Sri.T.Murali Mohan

II Addl Senior Civil Judge-cum- Addl Chief Judicial Magistrate at Malkajgiri

Malkajgiri, PDJ Court Complex · Medchal Malkajgiri · Telangana

Sri.T.Murali Mohan, II Addl Senior Civil Judge-cum- Addl Chief Judicial Magistrate at Malkajgiri, is posted at Malkajgiri, PDJ Court Complex, Medchal Malkajgiri, Telangana, India. 707 court orders on record since 2022. 14 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, EP cases.

707

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/2261/2023 Acquitted

State of Telangana Through Bachupally vs Pandiri Swamy

03 Oct 2024

Page No.1 of 10 Dated 03.10.2024

IN THE COURT OF THE PRI. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM – XI ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL

FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, MEDHCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT, AT KUKATPALLY.

PRESENT: T. MURALI MOHAN, Prl. Junior Civil Judge -cum- XI Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally

Dated this the 3rd Day of October, 2024

CC.No. 2261 of 2023

Between: The State of Telangana represented by SHO of PS - Bachupally. …Complainant AND

1. Pandiri Swamy, S/o. Lakshman, Age: 25 Years, Occ: Mason Labour Work, R/o. Nera Pochamma Temple, BC Colony, Mallampet Village, Dundigal, N/o. Varni X Roads, Anand Nagar, Nizamabad District.

2. Smt. Raheema Begum, W/o. Anwar, Age: 44 Years, Occ: Labour, R/o. Near Pochamma Temple, BC Colony, Mallampet Village, Dundigal Mandal of Medchal Dsitrict. …Accused Nos.1 and 2

This case is coming on this day before me final hearing on 30.09.2024 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri B. Ramulu, Legal Aid Counsel, for the accused and upon perusal of the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

The state represented through the Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Bachupally has filed a charge sheet against A1 and A2 in Cr.No.549/2023 of P.S Bachupally for the offence punishable under sections 457 and 380 of Indian Penal Code.

2.The averments of the charge sheet in brief are that on 02.09.2023 at 1130 hours, Sri G. Ratna Raju, resident of Gagilapur Village, Dundigal has filed a report

before the police stating that he has been running “Aqua Guard Water Servicing

CC.No. 2261 of 2023 PJCJ-CUM-XI JFCM,

Med-Mkg Dist at Kukatpally

Page No.2 of 10 Dated 03.10.2024

Center” at Plot No.288/D, Pardihar Nivas, Near Jagan Studio, Pragathinagar. On 29.08.2023 at about 1930 hours, he locked the main door of his service center and went to his home and on the next day i.e., 30.08.2023 at about 0830 hours he noticed the lock of the main door of his service center was broke opened and on his search he noticed his Lennova Laptop and Charger was committed theft.

3.The above report was registered as a case in Cr.No.549 of 2023, U/sec.379

IPC IPC and issued FIR by LW7/Sri G. Ramesh, Sub Inspector of police and entrusted the investigation to PW6. During the course of investigation PW6 examined and recorded the statement of PW1 and altered the section from 379 IPC to 457 and 380

IPC and proceeded to the scene where he secured the presence of PW2 and PW3 and conducted scene of offence panchanama and also drawn rough sketch map of the scene. Later, he handed over CD file to PW7. While so, PW7 came to know that

A1 and A2 were arrested by the police Dundigal in connection with crime

No.599/2023 of PS Dundigal and recorded the confession panchanama of A1 and A2 in the presence of PW4 and LW5/B. Ajay in which A1 and A2 confessed to have committed the said offence along with other offences including this case, therefore, police Dundigal have recorded confession panchanama of A1 and A2 and seized the case property at the instance of A1 and A2, therefore, PW7 filed PT warrant against the accused and produced them before this court on execution of PT warrant and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.

4.Basing on the charge sheet filed by the police, the case was taken on file for the offence U/sec.457 and 380 of IPC against the accused.

CC.No. 2261 of 2023 PJCJ-CUM-XI JFCM,

Med-Mkg Dist at Kukatpally

Page No.3 of 10 Dated 03.10.2024

5.On appearance of the accused, copies of the case documents as required under section 207 Cr.P.C were furnished to them. The accused were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. A charge for the offence punishable U/sec. 457 and 380 of IPC was framed under section 240 (1) Cr.P.C. The charge was read over and explained to them under section 240 (2) Cr.P.C to which they denied and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12. The defense did not examine any witnesses and no exhibits were got marked on his behalf.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C on the incriminating material appeared against them, to which they denied and reported no evidence to be adduced on their behalf.

8.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused

beyond reasonable doubt ?

9.The case of the prosecution is that A1 and A2 have caused lurking house trespass during night in Aqua Guard Water Servicing Center of PW1 and committed theft of Lennova Laptop and Charger. The prosecution in order to establish this case against the accused has relied upon the testimonies of PW1 to PW7. The

Defacto complainant is examined as PW1. The panchas for the scene of offence panchanama were examined as PW2 and PW3. The panch for confession cum seizure panchanama was examined as PW4. The investigation officers were examined as PW5 to PW7.

CC.No. 2261 of 2023 PJCJ-CUM-XI JFCM,

Med-Mkg Dist at Kukatpally

Page No.4 of 10 Dated 03.10.2024

10.On appreciation of the evidence of PW1 which categorically discloses that on 29.08.2020 after the business hours, he closed his “Aqua Guard Water Servicing

Center” at Pragathinagar and on the next day i.e., 30.08.2020 when he came to the service center he noticed the shop lock was broke opened and on his search he found that his Laptop charger kept in his office were committed theft by unknown persons, therefore, he filed a report before the police which is marked as Ex.P1.

11.On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused contended that the evidence of PW1 is cannot be admitted against the accused as the evidence of PW1 does not establish the identity of the accused and also the prosecution has failed to link this case with the accused.

12.As submitted by the learned counsel for the accused the evidence of PW1 though discloses regarding the alleged commission of theft of laptop charger from the service centre of PW1 but the evidence of PW1 does not establish the identity of the person who alleged to have committed theft of the said charger, therefore, in order to link the evidence of PW1 with the other material evidence on record, the prosecution has relied on the testimonies of the other witnesses who are examined as PW2 to PW7.

13.The evidence of PW5 categorically establish that on 30.07.2023 A1 and A2 were apprehended and recorded their confession panchanama in the presence of

PW4 and LW5/B. Ajay in which A1 and A2 confessed to have committed the said offence along with other offences under different jurisdictions of police stations and also the present case, therefore, the confession panchanama of A1 and A2 is

CC.No. 2261 of 2023 PJCJ-CUM-XI JFCM,

Med-Mkg Dist at Kukatpally

Page No.5 of 10 Dated 03.10.2024 recorded and seized the case property i.e., Lennova Laptop and Charger in this case from the possession of the accused under a seizure report. The prosecution in support of the evidence of PW5 has relied on the testimony of PW4 who is examined as one of the panch cum seizure panchanama of A1 and A2 but PW4 has failed to support to the case of the prosecution, as a result, the learned APP as declared the

PW4 as hostile, therefore, in the absence of independent evidence, the evidence of

PW5 is found not helpful to the prosecution case in establishing the seizure of alleged case property from the possession of the accused.

14.So apart from the evidence of PW1, PW4 and PW5 the other material evidence available on record the testimonies of PW2 and PW3 and PW6 and PW7.

