CC.No.1625 of 2018
Date of Judgment: 14-05-2026 1
IN THE COURT OF IX ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
CUM-II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
MEDCHAL MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT MEDCHAL
PRESENT: Sri U.Thirupathi IX Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Cum-II Addl. Junior Civil Judge Medchal Malkajgiri District At:: Medchal
Thursday, the 14th day of May 2026
C.C. No. 1625 OF 2018
Between: The State of Telangana, Rep. through the Sub-Inspector of police, Medchal Police Station. …Complainant AND
1. Md.Anwar Hussain S/o.Mohd Hussain Aged about 47 Years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.2-20, APHB Colony, Medchal Village, Mandal and District.
2. Md.Zakir Hussain S/o.Mohd Hussain, Aged about: 49 Years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.2-20, APHB Colony, Medchal Village, Mandal and District.
3. Md.Ahmed Hussain S/o.Mohd Hussain Aged about: 43 Years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.2-20, APHB Colony, Medchal Village, Mandal and District.….Accused
This Case is coming before me on 04.05.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri A.Srinivas Goud Learned Counsel for the Accused Persons and having heard and after perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
: : J U D G M E N T : :
1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Medchal filed the charge sheet against the Accused No.1 to 3 in Crime No.398/2016 for the offences punishable U/Secs. 341, 447, 506, 509 R/w.34 of IPC.
CC.No.1625 of 2018
Date of Judgment: 14-05-2026 2
2. The brief averments of the prosecution case are that:
On 01-10-2016 at 17:00 hours, the Complainant/PW1/Shaik Mastan Vali lodged a report before the Police of P.S.Medchal alleging that he and Shaik Afsar started a small business in the name and style of M/s.Max Fashions Ready Made Garments with 75 Sewing Machines workers for that business, they have taken a premises on lease, situated at MIG 20, Housing Board Colony, Medchal Village taken from Anwar Hussain and his Brothers Jakir Hussain and Ahmed Hussain. He further stated that in the first floor of the above said premises, Farooq Shaik S/o.Shaik Masthan Vali entered into rental agreement with the above said owner for running his Garments Retails Shop in the name and style of Fashion Trends, while things stood thus, in the above first floor, they incurred Rs.4,00,000/- towards Furniture and Rs.3,00,000/- towards purchasing Garments, for running their Garments business, further, they kept BSNL Landline Phone No.08418-221011 in their shop, not only that, they subscribed chit with the owner of the above said premises namely Anwar Hussain and his Friend Ratnam APHB Colony, Medchal of Rs.8,00,000/- each Rs.4,00,000/-, not only that, for running their business, they have taken all necessary permissions from the Government, during their business, since Telangana State was formed, they faced some problems in their business, at that time, they paid the monthly rent with delays, taking advantage of that delay of monthly rent payments, the owner of the above said premises, Anwar Hussain and his brothers, along with henchmen started their violence, however, the complainant acted upon their tunes as they frightened that their business will get a bad name, the owners along with their henchmen manhandled Shaik Masthan Vali and Shaik Afsar, when they say he would complain to police, the owners threatened to kill them and their family members, as such they frightened and did not give complaint to Police.
He further alleged in the complaint, that taking advantage of the same, the owners of the above said premises along with their henchmen came to Complainant’s house and started abusing them without caring their ladies, they also abused the ladies in filthy language, also locked their garments shop and removed their shop name and added the owners shop name and using the complainant’s furniture, but they did not know what they have done to garments, when the complainant went to the shop, the owners threatened them to leave the premises, thereafter, upon request of the Complainant,
CC.No.1625 of 2018
Date of Judgment: 14-05-2026 3 they stated, on taking two cheques, bond paper and signed papers of Shaik Masthan Vali and Afsar, they will provide two business places, the complainant gave two cheques, i.e. Mastan Vali cheque of Syndicate Bank cheque no.348889 dated: 07-03-2016 and Shaik Afsar of SBH Cheque 147454 dated: 07-03-2016, bond papers and signed blank papers and gave amount as per the elders decision, the complainant gave money to the owners i.e. on 18-03-2016 Rs.1,00,000/-, 25-03-2016 Rs.25,000/- and on 26-03-2016 Rs.25,000/-, on 17-01-2016 Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- advance, Rs.50,000/- Shop Advance, Rs.20,000/- on 05-09-2015, Rs.30,000/- on 18-12-2015, even though, the owners did not give the keys, all the papers with regard to their garments shop, licenses, IT Papers are in the shop, and keeping the sewing machines in their possession, the owners harassed physically and mentally, threatened to kill their family members, the owners came to their house and behaved indiscipline with their ladies, the owners seized the complainant's business and running their garments business and threatened to kill the complainant if they give any police complaint against the owners, hence, requested to take necessary action.
