence of Pw1 against the accused, their examination u/Sec.313(1)(b) Cr.P.C was dispensed with.

8.Heard both learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

9.Now the points for determination are:

1.Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused that the accused subjected Pw1 to cruelty by harassing her both mentally and physically by demanding additional dowry and thereby committed offence punishable u/Sec.498 A of IPC?

2.Whether the prosecution is able to prove that the accused took net cash, gold, silver and other articles as dowry from the father of Pw1 and thereby committed an offence punishable u/Sec.4 of D.P. Act?

3.Whether the prosecution is able to prove that the accused demanded dowry of net cash and other articles from the parents of Pw1 at the time of marriage and as per their demands, parents of Pw1 presented said dowry and thereby committed an offence punishable u/Sec.6 of Dowry Prohibition Act?

4.Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of both the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence u/Sec.498 A of IPC and sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act?

10. POINT Nos.1 to No.4:

The brief averments of the case of the prosecution is A1 and Lw1 marriage was performed on 16.05.1993 as per Hindu Rites and Customs and it was arranged one. At the time of marriage, the parents of Lw1 presented gold ornaments worth 5 tulas i.e., ring, chain, necklace and ear rings and other household articles. They lived happily for 1 ½ year and A1 was working as

Assistant Manager in Raja Shree Shahu Sahakari Cooperative Bank Limited at

Shukaravapet, Pune. On 03.02.2017, Lw1 called A1 to ask about the time of returning home, at that time, A3 took A1’s phone and started threatening and abusing Lw1. When Lw1 returned home, A3 beat her in front of A1 and A2, due to which she sustained fracture on her left thumb and index fingers. A1 encouraged

A3 to beat Lw1 again and again. Second time also, A3 beat her for which, she took treatment in Sahyadri. She informed the same to her parents who are staying at Hyderabad. On 08.02.2017, Lws2 and Lw3 went to A1’s house, but A1

Page 4 of 5 C.C.No.4569 of 2019 to A3 scolded them also by demanding additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-. They expressed their inability. But A1 to A3 mercilessly thrown out the things of Lw1 from their house. Hence, she came back to her parents house. A1 made phone calls to Lw1 from his office phone and threatened with dire consequences that if

Lw1 lodged police complaint against him and his family members, then he will kill her by engaging anti social gundas and also threatened her to come to Pune immediately. Otherwise, he will give divorce notice to her.

11.To prove her case, Lw1 entered into witness box as Pw1 and stated in her chief examination that her marriage with accused was performed on 16.05.1993 and they blessed with two sons. She gave complaint before the police under Ex.P1 as there were some disputes between her and accused. They have been living separately since past 05 years and they are intending to take divorce on mutual consent which was already filed and pending before the Hon’ble Family Court,

Pune and after closing of this case only it will be closed. Therefore, she don’t want to proceed with the case and requested to close the case against the accused.

11.1 At this stage, at the request of learned Asst.P.P she was declared as hostile and in her cross examination by the Asst.P.P she denied the contents of her 161

Cr.P.C statement under Ex.P2.

12.Lw2, father of Pw1 entered into witness box as Pw2 and deposed on the same lines as deposed by Pw1 and as he also turned hostile to the case of prosecution, in his cross examination by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, his 161 Cr.P.C statement under Ex.P3 was marked.

13.It clearly showing that Pw1 compromised the matter with the accused out of

Court. Therefore, in view of the compromise, the prosecution witnesses failed to support the case of prosecution. Hence, the Court came to the conclusion that prosecution failed to elicit any incriminating material on record against the accused with regard to the offences alleged against them in the charge sheet.

Therefore, there is no necessity to discuss each point separately in depth. Hence, they are clubbed together for answering. In the above said facts and circumstances, this Court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence u/Sec.498 A of IPC and sections 4 and 6 of D.P. Act.