The evidence of PW2 who is examined as one of the panch scene of offence panchanama which categorically disclose regarding the scene of offence panchanama conducted by PW6 but PW3 failed to support to the case of the prosecution, therefore, the evidence of PW3 declared as hostile. The evidence of

PW2 though corroborated with the evidence of PW6 but as discussed above the evidence of PW1, PW5 does not establish the identity of the person who alleged to have committed the theft of Laptop and Charger and as the prosecution failed to link the present case with the accused, this court is of considered opinion that the evidence of PW2, PW6 and PW7 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution.

15.So, considering the discussion made above, this court is of considered opinion that there is no substantial and cogent evidence on record to hold that the accused have committed theft of Lennova Laptop and Charger from the service center of

CC.No. 2261 of 2023 PJCJ-CUM-XI JFCM,

Med-Mkg Dist at Kukatpally

Page No.6 of 10 Dated 03.10.2024

PW1, therefore, this court held that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt a reasonable doubt.

In the result, A1 and A2 found not guilty for the offence, U/sec.457 and 380 of

IPC, accordingly, A1 and A2 are acquitted U/s. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled U/s. 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property deposited vide CPR.No. 91/2023 shall be returned to the owner of the property on proper proof and identification after appeal time is over.

Dictated to Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this

the 3rd day of September, 2024.

PJCJ-CUM- XI JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

MEDCHAL - MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

1. PW1 : Rathna Raju

2. PW2 : R. Praveen

3. PW3 : V. Lakshmi

4. PW4 : D. Baskar Reddy

5. PW5 : D.N. Eshwar (SI of police)

6. PW6 : B. Mahesh Goud (SI of police)

7. PW7 : P. Yadagiri (SI of police)

FOR DEFENCE: -Nil-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

1. Ex.P1 is the report lodged by PW1.

2. Ex.P2 is the scene of offence panchanama.

3. Ex.P3 is the rough sketch map.

4. Ex.P4 is the PW3 signature on scene of offence panchanama.

5. Ex.P5 is the PW3 signature on rough sketch map.

6. Ex.P6 is the PW4 signature on confesssion cum seizure panchanama of A1.

7. Ex.P7 is the PW4 signature on confession cum seizure panchanama of A2.

CC.No. 2261 of 2023 PJCJ-CUM-XI JFCM,

Med-Mkg Dist at Kukatpally

Page No.7 of 10 Dated 03.10.2024

8. Ex.P8 is the PW4 signature on Seizure report.

9. Ex.P9 is the Confession cum seizure panchanama.

10. Ex.P10 is the Seizure report.

11. Ex.P11 is the First Information Report.

12. Ex.P12 is the Scene of offence panchanama.

FOR DEFENCE: -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: - Nil -

PJCJ–CUM–XI JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, MEDCHAL – MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY.

CC.No. 2261 of 2023 PJCJ-CUM-XI JFCM,

Med-Mkg Dist at Kukatpally

Page No.8 of 10 Dated 03.10.2024

CC.No. 2261 of 2023 PJCJ-CUM-XI JFCM,

Med-Mkg Dist at Kukatpally

EP/107/2023

Shriram Chit Fund Pvt Ltd vs G. Rakesh and others

17 Apr 2025

Page 1 of 6 Date 17.04.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM ADDITIONAL CHIEF

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE :: MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT, AT KUSHAIGUDA.

PRESENT: T.MURALI MOHAN, II Addl. Senior Civil Judge-cum- Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Kushaiguda.

DATED THE 17th DAY OF APRIL, 2025

E.P. No.107 OF 2023

BETWEEN: M/s.Shriram Chits Pvt Ltd., Rep. by its Senior Manager, Sri Asgar Abbas S/o.Md.Mazhar Hussain Aged : 40 years, O/o.No.44, Sarojini Devi Road, Secunderabad ...DHRs

A N D

1.G.Rakesh S/o.G.Rajesh Aged about : 38 years, Occ : Proprietor M/s.Om Sri Sai Ram Motors, 24-47/12A, Shop No.3, East Anandbagh, Malkajgiri, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. R/o.H.No.32-77/16/A, Flat No.202, Ramdass Ramya Enclave, Seetharam Nagar, Safilguda, Malkajgiri, Medchal-Malkajgiri District

2.D.V.Subba Rao S/o.D.P.Venkateshwar Rao, Aged about : 41 years, Occ : SSE/C&W, O/o.C&W//Hyd/Mechanial Dept. SC Railways, Secunderabad, PF No.03678702, Bill No.02499, R/o.H.No.Plot No.179, Flat No.5, Chandragiri Colony, Neredmet, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. Presently residing at : H.No.29-171/9, Flat No.9-4, Ground Floor, Savithri Devi Heavens, New Vidya Nagar, Neredmet, Medchal-Malkajgiri District

3.C.Amba Dass S/o.C.Mallesh, Aged about : 36 years, Occ : Proprietor, M/s.Bhavani Sounds & Electricals, East Anandbagh, Malkajgiri, Medchal-Malkajgiri District R/o.H.No.25-75/1, Indira Nagar, East Anandbagh, Medchal-Malkajgiri District

4.Syed Khaja Moinuddin S/o.Late Fathe Mohd. Aged about : 51 years, Occ : Technician-II, O/o.CWM/Lallaguda, SC Railway, Secunderabad PF No.90152920, Bill No.30111. R/o.H.No.Plot No.83, NBH Colony, Near Jain Mandir, Anandbagh, Malkajgiri, Medchal-Malkajgiri District ...JDRs

EP.No.107/2023 II ASCJ, Kushaiguda,Hyd

Page 2 of 6 Date 17.04.2025

This petition is coming up for final hearing before the court on 19.03.2025 in the presence of Sri K.Yadagiri Rao, learned Counsel for Petitioner/DHR and Sri P.Sree Kumar, learned counsel for Respondents/JDRs and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

O R D E R

This execution petition filed by the DHR under Order 21 rule 43 CPC praying this court for attachment and sale of movable properties of JDR No.2 and 4.

2.The averments of the petition in brief are that the DHR is a chit fund company in the name and style of M/s.Sri Ram Chits Pvt Ltd. The JDR No.1 was the subscriber of the ticket No.11 in the chit group, ELS 08 for a value of Rs. 10,00,000/-. The

Jdr.No.1 being the successful bidder had lifted the chit, accordingly, the JDR No.1 was given an amount of Rs.6,00,000/-. The Jdr No.2 and 4 were the guarantors for the chit lifted by JDR No.1. The Jdr No.1 subsequent after the lifting the chit had defaulted in payment of the monthly installments of the chit. As a result the DHR has filed the dispute award file No.AAC/F.No.593 of 2017 on the file of the Deputy

Registrar of Chits / Arbitrator. The Deputy Registrar of Chits after adjudicating the same has passed award holding that the JDR No.1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs.3,48,550/- to the DHR. As the JDR no.1 to 4 have failed to pay the amount awarded dated 30.08.2019, the present EP is filed.