On receipt of the report, PW8/S.Rajashekar Reddy Inspector of Police, P.S.Medchal has registered a case in Cr.No. 398/2016 for the offences punishable U/Secs.341, 447, 506, 509 R/w.34 of IPC and conducted investigation. After completion of investigation, PW8 laid charge sheet against Accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable U/Secs.341, 447, 506, 509 R/w.34 of IPC.
3. The cognizance was taken for the offences punishable U/Secs.341, 447, 506, 509 R/w.34 of IPC against the Accused No.1 to 3.
4. After appearance of the Accused No.1 to 3, copies of documents were furnished to them under section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. The Accused No.1 to 3 were examined U/Sec.251 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The accusation leveled against the accused persons for the offences punishable U/Secs.341, 447, 506, 504 R/w.34 of IPC are read over and explained to them in their vernacular languages for which the accused persons denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
CC.No.1625 of 2018
Date of Judgment: 14-05-2026 4
6. On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW8 were examined and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. PW1 to PW6 PW1 Complainant PW2 Circumstantial Witness PW3 Circumstantial Witness PW4 Circumstantial witness PW5 witness PW6 panch witness for scene of offence panchanama PW7 panch witness for scene of offence panchanama PW8 Investigating Officer Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 Ex.P1 Complaint, Ex.P2 U/Sec.161 Cr.PC Statement of PW4, Ex.P3 U/Sec.161 Cr.PC Statement of PW5, Ex.P3 FIR (Due to oversight it was marked as Ex.P3 instead of Ex.P4) Ex.P4 Scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch (Due to oversight it was marked as Ex.P4 instead of Ex.P5).
7. On 10-04-2026 the evidence of LW6, LW9 and LW10 was closed by this Court as the police failed to serve summons on them despite there being a conditional order and giving sufficient time. Further no prosecution witnesses. Accordingly, Prosecution evidence was closed. On behalf of defence none were examined and no documents were marked.
8. Thereafter, Accused No.1 to 3 were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C by read over incriminating evidence appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, in their vernacular language. Having understood the same, the accused persons reported being false and further reported no defence evidence. Hence defence evidence is closed.
9. Heard the Learned APP and Learned counsel for the Accused No.1 to
3. Perused the record.
10.Now the point for determination is:
Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the Accused
No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable U/Secs.341, 447, 506, 509
R/w.34 of IPC ?
CC.No.1625 of 2018
Date of Judgment: 14-05-2026 5
11.POINT :
i. The Learned APP submitted that the prosecution witnesses supported the case and it is prayed to convict the accused persons. The Learned Defence Counsel for Accused Persons submitted that accused persons are the owner of the said premises, the complainant did not pay the rent, when the accused persons insisted to pay the rent amount, the complainant lodged this false case against them and it is prayed to acquit the accused persons.
ii. According to PW1, he has a garment business by name Mak Fashion Ready Made Garments, PW2 and PW4 are his partners in the said business, he know PW5 and LW6 who are electricians, Accused No.1 to 3 are the owners of the premises where PW1 was having his business, at housing board colony MIG- 20, he had taken 2nd floor as rent in the year, 2010 for a rent of Rs.10,000/-, they use to make job work by securing the orders from out siders and used to manufacture in the premises and used to send to respective wholesalers, they named their business Mak Fashion Ready Made Garments, in the same building, his son/PW3 had a retail garments shop at the first floor which was taken on rent for an mount of Rs.6500/- and the said shop was named as Fashion Trend in the year, 2014, after obtaining loan from Syndicate Bank, PW1 had raised his machine to 75, he had taken rent of third floor also as he was lacking space, the rent of second floor and third floor was Rs.25,000/-.