Page 5 of 5 C.C.No.4569 of 2019

14.In the result, accused No.1 to No.3 are found not guilty for the offence u/Sec.498-A of Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Therefore, they are acquitted u/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C for the above section of law.

The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled and the unmarked property if any shall be given to Pw1 or the owner of the property after expiry of appeal time as if the case may be.

Directly typed to the dictation by Copyist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this day the 19 th day of May, 2022.

Sd/-

XIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

Pw1 : Smt.Vijaya Madhukar Ingale (Defacto Complainant)- Nil - Pw2 : Sri.Bidarkar Pandarinath Sharma (Father of Lw1)

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 - Complaint before the PS W.P.S,C.C.S Hyderabad.

Ex.P2 - 161 Cr.P.C Statement of Pw1. Ex.P3 - 161 Cr.P.C Statement of Pw2 .

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

- NIL -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- NIL -

Sd/-

XIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

Page 1 of 5 C.C.No.16161 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF XIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Present : Smt.T.Madhavi, XIII Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

On this Thursday, the 19 th day of May, 2022

C.C.No.16161 of 2019

Between:

The State of Telangana, Rep by,

P.S. W.P.S., C.C.S., D.D.,

Hyderabad....Complainant

AND

1. Shakeel Qureshi, S/o.Haneef Qureshi, Aged 47 years, Occ: Doctor,

2. Smt.Naseem Fatima @ Shahnaz, W/o.Haneef Qureshi, Aged 60 years, Occ: Housewife,

3. Haneef Qureshi, Occ: Pensioner,

All are R/o Yousuf Colony, near Yousufia Masjid,

Prabhani, Maharashtra State....Accused No.1 to No.3

This case is coming on before me on 16-05-2022 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State and counsel for the accused Sri.K.Muralidhar and after perusing the case record, this court delivered following:-

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

1.This is a case against accused No.1 to 3 for the offence u/Sec.498 A, 406 of

Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act of police W.P.S.,

C.C.S., D.D., Hyderabad.

2.As per the brief averments of the chargesheet filed by the Sub Inspector of

Police, W.P.S., C.C.S., Hyderabad, the defacto complainant gave complaint to the police on 16.06.2019, basing on which a case in crime No.358 of 2019 was registered on 18.06.2019 for the offence u/Secs.498-A, 406 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act against Accused No.1 to No.3. After completion of investigation S.I of Police W.P.S., C.C.S., D.D., Hyderabad filed charge sheet against A1 to A3.

3.The brief case of the prosecution is that on 08.07.2018, the marriage

Page 2 of 5 C.C.No.16161 of 2019 between Lw1 and A1 was performed as per Muslim Rights and Customs. At the time of marriage, on the demand of the A1 to A3, the parent of Lw1 presented 15 tulas of gold jewelery and all household articles including furniture, electronic items and performed marriage in grand scale. After marriage Lw1 joined the company of A1 at Golkonda. A1 is a doctor. Immediately, after marriage A1 to a3 started harassing Lw1 over petty issues and scolding her that they are not satisfied with the dowry which was given by the parents of Lw1 in the marriage.

A1 also started demanding additional amount of rupees 2 Lakhs from her parents, but her parents are very poor and belongs to beggar family. Hence, A1 started beating and using filthy language towards Lw1. A2 and A3 used to treat Lw1 as servant. Due to mental agony Lw1 was unable to sleep. A1 is very fickle minded person and not allowed Lw1 to talk with her parents on phone. He used to harass her physically and mentally for entire night. Lw1 brought the same to the notice of elders and infront of elders A1 to A3 sought for compromise. Hence, Lw1 again stayed in the house of accused till September 2018 but again harassment was started due to which Lw1 was forced to leave the house of accused on 02.09.2018.

A1 cheated her by not informing that he was already married twice, not revealed that he cannot begot child as he has some deformity in his body. A1 sold her articles including furniture given in the marriage.

4. This Court took cognizance against A1 to A3 for the offence u/Sec.498

A, 406 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of D.P.Act.