3.On the other hand, counter affidavit of JdrNo.2 is filed denying the averments of the EP and submitted that he came to know about the present petition through one of the alleged chit subscriber by name G.Rakesh who used his documents making him to sign as one of the guarantor for JDR No.1 and he never disclosed the chit agreement or surety security proposal form to him. The JDR No.1 has paid monthly chit installments for few months, thereafter he defaulted. The DHR has not followed the procedure as required as per the law and got exparte award for

EP.No.107/2023 II ASCJ, Kushaiguda,Hyd

Page 3 of 6 Date 17.04.2025 recovery of amount from The Deputy Registrar of Chits on 30.08.2019 but he is not aware of any such arbitration proceedings. Hence he could not present himself

before the arbitration proceedings.

b)The JDR No.2 came to know that after receiving the prize money by JDR No.1, he was not regular in payment of the chit installments and the said fact came to know by him only after receiving the notice from Sri K.Yadagiri Rao, Advocate in EP

No.107 of 2023. It is also submitted thaot as per Section 69 of Chit Fund Act, the dispute referred to the arbitrator must give reasonable opportunity to the parties to the dispute but JDR No.2 did not get any opportunity and without his knowledge and notice his right was denied. As per Section 71 of Chit Fund Act, the Registrar is competent to issue recovery certificate and as seen from the alleged recovery certificate in this case which is issued by the Deputy Registrar is not valid, as such the EP is not maintainable. It is also submitted that EP No.100 of 2022 is pending against JDR No.1 in the court of Hon’ble Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri

District at Malkajgiri and the DHR without exhausting the legal option against JDR

No.1 had proceeded with JDR No.2 simultaneously for no fault of mine. JDR No.1 is very much available in the city and running a lucrative vehicle finance business and he is very much in a position to make the payment but the DHR is not proceeding against JDR No.1 for the reasons best known to DHR company. JDR No.2 is retired on 30.06.2019 and he has old aged father about 85 years, mother aged about 83 years, wife aged about 62 years and daughter aged about 38 years and all are dependent on him. JDR being a guarantor cannot be saddled with the responsibility and liability to pay the debt until all the remedies against the principal debtor i.e.,

JDR No.1 are exhausted and instead of fastening the liability on the poor pensioner

EP.No.107/2023 II ASCJ, Kushaiguda,Hyd

Page 4 of 6 Date 17.04.2025 i.e., JDR No.2 the DHR is proceeding against him. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

4.Heard the learned counsel for the DHR and learned counsel for JDRs.

5. Now the point for consideration is, Whether the petition filed by the D.Hr is liable to be allowed or not?

6.The contention of the learned counsel for the D.Hr is that JDR No.2 and 4 being the guarantors of JDR No.1 for the chit subscribed by JDR No.1 and the prize amount lifted by JDR No.1, are liable to pay the amount as awarded on 30.08.2019.

b)On the other hand the learned counsel for the JDR No.2 had submitted that the signatures of the JDR No.2 was fraudulently obtained by the JDR No.1 without mentioning or disclosing the guarantee agreement. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the JDR No.2 that JDR No.2 had no knowledge about the dispute

before the Deputy Registrar of chits / arbitrator as such he could not be present

before the Deputy Registrar of Chits and that the recovery certificate issued by the

Deputy Registrar is not valid, therefore the same is not maintainable.

c)On appreciation of the contention of the learned counsel for the DHR and also the learned counsel for the JDR No.2 and as seen from the material on record it is evident that the dispute between the DHR and JDR No.1 to 4 had been adjudicated

before the Deputy Registrar of Chits / arbitrator where under the award for an

amount of Rs.3,48,550/- was passed on 30.08.2019 holding that the JDR No.1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the disputed amount.

d)The contention of the learned counsel for the JDR No.2 that he has no knowledge of the proceedings of the award and that he has knowledge of the above proceedings only after receiving of notice in this case but inspite of receiving the

EP.No.107/2023 II ASCJ, Kushaiguda,Hyd

Page 5 of 6 Date 17.04.2025 notice, the JDR No.2 has failed to challenge the award dated 30.08.2019 passed in file No.AAC/F.No.593 of 2017 by the Deputy Registrar of Chits/arbitrator.

e)The other contention of the learned counsel for the JDR No.2 that the

Recovery certificate which required to be issued by the Registrar of the Chits under

Section 71 of the Act but the Recovery Certifiate in this case was issued by the

Deputy Registrar of Chits, therefore the same is not valid. Hence JDR No.2 is not liable to pay any amount under the said Recovery Certificate. Further, it is also contended by the Jdr.No.2 that DHR has already filed one EP against JDR No.1 which is still pending and while pending of the said EP, without exhausting the right against the JDR No.1 has filed the present EP for attachment of his movable property and that J.Dr No.2 has old aged parents and family depended on his income and he being a poor pensioner he cannot be fastened the decree against him. The learned counsel for the JDR No.2 has relied on the judgment reported between Punyamurthula Venkata Viswa Sundara Rao Vs. Margadarshi Chit

Fund Pvt Ltd.

f)On the other hand the learned counsel for the DHR hasdenied the same and relied on the case reported between Madamanchi Anil Kumar Vs. Margadarshi

Chit Fund Pvt Ltd.

g)On appreciation of the said contention and also the award dated 30.08.2019 which categorically evident that the JDR No.1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay award amount. It is settled legal position that the DHR may proceed for execution of the award / decree against all the JDRs of the suit or against any one of the JDR. Therefore, the contention of the JDR No.2 he alone cannot be fastened for the decree in question, is found not tenable. Further, as contended by the Hobn’ble

High Court in Madamanchi Anil Kumar Vs. Margadarshi Chit Fund Pvt Ltd.,

EP.No.107/2023 II ASCJ, Kushaiguda,Hyd

Page 6 of 6 Date 17.04.2025

dated 05.11.2018 at Para no.19 was pleased to elaborate definition of Registrar and

also the right and power of Additional, Joint, Deputy or Assistant Registrar in issuing the Recovery Certificates and also hold that the judgment in Punyamurthula

Venkata Viswa Sundara Rao is bound to fail. So considering the above discussion, this court is of considered opinion that the JDR No.2 has failed to discharge from the execution of the decree. Therefore, this court is inclined to issue warrant of attachment against JDR No.2 and 4.

In the result, this EP is allowed. Issue warrant of attachment of movable property against the JDR No.2 and 4 under Order 21 rule 43 CPC on payment of process. Call on 28.04.2025.

(Typed by me directly on the computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 17th day of April, 2025)

II Addl. Senior Civil Judge-cum- Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, M.M.District at Kushaiguda .

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR DHRS -NIL-

FOR J.DRS - NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR DHRS -NIL-

FOR J.DRS - NIL-

II Addl. Senior Civil Judge-cum- Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, M.M.District at Kushaiguda.

EP.No.107/2023 II ASCJ, Kushaiguda,Hyd

CC/195/2022 Acquitted

State of Telangana, PS Bachupally vs Kalsa Baswaraj

14 Oct 2024

Page No.1 of 6 Dated 14.10.2024

IN THE COURT OF THE PRI. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM – XI JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE, MEDHCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT, AT KUKATPALLY.

PRESENT: T. MURALI MOHAN, Prl. Junior Civil Judge -cum- XI Judl. First Class Magistrate Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally

Dated this the 14th Day of October, 2024

CC.No. 195 of 2022

Between:

The State of Telangana represented by SHO of PS - Bachupally. …Complainant AND

Kalsa Baswaraj, S/o. Rajendar, Age: 21 Years, Occ: Un-employee, Caste: Marati (BC-B), R/o.H.No.4-45/80, Srinivas Nagar Last Bus Stop, Jagadgirigutta,

Medchal District. …..Accused

This case is coming on this day before me final hearing on 10.10.2024 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri A. Rajeshwar Reddy, learned counsel for the accused and upon perusal of the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The state represented through the Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Bachupally has filed a charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.52/2020 of P.S. Bachupally for the offence punishable U/sec.304-A of Indian Penal Code.