He further deposed that during the agitation period for Telangana State, his business was slow, as such, he could not pay the rent in time and consequently the owners in the year, 2014 to 2016, intermittently they used to lock the premises, however, sudden occasions, PW1 could mobilize money and repaid the balance rent however not for certain other time. In several tranches, he paid Rs.2,50,000/-, they promised to back the keys, however, they did not return the keys. However, subsequently the premises was opened in accused no.1 to 3’s premises, PW1 had shutdown third floor and had dump all the material to the second floor, however, keys were with accused, PW1 was due an amount of Rs.4 lakhs to accused as rent, as he told earlier he repaid 2,50,000/- and remained to pay 1,50,000/-, in the mean while, he had received a small order, he requested accused to open the premises, however they did not.
CC.No.1625 of 2018
Date of Judgment: 14-05-2026 6 PW1 further deposed that thereafter, accused started coming to PW1’s house, harassed him for the remaining 1,50,000/-, apart from A1 to A3, some other persons used to accompany them, Accused used to bang the doors of his house, they used to hurl abuses in filthy language upon him, his family members including ladies, unbearable of the harassment, as per their demands, PW1 issued cheques to accused, they had taken signature of him, in blank promissory note, there were certain signed blank cheques, agreements and promissory note in the retail store at first floor, Accused had removed the said documents from the store without their permission and mis-utilized the same by filing in the blank, in the said first floor, there is Garments of about 5 to 6 lakhs which is illegally occupied by accused, they removed their board and installed their name board as Fashion World and running the business and has caused misappropriation. Thereafter, when PW1 had been to the shop, he noticed there is no garments in the shop., however, his furniture was intact, they had replaced his ready made garments with the new garments, PW1 was not returned his ready made garments and was misappropriated.
PW1 further deposed that for such harassment, PW1 and PW2 went to police station and lodged the report on 29.09.2016, few days thereafter, police called him to show the shop, he went with police to his shop, he was astonished to find that there is no machinery at the second floor, Accused had removed all the machinery along with accessories and fabric, he had informed police that about 15 days back there was machinery and other accessories and fabric as mentioned, however, it is missing now and the keys of the premises is with accused, they came down to the first floor, when PW1, CI of police questioned accused with regard to the shop, accused answered that PW1 had sold the shop, Accused shown type written paper that PW1 had purportedly sold the shop for Rs.1,00,000/-, PW1 further deposed that the said paper was obtained by accused by taking his signature about 15 days ago when accused happened to come to the house of witness and out of harassment meted upon witness, he had to sign on a white paper, he further deposed that the garments were worth Rs.8 lakhs and at no circumstances he would have sold for Rs.1,00,000/-, the said paper was stamp paper, they also mentioned a cheque number in the said paper however, PW1 had never given the cheque, Accused taken the cheque from the counter of his shop.
CC.No.1625 of 2018
Date of Judgment: 14-05-2026 7 iii. PW1 was cross examined by the Learned Defence Counsel at length. PW1 admitted that he started his business in the said house MIG No.20, at IInd floor, in the year 2011, in addition to 2nd floor, he has taken third floor for the sake of his business. Further admitted that as he belong to the same social background of Accused no.1 to 3, the accused no.1 to A-3 given the building at lower rent, further he admitted that during the year 2010 to 2013 as there was hardship in the business the rents could not be paid regularly as such there was due amount of Rs.4,50,000/- and later the said amount was paid by way of cash.