5.After appearance of the accused, copies u/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C were furnished to him and he was examined u/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C, charge for the offence u/Sec.498 A, 406 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of D.P.Act were framed against A1 to A3, read over and explained to them in vernacular to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, prosecution has cited Lw1 to

Lw4. The evidence of Lw1 is examined as Pw1 exhibit P1 complaint marked in her chief examination, as she turned hostile to the case of prosecution, in her cross examination by the APP exhibit P2, her 161 statement was marked. The learned

APP has given up the evidence of Lws2 to Lw4. Hence prosecution evidence is closed. As there is no incriminating material against the accused in the evidence of Pw1. Hence, their examination u/Sec.313(1)(b) Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

Page 3 of 5 C.C.No.16161 of 2019

7.Heard both learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

8.Now the point for determination is:

1.Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused that the accused subjected Pw1 to cruelty by harassing her both mentally and physically by demanding additional dowry and there by committed offence punishable u/Sec.498 A of IPC?

2.Whether the prosecution has proved that the accused committed Criminal Breach of Trust towards the defacto complainant/Lw1 and thereby committed an offence punishable u/Sec.406 of IPC?

3.Whether the prosecution is able to prove that the accused took net cash, gold silver and other articles as dowry from the father of Pw1 and thereby committed an offence punishable u/Sec.4 of D.P.Act?

4.Whether the prosecution is able to prove that the accused demanded dowry of net cash and other articles from the parents of Pw1 at the time of marriage and as per their demands, parents of Pw1 presented said dowry and thereby committed an offence punishable u/Sec.6 of Dowry Prohibition Act?

5.Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A1 to A3 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence u/Sec.498 A, 406 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act?

9. POINT Nos.1 to No.5:

The brief case of the prosecution is that on 08.07.2018, the marriage between Lw1 and A1 was performed as per Muslim Rights and Customs. At the time of marriage, on the demand of the A1 to A3, the parent of Lw1 presented 15 tulas of gold jewelery and all household articles including furniture, electronic items and performed marriage in grand scale. After marriage Lw1 joined the company of A1 at Golkonda. A1 is a doctor. Immediately, after marriage A1 to a3 started harassing Lw1 over petty issues and scolding her that they are not satisfied with the dowry which was given by the parents of Lw1 in the marriage.

A1 also started demanding additional amount of rupees 2 Lakhs from her parents, but her parents are very poor and belongs to beggar family. Hence, A1 started beating and using filthy language towards Lw1. A2 and A3 used to treat Lw1 as servant. Due to mental agony Lw1 was unable to sleep. A1 is very fickle minded person and not allowed Lw1 to talk with her parents on phone. He used to harass her physically and mentally for entire night. Lw1 brought the same to the notice of elders and infront of elders A1 to A3 sought for compromise. Hence, Lw1 again

Page 4 of 5 C.C.No.16161 of 2019 stayed in the house of accused till September 2018 but again harassment was started due to which Lw1 was forced to leave the house of accused on 02.09.2018.

A1 cheated her by not informing that he was already married twice, not revealed that he cannot begot child as he has some deformity in his body. A1 sold her articles including furniture given in the marriage.

10.To prove her case, Lw1 entered into witness box as Pw1 and stated in her chief examination that her marriage with A1 was performed on 08.07.2018, due to some disputes she gave complaint to the police, but now she has no greivance against the accused as after 3 months of marriage they have been living separately and obtained Khula from the accused No.1 on 24.10.2020 and requested to close the case against all the accused without any action.

10.1 At this stage, at the request of learned Asst.P.P she was declared as hostile and in her cross examination by the Asst.P.P she denied the contents of her 161

Cr.P.C statement under Ex.P2.