2.The averments of the charge sheet in brief are that on 17.01.2020 at 0020 hours, LW1/Arjun Singh, resident of Panjagutta, Hyderabad has filed a report before the police stating that on 16.01.2020 afternoon hours the accused and the injured went to JS Wines, Nizampet on a motor cycle bearing No.TS08 FP 1451 and consumed liquor till evening and while they were returning to home, the accused

CC.No. 195 of 2022 PJCJ-CUM-XI JFCM,

Med-Mkg Dist at Kukatpally

Page No.2 of 6 Dated 14.10.2024 was riding the motor cycle and the injured/Santhosh Singh was the pillion rider of the said vehicle and on the way at about 2000 hours when they reached infront of

Sri Chaitanya College, the accused lost control over the said bike and hit to the tree, due to which the acucsed and Santhosh Singh/injured fell down from the motor cycle and sustained injuries, thereafter, the injured was shifted to Mamatha Hospital and from there he was shifted to Raghavendra Hospital, Bowenpally for better treatment and while the injured/Santhosh Singh was shifting to his native place

Rajasthan in an Ambulance on 18/19.01.2020 while travelling to Rajasthan the injured/Santhosh Singh succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident.

3.The above report was registered as a case in Cr.No.52/2020 U/sec.304-A IPC and issued FIR by PW5. During the course of investigation, PW5 examined and recorded the statement of PW1 and proceeded to the scene where he secured the presence of PW3 and PW4 and conducted scene of offence panchanama in their presence and also drawn rough sketch map of the scene. Later, he examined and recorded the statement of PW2 and basing on the evidence collected by the investigation officer, he issued section alteration memo from 307 IPC to 304-A IPC and thereafter, he handed over CD file to LW9/K. Narsimha Reddy, Inspector of

Police for further investigation, PW6 received CD file from LW9/K. Narsimha Reddy.

Later, PW6 got examined the crime vehicle through LW7/G. Mahesh, MVI, DTO,

Medchal District and also examined and recorded the statement of LW3/Gopal

Singh, LW4/Smt. Sana Devi. On 23.11.2021 the accused was issued a notice U/Sec.

41-A Cr.P.C and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.

CC.No. 195 of 2022 PJCJ-CUM-XI JFCM,

Med-Mkg Dist at Kukatpally

Page No.3 of 6 Dated 14.10.2024

4.Basing on the charge sheet filed by the police, the case was taken on file for the offence U/sec.304-A of IPC against the accused.

5.On appearance of the accused, copies of the case documents as required under section 207 Cr.P.C were furnished to him. He was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C. The accusation for the offence punishable U/sec.304-A IPC was read over and explained to him to which he denied and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW6 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. The defense did not examine any witnesses and no exhibits were got marked on their behalf.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C on the incriminating material appeared against him, to which he denied and reported no evidence to be adduced on his behalf.

8.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused

beyond reasonable doubt ?

9.The case of prosecution is that the accused being the rider of the motor cycle bearing No.TS08 FP 1451 drove the motor cycle in rash and negligent manner as a result accused lost control over his motor cycle and hit to a tree as a result, the accused and injured/Santhosh Singh fell down and sustained injuries. The prosecution to establish this case against the accused has relied on the testimonies of PW1 to PW6. The defacto complainant is examined as PW1. The mother of the deceased is examined as PW2. The panchas for the scene of offence panchanama

CC.No. 195 of 2022 PJCJ-CUM-XI JFCM,

Med-Mkg Dist at Kukatpally

Page No.4 of 6 Dated 14.10.2024 were examined as PW3 and PW4 and the Investigation officers are examined as

PW5 and PW6.

10.On appreciation of the evidence of PW1 which categorically discloses that on 17.01.2020 at about 10.30 PM while he was in his house he received a phone call from police Bachupally who informed him that one Santosh Singh @ Sameer met with an accident at Coca Cola Company at Bachupally and he was shifted to

Mamatha Hospital, therefore, he rushed to Mamatha Hospital and noticed that

Santosh Singh @ Sameer in unconscious state and while undergoing treatment he succumbed to the injuries, therefore, he filed a report before the police which is marked as Ex.P1. PW2 who is examined as the mother of the deceased/Santosh

Singh @ Sameer, is found on the similar lines of PW1.

11.The prosecution though examined PW1 and PW2 as material witnesses to substantiate the case of the prosecution but the evidence of PW1 and PW2 does not disclose the identity of the driver of the crime vehicle and also the crime vehicle which caused the alleged accident. Except PW1 and PW2 the prosecuiton did not choose to examine any material and independent witnesses from the scene to substantiate the case of the prosecution. The prosecution has examined PW3 and

PW4 as the panchas for the scene of offence panchanama, however they failed to support to the case of the prosecution, consequently the testimonies of PW3 and

PW4 were declared as hostile. Apart from them the other evidence available on record is the testimonies of PW5 and PW6 who are examined as investigation officer and their evidence categorically establish the investigation done by them after receipt of report from PW1 but as discussed above the evidence of PW1 to PW4

CC.No. 195 of 2022 PJCJ-CUM-XI JFCM,

Med-Mkg Dist at Kukatpally

Page No.5 of 6 Dated 14.10.2024 does not establish the identity of the accused as the rider of the crime vehicle and also in the absence of registration number of the alleged crime vehicle, this court is of considered opinion that the evidence of PW5 and PW6 is found not helpful to the case of the prosecution. It is also evident from the material on record that the learned APP has given up the evidence of LW7/G. Mahesh, MVI, DTO, Medchal

District who is cited as the motor vehicle inspector. The evidence of LW3/Gopal

Singh and LW4/Smt. Sana Devi who are cited as circumstantial witnesses was closed on the report filed by the prosecution.

12.So, considering the above discussion, it is held that there is no substantial and cogent evidence on record to hold that the accused was the rider of the crime vehicle and that the crime vehicle was involved in the said accident, hence this court is of considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

In the result, accused found not guilty for the offence U/sec. 304-A IPC and accordingly, accused is acquitted U/s. 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled U/s. 437-A Cr.P.C. No property is produced as such no orders as to disposal of the case property.

Dictated to Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the

14th day of October, 2024.

PJCJ-cum- XI JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

MEDCHAL - MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY

CC.No. 195 of 2022 PJCJ-CUM-XI JFCM,

Med-Mkg Dist at Kukatpally

Page No.6 of 6 Dated 14.10.2024

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

1. PW1 : Arjun Singh.

2. PW2 : Zaheera Begum

3. PW3 : Pavan Kumar

4. PW4 : G. Vasudev

5. PW5 : P. Jagadeeshwar, Inspector of police

6. PW6 : B. Raju Yadav, Inspector of police

FOR DEFENCE: -Nil-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

1. Ex.P1 is the Report lodged by PW1.

2. Ex.P2 is the PW3 signature on scene of offence panchanama

3. Ex.P3 is the PW3 signature on rough sketch map.

4. Ex.P4 is the Scene of offence panchanama.

5. Ex.P5 is the First Information Report.

6. Ex.P6 is the Scene of offence panchanama.

7. Ex.P7 is the Rough sketch map.

8. Ex.P8 is the Section alteration memo.

9. Ex.P9 is the MVI report.

FOR DEFENCE: -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: -Nil-

PJCJ–CUM–XI JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, MEDCHAL – MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY.

CC.No. 195 of 2022 PJCJ-CUM-XI JFCM,

Med-Mkg Dist at Kukatpally

CC/281/2023 Acquitted

State of Telangana Through Bachupally vs Y.Setty Venkata Subba Rao

10 Oct 2024

Page No.1 of 6 Dated 10.10.2024

IN THE COURT OF THE PRI. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM – XI JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE, MEDHCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT, AT KUKATPALLY.