He further admitted that Accused No.1 had arranged an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- for his necessity from one Mallesham. He denied the suggestion that as he failed to repay the hand loan of Rs.3 lacs, Accused No.1 had repaid the said amount to one Mallesham. He further admitted that a meeting was held with A-1 to A-3 and along with them some other people were present. PW1 stated that one Ratnam and Mallesham were also the part of the said meeting held during the year 2013 & 2014. Further he denied the other suggestions put to him.
iv. According to PW2, he know accused A1 to A3 they are the building owners of Pw1. In the year 2010, he had started manufacturer ready made garments at Mig building situated at Medchal housing board belonging to Accused No.1, they initially started the manufacturing company with 30 machines as there was good development in the business, basing on the same Syndicate bank had given loan of Rs. 15,00,000/- with which they had purchased 70 Machines in addition to what they had initially. Initially the first 30 machines they have kept in the ground floor of the building and the newly purchased 70 machines in the first floor of the building, during the bifurcation of the state their work was not going well due to which they could not pay the rents to Accused No.1 to 3, after some days, they started pressuring them for payment of rents, as the work was completely stopped after that the accused had locked the building when they requested the accused to give the keys of the building they refused to give, meantime, they had given some amounts to the accused.
CC.No.1625 of 2018
Date of Judgment: 14-05-2026 8 PW2 further deposed that PW2, PWl and LW4 are partners to the ready made garment manufacturing business, they had paid for chits to Accused No.1/Anwar hussain and one Ratnam, they had drawn the chit after which the accused demanded them to pay the chit amounts after the payment, they will give the keys of the building, they had paid the chit amounts of Rs. 2,70,000/- to Accused No.l/anwar hussain and one ratnam, even after the payments made, the accused did not gave the keys of the building, after some days the accused have demanded them to execute the bond paper stating that they are due to pay the rent amounts, accused had obtained their signatures on blank paper, later they finally refused to give the keys of the said building, later they filed the report.
PW2 was cross examined by the Learned Defence Counsel, wherein PW2 admitted that as he belong to the same social background of Accused No.1 to 3, they had given the building at lower rent. Further admitted by PW2, that during the year 2010 to 2013 as there was hardship in the business, the rents could not be paid regularly as such there was due amount of Rs.4,50,000/- and later the said amount was paid by way of cash. Further he stated that when they went to his native place only for a period of two years, accused no.1 and one Ratnam had started a chit fund business and he had subscribed to the same. Further he admitted that an agreement of terms were executed between him and accused no.1 to 3. Further he denied the other suggestions put to him.
v. According to PW3 who is son of PW1, in the year 2010, his father / PW1 had setup a garment business at KPHB Colony, there was dispute between his father and the owners i.e. Accused No.1 and 3 with regard to the rent, as they could not pay the rents for a period of 6 months, later accused no.1 and 3 had locked their shop shetter, later as there was ready made garment showroom, just beneath the shop of his father, accused no.1 and 3 also locked his shop shetter. PW3 was cross examined by the Learned Defence Counsel, wherein PW3 admitted that his father assured to pay rental due amount to accused no.1 to 3 within 6 months, but he did not pay. Further, he denied the other suggestions put to him.
CC.No.1625 of 2018
Date of Judgment: 14-05-2026 9 vi. PW4 and PW5 who are said to be witnesses, deposed that they do not know anything about this Case. Thus PW4 and PW5 turned hostile. PW4 and PW5 was cross examined by the Learned APP, but nothing could be elicited to prove the case.
vii. PW6 and PW7 who are said to be panch witness for scene of offence deposed that they do not know anything about this case. Thus PW6 and PW7 turned hostile. PW6 and PW7 was cross examined by the Learned APP, but nothing could be elicited to prove the case.
viii. PW8 the investigating officer deposed the contents of the Charge sheet. PW8 was cross examined by the Learned Defence Counsel, wherein PW8 admitted that Accused No.1 to 3 are the owners of the building and PW1 is a tenant of said building. He further admitted that PW1 resided as tenant in the said building from 2010 to 2016, as per Ex.P1 PW1 has not paid rent regularly, after formation of telangana state, further admitted that he has not seized any cloths and machines. Further, he denied the other suggestions put to him.
ix. On perusal of record, it is seen that except PW1 to PW3, who are family members and relatives, no independent witnesses supported the case. It is true that evidence of the family members cannot be discarded. However, their evidence must be scrutinized carefully.
x. The accusation leveled against the accused persons is for the offences punishable U/Secs.341, 447, 506, 504 R/w.34 of IPC xi. It is appropriate to reproduce Section 340, 440, 503 and 504 of IPC:- 340 of IPC:- Wrong Confinement:
Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said "Wrongfully to confine" that person and the same is Punishable U/Section 341 of IPC.
