Smt. B. Vanisree

APCH080016732021 1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION) -

CUM-JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE :: Tirupati.

Present :: Smt. B.Vani Sree,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) -cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate

Thursday, the 7th day of May, 2026

Calender Case Number 793 of 2021

Between:

State, represented by :

Sub Inspector of Police,

Chandragiri Police station.

Cr.No.295/2019 of Chandragiri PS

... Complainant

And :

1. Abburi Chiranjeevi, Aged 38 years, s/o A. Prabhakar, B. Kongaravaripali village, Seshapuram post, Chandragiri Mandal, presently residing at

U.A.E., Rasal Khaimah, R.A.K. Ceramics, MC-9, Dubai.

2. A. Munemma, Aged 63 years, w/o A. Prabhakar, B. Kongaravaripali village, Seshapuram post, Chandragiri Mandal, Chittoor district.

3. A. Prabhakar, Aged 68 years, s/o A. Yerrabba, B. Kongaravaripali village, Seshapuram post, Chandragiri Mandal, Chittoor district.

4. P.Manjula, age 40 years, W/o Munirathnam, Paidipalli village, Tirupati

Rural Mandal, Chittoor district.

5. P.Danamma, age 43 years, w/o P.Anand, Paidipalli village, Tirupati

Rural Mandal, Chittoor district.

… Accused/A1 to A5.

This case has coming before me on 06.05.2026 for final hearing

before me in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

APCH080016732021 2 for the state and of Sri B. Narahari Reddy, learned counsel for accused and upon hearing both sides on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

01.The State represented by the Sub Inspector of police,

Chandragiri police station, laid a charge against the accused in Crime

Number 295/2019 for the offences under sections 498(A), 323 and 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal code and Sec. 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

02.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows that:

(i) On 02.06.2013, L.W.1/G. Kalpana was married to A-1/A.

Chiranjeevi at TTD Kalyana Mantapam, Naravaripalli Village, Chandragiri

Mandal, according to Hindu customs and traditions. At the time of marriage, A-1 to A-5 allegedly demanded dowry consisting of 20 thulas of gold and 1 kg of silver ornaments. Accordingly, L.Ws.2 and 3/ G. Babu and

G. Sumathi presented gold ornaments, silver articles, household articles and cash by spending about Rs.2,00,000/- towards marriage expenses.

After marriage, L.W.1 stayed at her matrimonial house for about six months, and thereafter A-1 took her to Dubai on 22.09.2013, where both lived together happily for about one year and L.W.1 worked as a teacher.

Thereafter, as L.W.1 did not conceive, A-1 allegedly started harassing her on the instigation of A-2 to A-5, threatening to marry another woman. A-2 to

A-5 also allegedly abused her over phone calls, demanded additional dowry of Rs.2 lakhs, and subjected her to mental and physical cruelty.

During their stay in Dubai, A-1 allegedly developed illicit intimacy with one

Prameela, and when L.W.1 objected, he allegedly abused and assaulted her.

(ii) On 31.08.2018, A-1 brought L.W.1 to India and left her at

APCH080016732021 3 her in-laws’ house. A-2 to A-5 allegedly declared that they intended to perform a second marriage of A-1 as L.W.1 had no children and demanded that she obtain a medical certificate proving her fertility. Subsequently, mediations were held before elders, but A-1 allegedly assaulted L.W.1 and drove her away.

(iii) A complaint was earlier given at Chandragiri Police Station on 17.09.2018 and elders held panchayat and advised them to stay in India for 6 months and thereafter to go to Dubai for job but A-1 allegedly returned alone to Dubai carrying L.W.1’s passport, visa, and ticket, informing her that he was unwilling to continue marital life. Thereafter, A-2 to A-5 allegedly continued to harass and assault L.W.1 and drove her out of the matrimonial home and blocked her contact.

(iv) On 21.05.2019, L.W.1 got legal notices issued to A-1, A-3, and Prameela due to which A-1 allegedly came to her parental house on 02.12.2019, abused and assaulted her for issuing notices and for not bringing additional dowry, causing injuries to her face and nose. On hearing her cries, neighbors gathered and A-1 left the place. Thereafter,

L.W.1 approached Mahila Police Station, Tirupati, where counselling was conducted, but A-1 again left for Dubai.