PRESENT: T. MURALI MOHAN, Prl. Junior Civil Judge -cum- XI Judl. First Class Magistrate Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally

Dated this the 10th Day of October, 2024

CC.No. 281 of 2023

Between: The State of Telangana represented by SHO of PS - Bachupally. …Complainant AND

Yerram Setty Venkata Subbarao, S/o. Veeraswamy, Age: 63 Years, Caste: Kapu, Occ: Hotel Owner, R/o.G1, Siddi Blocks, Adhitya Gardens, Pragathi Nagar, N/o.H.No.16/7/15, Saladi Jameendhar Street, Palakollu, West Godavari District.…Accused

This case is coming on this day before me final hearing on 08.10.2024 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri B. Sudhakar, learned counsel for the accused and upon perusal of the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The state represented through the Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Bachupally has filed a charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.14/2023 of P.S. Bachupally for the offence punishable under section 79 Juvenile Justice Act – 2015.

2.The averments of the charge sheet in brief are that on 07.01.2023 at 1710 hours, Sri Naresh Polepaka, Assistant Project Officer of Bachpan Bachao Andolan, resident of RJD Building, LCD Office, Madhura Nagar, Ameerpet has filed a report

CC.No. 281 of 2023 PJCJ-CUM-XI JFCM,

Med-Mkg Dist at Kukatpally

Page No.2 of 6 Dated 10.10.2024

before the police stating that he along with Sri Srinivas, Sub Inspector of police,

KPHB, Anil Kumar PC-6148, G. Krishnaiah PC-4790 and Ravi Kumar PC-4465 were moving as a part of opeartion smile at Aleap Circle, Pragathinagar, accordingly, they raided on Aha Grand Hotel, Pragathinagar where they noticed one boy working as child labour who disclosed his name as Lucky aged about 15 years and that he has been working daily from 8.30 AM to 11.30 PM and he has been engaged on monthly salary of Rs.9,000/-, therefore, the victim was taken into custody and produced

before the police.

3. The above report was registered as a case in Cr.No.14 of 2023, under section 79 of Juvenile Justice Act by PW5. During the course of investigation PW5 examined and recorded the statement of PW1 and proceeded to the scene where he secured the presence of LW7/B. Balappa and LW8/B. Linga Swamy and conducted scene of offence panchanama in their presence. Later, he examined and recorded the statements of PW2 to PW4. On 07.01.2023 the accused was issued notice

U/sec.41-A CrPC and after completion of the investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.

4.Basing on the charge sheet filed by the police, the case was taken on file for the offence U/sec.79 Juvenile Justice Act – 2015 against the accused.

5.On appearance of the accused, copies of the case documents as required under section 207 CrPC were furnished to him. The accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. A charge for the offence punishable under section 79 Juvenile

Justice Act – 2015 was framed under section 240 (1) CrPC. The charge was read

CC.No. 281 of 2023 PJCJ-CUM-XI JFCM,

Med-Mkg Dist at Kukatpally

Page No.3 of 6 Dated 10.10.2024 over and explained to the accused under section 240 (2) CrPC to which the accused denied and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4. The defense did not examine any witnesses and no exhibits were got marked on his behalf.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C on the incriminating material appeared against him, to which the accused denied and reported no evidence to be adduced on their behalf.

8.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused

beyond reasonable doubt ?

9.The case of the prosecution is that the accused being the owner of the Aha

Grand Hotel, Pragathinagar had engaged the minor boy by name Lucky as child labour in his hotel. The prosecution to establish this case against the accused has relied on the testimonies of PW1 to PW5. The defacto complainant is examined as

PW1. PW2 to PW4 were examined as eye witnesses to the alleged incident and the investigation officer was examined as PW5.

10.On appreciation of the evidence of PW1 which categorically discloses that he has been working as Assistant Project Officer, Bachpan Bachao Andholan since two years. Under the instructions of operation Smile Team-10, he accompanied

LW2/Srinivas, SI of Police on 07.01.2023 to Aleap Circle, Pragathinagar in connection with rescue of Child Labour, accordingly, at about 2.00 PM they raided on AHA

CC.No. 281 of 2023 PJCJ-CUM-XI JFCM,

Med-Mkg Dist at Kukatpally

Page No.4 of 6 Dated 10.10.2024 grand hotel, Aleap Circle and noticed one boy working as helper in the said hotel.

On enquiry, the minor disclosed his name as Lucky, aged about 15 years and that he has been working in the said hotel from 8.30 AM to 9.00 PM on a monthly remuneration of Rs.9,000/- and he has been engaged by the accused in the said hotel, therefore, the minor was taken into custody and produced before the police along with the report which is marked as Ex.P1. PW2 to PW4 who alleged to have accompanied PW1 and their testimonies are found on the similar lines of PW1 with regard to the rescue of the minor by name Lucky in AHA Grand Hotel at Alekhya

Circle, Pragathinagar. The evidence of PW5 is corroborated with the evidence of

PW1 with regard to filing of the report under Ex.P1, therefore, the learned APP contended that the evidence of PW1 to PW5 is consisting and corroborating with each other in establishing the case of the prosecution against the accused.

11.On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused contended that the evidence of PW1 to PW5 is found controdictory with each other and that their evidence cannot be believable against the acucsed as the prosecution failed to establish ownership of the accused over AHA Grand Hotel and that the alleged victim is the minor, therefore, the evidence of PW1 to PW5 cannot be admitted against the accused in establishing the guilt of the accused in this case. The learned counsel for the accused in support of his contention has relied on the cross examination of PW1 to PW5.

CC.No. 281 of 2023 PJCJ-CUM-XI JFCM,

Med-Mkg Dist at Kukatpally

Page No.5 of 6 Dated 10.10.2024

12.On appreciation of the contention of the learned APP and the learned counsel

for the accused and also on careful scrutiny the cross examination of PW1 to PW4

which categorically discloses that they do not know the boundaries and also the municipal number of the alleged AHA Grand Hotel, Pragathinagar. The cross examination of PW1 to PW4 also categorically establish that they have not collected the license, verified the ownership in respect of the hotel in question. The cross examination of PW1 to PW5 also establish that they have not verified the age proof certificate of the alleged minor to establish that the boy alleged to have rescued from the scene is minor. Though the defense did not choose to cross examine PW5 but in view of the controdictions in the cross examination of PW1 to PW5, this court is of considered opinion that there is no substantial evidence in establishing that the accused is the owner of the AHA Grand Hotel and that the boy alleged to have rescued from the said hotel is a minor and that PW1 to PW4 who alleged to have raided on the said hotel have failed to give particulars of the said hotel, therefore, this court held that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

In the result, the accused found not guilty for the offence under sections 79 of

Juvenile Justice Act and accordingly, the accused is acquitted U/s. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled U/s. 437-A Cr.P.C. No property is produced as such no orders as to disposal of the case property.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 10th day of October, 2024.

PJCJ-CUM- XI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

MEDCHAL - MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY

CC.No. 281 of 2023 PJCJ-CUM-XI JFCM,

Med-Mkg Dist at Kukatpally

Page No.6 of 6 Dated 10.10.2024

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

1. PW1 : Sri P. Naresh, Asst. Project Officer

2. PW2 : Sri Ravi Kumar, PC-4465

3. PW3 : Sri Krishnaiah, PC-4790

4. PW4 : Sri Srinivas, SI of Police

5. PW5 : Sri G. Saidulu, Inspector of Police

FOR DEFENCE: -Nil-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

1. Ex.P1 is the report lodged by PW1.

2. Ex.P2 is the First Information Report.

3. Ex.P3 is the scene of offence panchanama.

4. Ex.P4 is the rough sketch map.

FOR DEFENCE: -NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: -NIL-

PJCJ–CUM–XI JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, MEDCHAL – MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY.

CC.No. 281 of 2023 PJCJ-CUM-XI JFCM,

Med-Mkg Dist at Kukatpally

CC/1064/2022 Acquitted

State of Telangana of PS Bachupally vs Ponnuri Venkata Arun

10 Oct 2024

Page No.1 of 6 Dated 10.10.2024

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM – XI JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE, MEDHCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT, AT KUKATPALLY.