11.It clearly showing that Pw1 has compromised the case out of the Court and obtained Kula and now she dont want to proceed further against the accused. As there is no incriminating material or evidence against the accused, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilty of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under sectons 498-A, 406 of IPC and Sec.4 and 6 of D.P.act. Points No.1 to No.5 are answered accordingly.

12.In the result, accused No.1 to No.3 are found not guilty for the offence u/Sec.498-A, 406 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition

Act. Therefore, they are acquitted u/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C for the above section of law. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled and the unmarked property if any shall be given to Pw1 or the owner of the property after expiry of appeal time as if the case may be.

Typed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this day the 19 th day of May, 2022.

Sd/-

XIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

Page 5 of 5 C.C.No.16161 of 2019

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

Pw1 : Smt.Fouziya Begum (Defacto Complainant) - Nil -

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 - Complaint before the PS W.P.S,C.C.S Hyderabad.

Ex.P2 - 161 Cr.P.C Statement of Pw1.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

- NIL -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- NIL -

Sd/-

XIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

C.C.No.555 of 2015

Date:02-11-2021

1 of 6

IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

(MAHILA COURT) : HYDERABAD

PRESENT: SMT. T.MADHAVI

XIII ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Dated this the Tuesday 2nd day of NOVEMBER, 2021

C.C. No. 555/2015

Between:

The State of Telangana represented through The Sub-Inspector of Police,

PS WPS,CCS, Hyderabad. ... Complainant

AND

A1Pankaj Hosali, S/o.Saibanna Age: 34 years, Occ: Software Engineer.

A2 Saibanna, S/o. Hanumanth Rao Age: 61 years, Occ: Business.

A3Smt. Sridevi, W/o. Saibanna, Age: 53 years, Occ: Housewife

A4Prashanth Hosali, S/o. Saibanna, Age : 30 years, Occ: Software Engineer

All R/o. H.No. 11-6-842/124, Flat No. 5th Floor, Star Srinivas Complex, near Shah Function Hall, Red Hills, Nampally Hyderabad.

....Accused

This case is coming before me on 29-10-2021 for fnal hearing in the presence of L & A Legal Associates, Advocate and Asst. Public Prosecutor and the matter having heard and stood over for consideration till this day , this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1.The Criminal Law was set into motion on fling a complaint by the de-facto complainant /LW1 on 18-04-2014, basing on which a case in Cr.

No.142/2014 was registered on 18-04-2014 against A1 to A4 for the

C.C.No.555 of 2015

Date:02-11-2021

2 of 6 offences u/secs.498AA,, 323, 506 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act.

After completing investigation the Sub-Inspector of Police, WPS, CCS fled Charge Sheet and the same was taken on fle on 08-09-2015 against

A1 to A4 for the the offence u/Secs.498AA,, 323, 506 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2.The sum and substance of the case of the prosecution is that, the marriage between A1 and LW1 was performed on 18-05-2011 at

Karimnagar. At the time of marriage, the father of LW1 presented Rs.10 lakhs, 30 tulas gold on the demands of all accused. After marriage LW1 went with A1. Then after few months of her marriage LW1 got pregnancy and A1 harassed her to go for abortion and do job. Parents and one brother of A1 insisting to go for abortion and work. Then she worked in

ICICI and HDFC banks before the birth of her child. As she gave birth to girl baby child they harassed her for money and also suspected the child that child not belongs to A1. They also pinpointed the character of LW1 and insisted her leave their house. As she became sick she went to her mothers house. When she came back to the house of the accused, they all thrown her luggage and her, out of house. They also made a telephone call to her father to take back her to their house. They also beat her several times and threaten to kill her.