(v) On 15.12.2019 at 02.00 p.m. on the written complaint made by the de-facto complainant Kalpana, a case in Cr. No.295/2019 U/sec.

498(A) IPC r/w 34 IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered in Chandragiri P.S. and the case was investigated.

(vi) During the course of investigation, LW-7/ M. Ramakrishna has examined the de-facto complainant and her relatives as LW-1 to LW-3 in the Chandragiri Police Station, recorded their statements u/sec 161(3)

Cr.P.C. Later after examination of LW-1, she produced marriage wedding

APCH080016732021 4 card, one Marriage Photo and certificate of marriage bearing vide

No.32/2013 volume No.8 issued by SRO, Chandragiri before LW-7, hence

LW-7 seized above under a cover Police Proceedings drafted on 15-12- 2019 at 03.00 PM for further proceedings into this case.

(vii) After examination of LW-1 to LW-3 in the Chandragiri

Police Station, LW-7 visited the scene of offence along with LW-1, examined the scene of offence and drafted the rough sketch of scene of offence, at the scene of offence, LW-7 secured the presence of the

LW-4/G.Vinodh Kumar, LW-5/ C. Venkatadri Naidu and LW-6/K.Tulasi

Naidu, examined them and recorded their statements u/sec 161(3) Cr.P.C vide.

(viii) During the course of investigation, the accused A-2 to A-5 obtained anticipatory bail in connection with the present case vide

Crl.M.P.No.8/2020 dated 17.01.2020 from the Hon’ble III Additional District

& Sessions Judge, Tirupati. As per the said orders, A-2 to A-5 were directed to surrender before the SHO, Chandragiri Police Station within 15 days and, on such surrender, they were ordered to be released on bail on execution of personal bonds for Rs.10,000/- each with two sureties each for the like sum. The Hon’ble Court further directed the accused to appear

before the Investigating Officer as and when required for investigation, to

cooperate with the investigation, and not to tamper with the prosecution evidence. Accordingly, on 26.01.2020, A-2 to A-5 appeared before

L.W.7/Investigating Officer and were released on bail in compliance with the aforesaid orders.

(ix) On 27-06-2021, LW.7 has served a copy of Sec 41(A)

Cr.P.C notice to accused A-1 through Gmail ID, and explained the facts of this case, and instructed him to appear before the Hon'ble court, whenever

APCH080016732021 5 the presence of him is required by the Hon'ble court. Later on the same day, LW-7 received acknowledgment receipt of Sec 41(A) Cr.P.C from his gmail. After completion of investigation LW17/ M. Ramakrishna, Sub-

Inspector of Police, Chandragiri PS filed charge sheet against A-1 to A-5 for the offences u/s 498 (A),323 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act.

03.On 22.07.2021 in this case the cognizance was taken for the offences punishable u/s 498 (A),323 and 506 IPC against A1 to A5.

04.On 02.05.2025 on appearance of A1 to A5 before the Court, copies of documents was furnished to them as required under section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

05.A1 to A5 were examined under section 239 of Criminal

Procedure Code. Charges u/s 498 (A), 323 and 506 IPC against accused persons were framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW1 and

PW2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. The evidence of other list of witnesses i.e., LW2/G.Babu, LW3/G.Sumathi, LW4/G.Vinodh Kumar, LW5/

C.Venkatadri Naidu and LW6/K.Tulasi Naidu was given up by the prosecution. Hence, the prosecution side evidence was closed.

07. After closure of prosecution side evidence, on 06.05.2026 the accused A1 to A5 were examined under section 313 Criminal Procedure

Code by putting the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Hence, defence evidence is closed.

08.Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel for accused. Perused the oral and

APCH080016732021 6 documentary evidence on record.

09.Now the points for determination are :

1. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A1 to A5 for the offences U/Sec. 498 (A), 323 and 506 of Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt?

2. To what finding?

10.To substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined witnesses as PW1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. P.W.1 is the mother of defacto complainant. P.W.2 is the Investigating Officer.

11. Ex.P1 is the Signature on the report. Ex.P2 is the Sec.161 Cr

P C statement of PW1. Ex.P3 is the report. Ex.P-4 is the FIR. Ex.P-5 is the rough sketch.