PRESENT: T. MURALI MOHAN, Prl. Junior Civil Judge -cum- XI Judl. First Class Magistrate Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally

Dated this the 10th Day of October, 2024

CC.No. 1064 of 2022

Between: The State of Telangana represented by SHO of PS - Bachupally. …Complainant AND Ponnuri Venkata Arun, S/o. Koteswar Rao, Age: 43 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. Flat No.5405, Block No.5, Panchavati Apartment, Pragathinagar.…Accused

This case is coming on this day before me final hearing on 07.10.2024 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri C. Kamalakar Reddy, learned counsel for the accused and upon perusal of the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

The state represented through the Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Bachupally has filed a charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.175/2022 of P.S. Bachupally for the offence punishable under sections 448 and 506 of Indian Penal Code.

2.The averments of the charge sheet in brief are that on 18.03.2022 at 1645 hours, Sri P. Vamshi Mohan, resident of Flat No.205, Sudhakar Avenue, Opp. Sri

Krishna Gardens, Pragathinagar has filed a report before the police stating that the mother of the complainant Smt. P. Uma Satyavathi died on 23.08.2018 due to ill health in Mamatha Hospital, Nizamabad. Prior to this they admitted her in Care

CC.No. 1064 of 2022 PJCJ-CUM-XI JFCM,

Med-Mkg Dist at Kukatpally

Page No.2 of 6 Dated 10.10.2024

Hospital for treatment. Later, the accused who is their relative threatened the complainant and his brother stating that the complainant, his brother and his father killed Smt. P. Uma Satyavathi. On 10.03.2022 at about 1315 hours the accused criminally tresspassed into the house of the complainant and threatened them with dire consequences to provide some money otherwise he will ruin their status in the public and he will file a case in court against them.

3. The above report was registered as a case in Cr.No. 175 of 2022, under section 448 and 506 IPC and issued FIR by PW4. During the course of investigation

PW4 examined and recorded the statement of PW1 and proceeded to the scene where he secured the presence of PW3 and LW3/V. Srinivas and conducted scene of offence panchanama in their presence and also examined and recorded the statement of PW2. On 18.03.2023, accused was issued notice under section 41-A

Cr.P.C and after completion of the investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.

4.Basing on the charge sheet filed by the police, the case was taken on file for the offence punishable under sections 448 and 506 IPC against accused.

5.On appearance of accused, copies of the case documents as required under section 207 Cr.P.C were furnished to him. Accused was examined under section 251

Cr.P.C. The accusation for the offence punishable under sections 448 and 506 IPC was read over and explained to him to which he denied and claimed to be tried.

CC.No. 1064 of 2022 PJCJ-CUM-XI JFCM,

Med-Mkg Dist at Kukatpally

Page No.3 of 6 Dated 10.10.2024

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW4 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. The defense did not examine any witnesses and no exhibits were got marked on his behalf.

8.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused

beyond reasonable doubt ?

9.The case of the prosecution is that the accused is the relative of PW1 criminally tresspassed into the house of PW1 and threatened them with dire consequences demanding money from them. The prosecution to establish this case against the accused has relied on the testimonies of PW1 to PW4. The defacto complainant is examined as PW1. PW2 is examined as circumstantial witness to the alleged incident. The panchas for the scene of offence panchanama was examined as PW3 and the Investigation Officer is examined as PW4.

10.The evidence of PW1 which categorically discloses that on 10.03.2022 the accused who is his brother-in-law came to their house at Pragathinagar and told them that PW1 and his family members killed mother of PW1 Smt. P. Uma

Satyavathi, therefore, he asked for settlement with him otherwise he would damage their status in the society and also threatened them with dire consequences, hence PW1 filed a report before the police which is marked as

CC.No. 1064 of 2022 PJCJ-CUM-XI JFCM,

Med-Mkg Dist at Kukatpally

Page No.4 of 6 Dated 10.10.2024

Ex.P1. PW2 who is brother of PW1 examined as circumstantial witness and his testimony found on similar lines of PW1.

11.The learned APP contended that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 is found consisting and corroborating in estabishing the guilt of the accused, therefore, the prosecution has established the case against the accused. On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused contended that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 is found controdictory and that due to previous gudges between PW1, PW2 and the accused, they have filed a false report against the accused and that the accused is no way concerned with the present case. The learned counsel for the accused in support of his contention has relied on the cross examination of PW1 and PW2.

12.On appreciation of the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and the contention of the learned counsel for the accused and learned APP and on careful scrutiny of the cross examination of PW1 which categorically establish that PW2 was not present at the time of the alleged incident, therefore, his evidence is found as heresay evidence, as such his evidence must corroborate with the independent evidence on record, which is the evidence of PW1. The cross examination of PW1 categorically establish that the accused and PW1 are relatives. The cross examination of PW1 with regard to the alleged incident categorically discloses that the scene of offence is covered by CC TV and CC TV footage in respect of the alleged trespass by the accused was submitted to the police, but as seen from the evidence of PW4 which categorically establish that the police have failed to submit

CC TV footage in order to corrobrate the evidence of PW1. The learned counsel for the accused further contended that the alleged incident was took place on

CC.No. 1064 of 2022 PJCJ-CUM-XI JFCM,

Med-Mkg Dist at Kukatpally

Page No.5 of 6 Dated 10.10.2024 10.03.2022 which is evident from Ex.P1 and the evidence of PW4, therefore, it appears that there is a delay of eight days in filing report. The evidence of PW1 and the evidence of PW4 and Ex.P1 report does not establish the reason for the delay in filing the report, therefore, though PW1 denied the suggestion that the accused and PW1 have financial disputes being relatives but in view of the unexplained the delay in filing the report by PW1, this court is of considered opinion that there is no substantial evidence on record to hold that the accused has committed the alleged offence, hence, this court held that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

In the result, accused found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 448 and 506 IPC, accordingly, accused is acquitted U/s. 255 (1) of Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled U/s. 437-A Cr.P.C. No property is produced as such no orders as to disposal of the case property.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 10th day of October, 2024.

PJCJ-CUM- XI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

MEDCHAL - MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

1. PW1 : Vamshi Mohan

2. PW2 : Vamshi Krishna

3. PW3 : M. Mahesh

4. PW4 : Sri G. Saidulu, Inspector of Police

FOR DEFENCE: -Nil-

CC.No. 1064 of 2022 PJCJ-CUM-XI JFCM,

Med-Mkg Dist at Kukatpally

Page No.6 of 6 Dated 10.10.2024

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

1. Ex.P1 is the report lodged by PW1.

2. Ex.P2 is the scene of offence panchanama.

3. Ex.P3 is the rough sketch map of the scene.

4. Ex.P4 is the First Information report.

FOR DEFENCE: -NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: Nil.

PJCJ–CUM–XI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MEDCHAL – MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY.