3.On appearance of the all accused, copies of documents were furnished to them U/sec.207Cr.P.C. and all the accused were examined u/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. for the offence u/Secs. 498A, 323, 506 of IPC and

Sec.3 and 4 of D.P. Act and charges were framed, read over and

C.C.No.555 of 2015

Date:02-11-2021

3 of 6 explained to him in vennacular to which they denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.In support the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has cited

LW1 as PW1 and Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are marked through her. As she turned hostile to the case of prosecution. The learned APP requested permission to declare her as hostile. Learned App given up the evidence of the remaining witnesses i.e. LW2-Sri.G. Ramanna, LW3-G.Anitha, LW4-

M.Srinivas, LW5-Archana, LW6-Sri. N.Prabhakar, LW7-Sri.V.Mahesh,

LW8-Dr.D.Monahar, LW9-D.Nippu, LW10-Sri.K.Satyanarayana, SI of

Police, IO and fled the charge sheet.

5.After closure of prosecution evidence, as there is no incriminating material appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses against the accused, hence the examination of accused U/s.313A1,A1, Cr.P.C. is dispensed with. Accused reported no Defence Evidence. Hence defence evidence is also closed.

6.Heard the learned APP and counsel for the accused. Perused the record.

7.Now the points for consideration is:

Ai, whether the accused beat, threatening and harass PW1 to and their acts are attracting the provisions 498A, 323, 506 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4

C.C.No.555 of 2015

Date:02-11-2021

4 of 6 of D.P. Act. Whether prosecution are proved the guilt of all the accused for the said offence beyond reasonable doubt.

8. Section 498-A IPC : “Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fne.” Explanation :- For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” means - Aa, any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health Awhether mental or physical, of the woman ; or Ab, harassment of the woman 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.”

Section 323 IPC : “Whoever, except in the case provided for by Section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fre or any heated substance or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into blood, or by means of any animal,m shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fne, or with both. “

Section 506 IPC : “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 fne, or with both.”

Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 : “This Section is relating to the offences of giving or taking of dowry is being amended in accordance with the recommendations of the Joint Committee to make the punishment for the offence more stringent. All presents given at the time of marriage to the bride and certain types of presents given at the time of marriage to the bridegroom are proposed to be excluded from the purview of the offences under the Section. However, the recommendations of the Committee for exempting the giver of dowry from punishment is not being given effect to as such exemption may only prove to be counter-productive.”

Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 : “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 extent to two years and with fne which may extend to ten thousand rupees.”

9.As issue raised by the prosecution on the matrimonial life of LW1 /PW1 and A1 interlinked with each other. The above said sections are clubbed together and answered having no repetitions the instances and save the time.

C.C.No.555 of 2015

Date:02-11-2021

5 of 6

10.Though the de-facto complainant raised her voice through her complaint Ex.P1, her statement u/sec.161 Cr.P.C. but before the open court as PW1 took u-turn to the allegation saying that no grievance against all the accused . Withdrawn all the allegations made against the accused in the statement given before the police and also in her complaint Ex.P1. As they have been living together along with her daughter and compromised the matter and accordingly they entered into

Memo of Understanding on 28-08-2021. In her chief examination of APP she also denied her statement u/sec.161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P2. In the said circumstances, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilty of the acuused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences alleged against them in the charge sheet. Therefore all the accused found not guilty and for the offence u/Secs. 498A, 323, 506 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P. Act.

Point is answered accordingly.

11.In the result, accused are found not guilty for the offences under

Sections 498-A, 323, 506 of IPC & Sections 3 & 4 ofDowry Prohibition

Act and hence they are acquitted under Section 248A1, Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of the A1 to A4 shall stands cancelled and the sureties are discharged after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked property if any shall be disposed off/given to owner of the property, after expiry of appeal time of the case.

C.C.No.555 of 2015

Date:02-11-2021

6 of 6

Dictated to the Stenographer, translated and typed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day of 2nd Day of November, 2021.

Sd/-

XIII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE: WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR:

PROSECUTION:DEFENCE:

PW-1 : Smt. Praveen -Nil- Defacto complainant / victim.

EXHIBITS MARKED F OR: PROSECUTION: DEFENCE :

Ex.P1 : Report fled by PW-1. Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-1.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR:

Nil

Sd/-

XIII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.