Bangalore District Court
Mohan Mangvani vs Anuf Kumar Lohiya on 25 September, 2025
KABC030396472022
Presented on : 20.05.2022
Registered on : 20.05.2022
Decided on : 25.09.2025
Duration : 03y/04m/05days
IN THE COURT OF XLI ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, AT : BENGALURU
PRESIDED OVER BY:TATTANDA DAMAYANTI SOMAYYA
B.A.,LL.B.,
XLI Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate
Bengaluru
Dated on this 25th day of September 2025
C.C.No.15137/2022
COMPLAINANT : The State
by Bellanduru Police Station
-V/s-
ACCUSED : 1. Anoop Kumar Lohiya
S/o. Ravi Shakar Lohiya, 40 years,
R/at. No.2/467, 6th Main,
Gomathipuram, Melamedal,
Madurai, Tamilnadu.
2. Mohammed Ajmal
S/o. Abdul Aziz, 46 years,
R/at. No.76/2, Hannis Road,
Near Vesk Tamil Church,
Shivaji Nagar, Bengaluru.
Date of Commission of 24.01.2022
offence
2 C.C.No.15137/2022
Date of report 24.01.2022
Date of arrest On 28.01.2022, the accused No.1
and 2 surrendered before the court
and got enlarged themselves on bail.
Name of the complainant Mohan Mangnani
Date of commencement of 18.09.2025
recording Evidence
Date of closing evidence 23.09.2025
Offences complained of U/Sec.447, 427, 504 506 R/w 34 of
IPC
State Represented by Senior Asst.Public Prosecutor
Accused Represented by Sri.S.M.Manjunath Advocate.
Opinion of the Judge As per final orders
JUDGMENT
[Delivered on 25.09.2025] The P.S.I of Bellanduru police station has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.447, 427, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.
2. Brief facts of prosecution case is as follows:
On 24.01.2022 at 10a.m., the accused No.1 and 2 in furtherance of common intention illegally trespassed into the property of CW.1, which is situated at Sy.No.26/1 of Doddakannalli village, Sarjapura road, abused CW.1 to 4 in a filthy language, demolished the compound constructed around 3 C.C.No.15137/2022 the property, caused loss to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and threatened CW.1 to kill. On the basis of computerized typed information given by the CW.1, the Bellanduru police have registered this case in Cr.No.11/2022.
3. On 28.01.2022, the accused No.1 and 2 voluntarily surrendered before the court and got enlarged themselves on bail.
4. After the investigation, the IO filed charge sheet against the accused. The Court has taken cognizance of the offences punishable U/Sec. 447, 427, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. The Court complied with Sec.207 of Cr.P.C., and furnished charge sheet copies to the accused.
5. The Court heard both the parties. As there were no grounds to discharge the accused, the Court framed charges for the offences punishable U/Sec.447, 427, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. The accused did not plead guilty. They claimed to be tried.
6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution got examined 4 witnesses as PW.1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 6 documents. As the complainant and affected persons have turned hostile and 4 C.C.No.15137/2022 they did not support the case of prosecution, there was no incriminating evidence to record the statements of the accused. Hence, statements of accused No.1 and 2 U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., was not recorded.
7. I have heard the arguments of Senior APP and Sri.SMM Advocate.
8. On the basis of allegations made against the accused, the following points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused No.1 and 2 in furtherance of common intention illegally trespassed into the property of CW.1 on 24.01.2022 at 10a.m., which is situated at Sy.No.26/1 of Doddakannalli village, Sarjapura road and thereby they have committed the offence punishable U/Sec.447 R/w.Sec. 34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time and place the accused in furtherance of 5 C.C.No.15137/2022 common intention abused CW.1 to 4 in a filthy language and thereby they have committed the offence punishable U/Sec.504 r/w.Sec.34 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused in furtherance of common intention demolished the compound constructed around the property, caused loss to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- to CW.1 and thereby they have committed the offence punishable U/Sec. 427 r/w. Sec. 34 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused in furtherance of common intention threatened CW.1 to kill and thereby they have committed the offence punishable U/Sec. 506 r/w. Sec. 34 of IPC?
5. What order?
9. My answers to the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In Negative Point No.2 : In Negative 6 C.C.No.15137/2022 Point No.3 : In Negative Point No.4 : In Negative Point No.5 : As per final orders for the following:
REASONS Point No.1 to 4: As all these points are interrelated, I take all the four points together for common discussion to avoid repetition.
10. The burden is casted on the prosecution to prove that, the accused No.1 and 2 in furtherance of common intention illegally trespassed into the property of CW.1 on 24.01.2022 at 10a.m., which is situated at Sy.No.26/1 of Doddakannalli village, Sarjapura road and when CW.1 questioned them, the accused abused CW.1 to 4 in a filthy language, demolished the compound constructed around the property, caused loss to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and threatened him to kill.
11. In order to prove its case, the prosecution got examined the complainant/CW.1 as PW.1, eye witnesses and affected persons/CW.2 as PW.2, CW.3 as PW.3 and CW.4 as PW.4 and got marked first information/complaint as Ex.P.1, clarification given 7 C.C.No.15137/2022 by CW.1 as Ex.P.2, portion of the statement of CW.1 as Ex.P.3 and portion of statements of PW.2 to 4 as Ex.P.4 to 6 respectively.