CC.No. 1064 of 2022 PJCJ-CUM-XI JFCM,

Med-Mkg Dist at Kukatpally

Order Record 703 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
EP/107/2023	Shriram Chit Fund Pvt Ltd vs G. Rakesh and others	17 Apr 2025	Order	—
OS/692/2022	S P Nava Latha @ Vanitha, D/o. late J Sunder Raj vs S Praveen Kumar and others	17 Apr 2025	Other	—
OS/453/2024	Potharaju Srinivas vs Potharaju Balaiah and Another	16 Apr 2025	Other	—
EP/5/2025	M/s Vaishnavi Associates Rep By Dr. Kotah Geetha and 5 Others vs B.S. Vimala and 2 Others	11 Apr 2025	Other	—
OS/114/2024	Puttagunta Jayalakshmi and 2 others vs Mandal Revenu Officer	11 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
OS/405/2024	Smt. Narmada Patel vs The Tahsildar-cum-Mandal Revenue Officer	11 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
OS/448/2024	M. Vishnu Mohan Naidu vs The Tahsildar	11 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
EP/123/2024	M/S Margadarsi Chit Fund Pvt Ltd. vs Mr. K. Srinivas and 4 Others	10 Apr 2025	Other	—
EP/504/2022	MARGADARSHI CHIT FUND vs U.MAHESH KUMAR	07 Apr 2025	Other	—
EP/674/2022	M/s Margadarsi Chit Fund Pvt Ltd vs C. Ravi Kumar and others	07 Apr 2025	Other	—
OS/1299/2015	Bhamidipati Purnachandra Rao and 10 others vs Madduri Subba Rao and 7 others	07 Apr 2025	Other	—
EP/285/2022	K. Buchi Reddy and another vs G. Nagaraju and others	04 Apr 2025	Other	—
EP/5/2025	M/s Vaishnavi Associates Rep By Dr. Kotah Geetha and 5 Others vs B.S. Vimala and 2 Others	03 Apr 2025	Order	—
EP/324/2022	M/S MARGADARSI CHIT FUND PVT LTD vs K.MADHUSUDAN S/O K.ANJANEYULU	02 Apr 2025	Other	—
OS/418/2024	Kandakatla Janardhan Reddy vs Smt. Challagonda Bhavani Reddy and Another	02 Apr 2025	Other	—
OS/266/2024	Smt. P.R. Vasantha vs Sri. Kamatam Gnaneshwar Rao and 6 Others	28 Mar 2025	Order	—
OS/309/2024	Sri A Srinivas and Another vs The Tahsildar	28 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
OS/987/2015	D. Yadagiri vs K. Balamma and 3 others	28 Mar 2025	Other	—
SC/106/2022	PS Uppal vs A1- T. Venkatachalam and others	28 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
SC/132/2023	The State of Telangana through PS. Neredmet vs A1.Ankem Prasad Rao and 2 others	27 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
OS/229/2024	Smt. Parimi Jaya Lakshmi and 3 Others vs GHMC - Malkajgiri Circle	26 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
SC/182/2022	State through Police, P.S.Uppal vs A-1.Dodla Muralidher Reddy	26 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
OS/1079/2022	Mohd. Sanaullah S/o. Mohd Anwarullah vs Dangu Mahender S/o. D. Mogulaiah and 5 others	25 Mar 2025	Other	—
OS/1080/2022	Mohd Sanaullah S/o. Mohd Anwarullah vs Dangu Mahender @ Ponnala S/o. D. Mogulaiah and 5 others	25 Mar 2025	Other	—
OS/31/2024	Toufiq Mohammed Khan vs C.Venkat Reddy	21 Mar 2025	Other	—
OS/71/2024	P. Madhava Reddy and 7 others vs GHMC	21 Mar 2025	Other	—
OS/429/2024	Baggu Chinnammalu and 2 Others vs The Tahsildar	21 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
OS/176/2024	Nuthalakanti Balamani and 5 others vs Tahsildar	20 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
OS/270/2023	Turlapati Chaitanya Sree and others vs The Tahsildar and others	20 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
OS/777/2022	Kushangala Anitha vs Chinthala Anjaiah and others	19 Mar 2025	Other	—
EP/508/2022	Margadarshi CHit Fund Pvt. Ltd. vs B. Srinivas and 4 others	18 Mar 2025	Other	—
OS/463/2024	Smt. S. Sulochana and 2 Others vs Sri. R. Shankar Narayana	18 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
SC/308/2022	PS Nacharam vs A1- Kummari Venkatramana S/o. Late K. Laxmi Narayana	18 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
OS/341/2024	S. Suryaveni and 3 Others vs The Mandal Tahsildhar	13 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
IP/34/2022	Tangiraala Vasantha @ Kotla Vasantha vs Gaddipogula Balaiah	12 Mar 2025	Order	—
OS/343/2022	Barani Saritha W/o. Emmadi Jaya Kumar vs Palleboyina Raghuram Raj S/o. P. Venkat Swamy	11 Mar 2025	Other	—
OS/402/2024	Sivaraju Jayaprada Devi vs Mandal Revenue Officer	10 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
OS/419/2024	Smt. Boinapally Lakshmi Devi and 4 Others vs The Thasildhar	10 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
OS/506/2024	Sri. Godavarthi Krishnam Raju and 3 Others vs The Thasildar	10 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
OS/987/2022	G. Veera Babu S/o. G. Ramu vs G. Venkata Ramana S/o. Adi Narayana	10 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
OS/318/2024	Sri Ch. Bhanu Kishore vs Smt. Ch. Swaroopa and 6 Others	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
OS/368/2024	Varikuppala Suresh and 3 Others vs The Tahsildar	07 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
OS/1286/2022	INDIAN BANK , REP BY ITS Brnch manager, Narsimha Rao vs Devapuja vinod kumar and other	07 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
EP/83/2024	B. Bhujanga Rao and Another vs T. Srinivas	06 Mar 2025	Other	—
OS/377/2024	Sri. Velpula Srikanth and 2 Others vs The Sub-Register, The Thaisldar	06 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
OS/1121/2022	Union Bank of India vs Mohd. Saleem Sharief Khan S/o. Nasim Zafar	06 Mar 2025	Other	—
S.O.P/53/2022	Garapaty Annapurna Devi and another vs SKF India Ltd. and another	06 Mar 2025	Order	—
OS/435/2024	Smt. Vankuru Vijaya Lakshmi 2 Others vs The Tahsildhar	05 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
OS/648/2022	Amaravadhi Aruna Jyothi and others vs Konda Kanya Kumari and others	04 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
OS/80/2024	G.Prabhu Kiran vs The Tahsildar	28 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
OS/286/2024	Annapurna Chitta and 2 others vs The Deputy Commissioner and others	28 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
EP/331/2022	SHRIRAM CHITS OVT LTD vs M.RAMA RAO	24 Feb 2025	Other	—
OS/417/2024	Davalla Ushabai and 2 Others vs The M.R.O	24 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
SC/777/2022	The State of Telangana through PS. Ghatkesar vs K. Venkat Kumar S/o Late Krishna	24 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
OS/234/2023	B. Sailesh Kumar and another vs The State Bank of India, Inkollu Branch by its Manager Town Branch	21 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
SC/233/2022	PS Medipally vs Tirumala Sathyavathi	21 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
EP/605/2022	Margadarshi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. vs D. Rameshwar Rao and 6 others	19 Feb 2025	Other	—
OS/355/2024	Smt. Dhumbala Aruna and 2 Others vs The Thahasildhar	19 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
OS/411/2023	Uppala Sriramulu vs The Thaisildar	19 Feb 2025	Other	—
OS/1377/2022	Ch. Venkat Chary S/o. Ch. Narsimha Chary vs Ch. Chilakkamma and others	19 Feb 2025	Other	—
EP/44/2024	A. Damodar Reddy vs Nagesh	13 Feb 2025	Order	—
EP/129/2023	Margadarshi Chit Fund Pvt Ltd., rep by J. Srinivas vs G. Madhusudhan Reddy and others	13 Feb 2025	Other	—
OS/306/2024	Bezawada Ramakrishanaiah vs The Mandal Revenue Officer, The Mandal Revenue Office	13 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
EP/563/2022	Shriram Chits Pvt. Ltd. vs K. Sreekanth and 3 others	11 Feb 2025	Other	—
EP/83/2024	B. Bhujanga Rao and Another vs T. Srinivas	07 Feb 2025	Order	—
OS/117/2024	Smt. Kallakuri Nagamani and 3 others vs The Tahsildar	07 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
OS/888/2022	Kummari Bala Narsimha vs Ms.Esteerm vilas private limited rep by Sourabh M	06 Feb 2025	Other	—
IP/25/2024	Yerraboina Mallesh vs Balapuram Rajendar Reddy and 9 Others	04 Feb 2025	Other	—
L.A.O.P/2/2024	Fakrunisa Begum and 7 others vs Spl. Dy. Collector	04 Feb 2025	Other	—
EP/432/2022	M/s Margadarsi Chit Funds Pvt Ltd vs K. Laxmi and others	03 Feb 2025	Other	—
EP/148/2023	M/s. Margadarshi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd., rep.by its Manager V.Rama Rao vs Mr. D. Rameshwar Rao and 6 Others	23 Jan 2025	Other	—
EP/609/2022	Margadarshi CHit FUnd Pvt. Ltd. vs R. Madhu Mudhiraj and 3 Others	20 Jan 2025	Other	—
EP/711/2022	MARGADARSHI CHIT FUND vs R.MADHU MUDHIRAJ	20 Jan 2025	Other	—
EP/666/2022	Margadarshi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. vs T. Prabhakar Rao and 4 others	30 Dec 2024	Other	—
EP/69/2023	Margadarshi Chit Fund Pvt Ltd. vs O. Anand	24 Dec 2024	Other	—
EP/714/2022	SHRIRAM CHITS PVT LTD vs V.BRAMHA CHARY	24 Dec 2024	Other	—
OS/49/2024	Smt. M. Geetha vs The Tahsildar	24 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
OS/55/2023	Shantha Narsing Kandi vs Aravind Kandi	23 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
OS/198/2024	Aratikayala Anitha and 3 Others vs The Tahasildar (Mandal Revenue Officer)	23 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
OS/211/2023	Aravind Kumar Govardhan and others vs The Malkajgiri Mandal MRO	23 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
OS/1168/2022	Syed Ahsan Nadeem vs Ritika constructions and others	23 Dec 2024	Other	—
OS/1304/2022	B.Vijaya W/o.Ashok Bhandar, D/o.D.Bikshapathi vs D.Bikshapathi and others	19 Dec 2024	Other	—
EP/699/2022	Shriram Chits Pvt. Ltd. vs M. Santosh KUmar and 4 others	18 Dec 2024	Other	—
EP/707/2022	M/s Shriram Chits Pvt Ltd vs P. Manikanta and others	17 Dec 2024	Other	—
OS/105/2015	Pushpa Goel vs Gundlapally Laxman Goud and another	17 Dec 2024	Other	—
EP/456/2022	MARGADARSHI CHIT FUND vs K. Muralidher and others	16 Dec 2024	Other	—
EP/161/2023	S.V.Caterers Rep. By. Stanley Joseph Rasheed vs V. Jay Kumar Retired Brigdr	13 Dec 2024	Other	—
OS/268/2024	Mogulla Shashidhar Reddy and 2 Others vs The Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahsildhar	12 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
OS/46/2024	Vellore Vani Rudreshwar and others vs The Tahsildhar	10 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
OS/290/2024	Palle Andalu and 2 others vs The Tahsildar	09 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
SC/307/2022	PS Nacharam vs Verpula Nagaraju	09 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
OS/23/2024	Smt. Chetana and 3 others vs The Tahsildar	04 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
OS/393/2023	K. Sudhakar Reddy vs Rajaboina Bikshapathi and another	04 Dec 2024	Other	—
EP/330/2022	MARGADARSHI CHIT FUND vs S.V.ENTERPRISES	02 Dec 2024	Other	—
OS/896/2022	A Rajamani and ors vs A Krishna	11 Nov 2024	Order	—
OS/1098/2022	D. Laxamamma W/o. D. Narasimha vs Bade Maliki Zabihullah S/o. MD. Haneef	11 Nov 2024	Order	—
EP/451/2022	M/s Margadarsi Chit Fund Pvt Ltd vs B. Kishan andothers	08 Nov 2024	Other	—
OS/390/2023	Elvira Cliet Luqua and oters vs Lucy Mureen Luqua and others	08 Nov 2024	Other	—
EP/37/2023	Dinesh Sharma vs K. Veganand Goud	06 Nov 2024	Other	—
EP/93/2023	Margadarshi Chit Fund Pvt Ltd, vs Spire Retail and Trading Company Rep By K. Ananthanag and othrs	05 Nov 2024	Other	—