440 of IPC: Criminal Trespass: Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person or with intent to commit an offence is said to be commit "Criminal Trespass" and the same is punishable U/Section 447 of IPC.
CC.No.1625 of 2018
Date of Judgment: 14-05-2026 10 xii. 503 of IPC: Criminal Intimidation:
Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interest, with intent to cause alarm to that person or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation and the same is punishable U/Sec.506 of IPC.
xiii. 504 of IPC: Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace:-
Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine or with both.
To avoid repetitions, offences punishable under Secs.341 and 447 of IPC are decided together.
On plain reading of Section 340 of IPC, it can be seen that to attract the above said offence, the person must be wrongfully restrained. PW1 to PW3 deposed that, accused persons locked the shop shutters. It is to be noted that in the examination-in-chief itself, PW1 and PW2 deposed that they have not paid the rent, as such the accused persons locked the shop shutters. Further, PW3 who is son of PW1, also deposed in his examination-in- chief, that as they could not pay the rents for a period of 6 months, accused no.1 and 3 locked the shop shutter.
It is pertinent to note that except PW1 to PW3, who are family members and relatives, no independent witnesses deposed that accused persons locked the shop shutters. Assume for a moment, that accused persons have locked the shop shutters. It is to be noted that being owners of the shop, the accused persons have every right to collect the rent from the tenants. As the complainant/PW1 and PW2 did not pay the rent amount, the accused persons might have visited the shop and allegedly locked the shop shutter.
CC.No.1625 of 2018
Date of Judgment: 14-05-2026 11
It is pertinent to note that, it is not the case of the complainant, that there was a rental agreement and one of the conditions was that, even if the complainant/PW1 did not pay the rent amount, the accused persons do not enter into the premises of the shop and they do not have any right to collect rent. Therefore, it can be said that the ingredient of sections 340 and 441 of IPC, do not attracts to the present facts of the case.
xiv. When it comes to 506 and 504 of IPC:-
The PW1 deposed that the accused persons have come to the house of PW1, hurled abuses in filthy language upon him, his family members including ladies, It is to be noted that PW3, who is son of PW1, himself did not say that, accused persons have come to their house and hurled abuses. Furthermore the evidence of PW2, is also silent in this regard. It is pertinent to note there is no corroboration to the evidence of PW1, in respect of this. If accused persons had come to the house of PW1, PW2 and PW3 would have deposed the same. Hence, the evidence of PW1 that the accused persons had come to the house of PW1, hurled abuses is not believable. The only remaining evidence is that of PW8 / investigating officer. Though PW8 supported the case, his evidence can not be considered as he has interest over the case.
xv. In view of the reasons stated supra, this court can said that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused no.1 to 3 beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, the point is answered.
12.IN THE RESULT, the Accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable 340, 447, 506 and 504 of IPC R/w 34 of IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted U/Sec.255(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the above said offences. The bail bonds of the accused persons shall be in-force for a period of six (06) months as contemplated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C.
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 08 th day of May, 2026.)
Sd/-
IX ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM
MEDCHAL MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT
AT: MEDCHAL
CC.No.1625 of 2018
Date of Judgment: 14-05-2026 12
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: PW1 Shaik Masthan Vali/Complainant PW2 Shail Mohammad Afsar/Circumstantial Witness PW3 Shaik Farook Basha/Circumstantial Witness PW4 Mohd Khaiser/witness PW5 Marripally Giribabu/witness PW6 Ponuganti Srinivas/Panch witness for scene of offence PW7 Mandala Yadagiri/Panch witness for scene of offence PW8 S.Venkat Reddy/Investigating Officer
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 Complaint Ex.P2 U/Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW4 Ex.P3 U/Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW5 Ex.P3 FIR (Due to oversight it was marked as Ex.P3 instead of Ex.P4) Ex.P4 Scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch (Due to oversight it was marked as Ex.P4 instead of Ex.P5) FOR DEFENCE: NIL
MATERIAL OBJECTS
FOR PROSECUTION: NIL
Sd/-
IX ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
CUM-II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
MEDCHAL MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT
AT: MEDCHAL