12. CW.1/PW.1-Mohan Manghnani, in his evidence has stated that, he is acquainted with the accused, CW.2, 5 and 6. He does not know anything about this case. The accused neither quarreled with them nor abused them in a filthy language nor caused any loss nor threatened him with dire consequences. He has not lodged any complaint against the accused. Ex.P.1 bears his signature. About 3-4 years ago, the police came near their educational institution and took his signature to that document. He is not aware of the contents of the same. Ex.P.2 requisition bears his signature. He signed that document, while signing Ex.P.1. He is not aware of the contents of that document. He has not given any statement against the accused.
13. CW.2/PW.2 Surya Prakash, in his evidence has stated that, he is acquainted with the accused, PW.1, CW.3 and 4. He does not know anything about this case. The accused neither illegally trespassed into the property of PW.1 nor quarreled with them nor 8 C.C.No.15137/2022 abused them in a filthy language nor caused any loss to PW.1 nor threatened PW.1.
14. CW.3/PW.3-Ranjith Sinha and CW.4/PW.4-Jeevan Thamang in their evidence have stated that, they are acquainted with the accused, PW.1 and 2. They do not know anything about this case. The accused neither illegally trespassed into the property of PW.1 nor quarreled with them nor abused them in a filthy language nor caused any loss to PW.1 nor threatened PW.1.
15. On the basis of Ex.P.1- computerized information given by PW.1 on 24.01.2022, the Bellanduru police have registered this case, investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against the accused. In Ex.P.1, the PW.1 had mentioned the names of the accused/offenders, who illegally trespassed into the property in Sy.No.26/1 of Doddakannalli village and how they demolished the compound constructed around the property, the manner in which they threatened them and how they abused them in a filthy language. By giving Ex.P.2 clarification, the PW.1 clarified that, 9 C.C.No.15137/2022 the property in Sy.No.26/1 of Doddakannalli village is his private property.
16. But, in the Court, the PW.1 being the complainant deposed contrary to the contents of Ex.P.1 and 2. He did not support the case of the prosecution. Though the PW.2 to 4 are eye witnesses and affected persons, they have also turned hostile. Though, the prosecution treated PW.1 to 4 as hostile witnesses and cross examined by Senior APP, they did not depose in support of the case of the prosecution. The PW.1 has gone to the extent of saying that, he has not lodged any complaint against the accused.
17. After the receipt of Ex.P.1 from PW.1, the police registered the case, visited the spot, drawn spot mahazer and collected photographs of the spot. But, the PW.1 stated that, no such incident was occurred as alleged in Ex.P.1. The PW.1 to 4 denied that, they had given their statements to the police regarding the crime committed by the police. Hence, portion of their statements are marked as Ex.P.3 to 6 respectively.
10 C.C.No.15137/2022
18. During the course of cross examination, the PW.1 to 4 admitted that, they have compromised the case with accused. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that, the PW.1 to 4 did not support the case of the prosecution as, they have already compromised the case with the accused. As the complainant and affected persons have turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution, this court rejected the prayer of Sr.APP in summoning other witnesses as, the purpose of the prosecution would not be served by examining them.
19. From the evidence led by PW.1 to 4, the allegations made against the accused are not proved. The evidence led by PW.1 to 4 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution to hold the accused guilty of the offences. From their evidence the charges leveled against the accused are not proved. There is no cogent evidence on record to connect the accused with the alleged crime.
20. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove that, the accused No.1 and 2 in furtherance of common intention illegally trespassed into the property of PW.1 on 24.01.2022 at 10a.m., 11 C.C.No.15137/2022 which is situated at Sy.No.26/1 of Doddakannalli village, Sarjapura road and when PW.1 questioned them, the accused abused PW.1 to 4 in a filthy language, demolished the compound constructed around the property, caused loss to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and threatened PW.1 to kill. In such circumstances, I answer point No.1 to 4 in Negative.
Point No.5: For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER By exercising the powers conferred U/Sec.248[1] of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted from the charges of Sec.447, 427, 504, 506 R/w 34 of IPC.
Bail bonds executed by accused No.1 and 2 stands cancelled.
TATTANDA Digitally signed by
TATTANDA DAMAYANTI
DAMAYANTI SOMAIAH
Date: 2025.09.25 17:50:44
SOMAIAH +0530
25.09.2025 [TATTANDA DAMAYANTI SOMAYYA]
XLI A.C.J.M.,BENGALURU
12 C.C.No.15137/2022
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
PW.1 : Mohan Manghnani PW.2 : Surya Prakash PW.3 : Ranjith Sinha PW.4 : Jeevan Thamang
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : First information/Complaint Ex.P.1[a] : Signature of PW.1 Ex.P.2 : Clarification given by PW.1 Ex.P.2[a] : Signature of PW.1 Ex.P.3 : Portion of the statement of PW.1 Ex.P.4 : Portion of the statement of PW.2 Ex.P.5 : Portion of the statement of PW.3 Ex.P.6 : Portion of the statement of PW.4 LIST OF M.O's MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
NIL LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED : NIL LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED : NIL .......................................................................................
Dictated on : 25.09.2025 Transcribed on : 25.09.2025 checked on : 25.09.2025 Signed on : 25.09.2025 [TATTANDA DAMAYANTI SOMAYYA] XLI A.C.J.M., BENGALURU Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app "eCourts Services" from Android or iOS