Showing 100 of 703 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Apr 2025		15
Mar 2025		34
Feb 2025		21
Jan 2025		3
Dec 2024		21
Nov 2024		7
Oct 2024		8
Sep 2024		24
Aug 2024		14
Jul 2024		19
Jun 2024		4
May 2024		1

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri.T.Murali Mohan handled?

Sri.T.Murali Mohan has handled 707 court orders since 2022 at Malkajgiri, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 22 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri.T.Murali Mohan hear?

Based on available records, Sri.T.Murali Mohan primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Summary Trial Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Malkajgiri, PDJ Court Complex.

Where is Sri.T.Murali Mohan currently posted?

Sri.T.Murali Mohan is posted as II Addl Senior Civil Judge-cum- Addl Chief Judicial Magistrate at Malkajgiri at Malkajgiri, PDJ Court Complex, Medchal Malkajgiri, Telangana.

Are judgments by Sri.T.Murali Mohan available online?

Yes. 14 judgments by Sri.T.Murali Mohan are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri.T.Murali Mohan dispose cases?

Sri.T.Murali Mohan disposes approximately 22 cases per month, based on 707 orders handled over their tenure at Malkajgiri, PDJ Court Complex.

Since when is Sri.T.Murali Mohan serving?

Sri.T.Murali Mohan has been serving at Malkajgiri, PDJ Court Complex since 2022.

Case Types

CC 73%

OS 16%

EP 6%

STC 2%

SC 1%

DVC 1%

PRC 1%

IP 0%

Posting History

Oct 2024 — Apr 2025

II Addl Senior Civil Judge-cum- Addl Chief Judicial Magistrate at Malkajgiri · 102 orders
Mar 2023 — May 2024

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-XIII Addl Judicial Magistrate of First Class Medchal-Malkajgiri Dist. at Kukatpally · 301 orders
Aug 2022 — Oct 2024

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-XI Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class Medchal-Malkajgiri Dist. at Kukatpally · 304 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 7

Other Judges at this Court

Smt. G.harika

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistra...

244 orders

Sri L.Raju

I Addl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Addl Judicial Magi...

54 orders

Smt. J.prasanthi

II Addl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-II Addl Judicial Ma...

350 orders

Smt. Potedar Sarala Rekha

III Addl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-III Addl Judicial...

27 orders

Sri. V.Bala Bhaskar Rao

Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family C...

17 orders

Smt. Chittibomma Ashalatha

Fast Track Special Judge for expeditious trial and...

145 orders

Sri. B.Tirupathi

I Addl.District and Sessions Judge-cum-Addl.Family...

853 orders

Sri. D.kiran Kumar

IV Additional District and Sessions Judge

956 orders

Ms. N. Amaravathi

II ADJ-Cum- I Addl MSJ -cum- II Spl Sessions Judge...

140 orders

Smt Rachapudi Sreedevi

Principal Family Court

0 orders

Smt. K. Uma Devi

Additional Family Court

0 orders

Sri. Sattu Ravinder

I Addl.Senior Civil Judge-cum-Addl. Chief Judicial...

43 orders

← View all judges at Malkajgiri, PDJ Court Complex