12.The prosecution case, in brief, is that L.W.1/Kalpana married

A-1 on 02.06.2013 and at the time of marriage A-1 to A-5 allegedly received dowry in the form of gold, silver and household articles. After marriage, A-1 took L.W.1 to Dubai and later allegedly subjected her to physical and mental cruelty for not conceiving, demanded additional dowry of Rs.2 lakhs and threatened to contract second marriage. It is further alleged that A-2 to A-5 also harassed L.W.1 and supported A-1 in demanding additional dowry. Later, A-1 allegedly abandoned L.W.1 in India and returned alone to Dubai carrying her passport and visa. On 02.12.2019, A-1 allegedly assaulted L.W.1 at her parental house for issuing legal notices and for not bringing additional dowry. Based on the complaint lodged by L.W.1 on 15.12.2019, Chandragiri Police registered the present case, conducted investigation and filed charge sheet against A-1 to A-5 for the offences under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

APCH080016732021 7

13.The stand of accused persons is of total denial. They contended by way of suggestion that the accused persons are no way related to this case and they did not commit any offence.

14. The learned Assistant public prosecutor argued that the evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 2 clinchingly establishes that the accused persons committed the offence and are liable for punishment u/s 498 (A), 323 and 506 IPC.

15.On the other hand, the learned defence counsel argued that prosecution failed to establish that the accused persons committed the alleged offence. Therefore, the accused persons are entitled for benefit of doubt.

16. In view of rival contentions on both sides, the entire oral and documentary evidence is perused.

17.Point No.1 :

(a) To prove the case of the prosecution for the offence under

Section 498-A, following necessary ingredients require to be satisfied:

(i) The woman must be married; She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment; and

(ii) Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by husband of the woman or by the relative of her husband,

(b) To prove the case of the prosecution for the offence U/Sec.448 of

IPC, the following necessary ingredients require to be satisfied :

(i) Intention, i.e., mens rea, is one of the major ingredients of trespass to constitute it a criminal offence.

(c) To bring home the charge under section 323 of Indian Penal

Code, the prosecution has to establish the following ingredients under section 334 of Indian Penal Code.

(i) The accused must have the intention to cause hurt or must be

APCH080016732021 8 aware that their actions are likely to cause hurt to PW1..

(ii) The hurt caused to PW1 the victim to suffer bodily pain, disease, or infirmity.

(iii)The accused caused hurt or bodily pain to the victim/PW1.

(iv) The accused had caused the hurt with the intention or with knowledge.

(d) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused for offences punishable under Section 506 of Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to prove the following ingredients under section 503 of Indian Penal Code.

(i) that the accused threatened P.W.1,

(ii) that such threat consisted of some injury to his person,reputation or property or to the person, reputation or property of someone in whom they were interested.

(iii) that the accused did so with intent to cause alaram to P.W.1 or to cause him to do any act which he was not legally bound to do, or omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do as a means of avoiding the execution such threat.

(e) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused for offences punishable under Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, the prosecution has to prove the following ingredients :-

(i) whoever amongst the parties or their families to the marriage either provides, demands or abets to provide or demand the dowry to/from the other party to the marriage is punishable with an Imprisonment minimum of five years and a fine of either Rs. 15,000/- or the amount of dowry.

(ii)If any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be,

APCH080016732021 9 any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine.

18.According to the prosecution, PW1/ G. Kalpana is the Defacto complainant. She deposed that on 02.06.2013, her marriage was perfomed with A1 at TTD Kalyanamandapam, Naravaripalli, Chandragiri Mandal and they lead marital life for some period and after that disputes arose between them. She further deposed that at the request of elders, she signed before police on paper but does not know the content on it. She was declared as hostile by the prosecution. In her cross examination by learned APP, she admitted that they settled the matter before elders and she got divorce from

A1 and her Sec.161 Cr P C statement was marked as Ex.P-2,.

19. PW2 / M.Ramakrishna, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, deposed that on 15.12.2019 at about 02.00PM while he was present in the

P.S PW1 came there and lodged a report / Ex.P3and he registered a case under cr.no 295/2019 u/s 498A, r/w 34 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of DP

Act under Ex.P4 / FIR and examined and recorded the statement of PW1.

He further deposed that he secured father of PW1/LW2/G.Babu,

LW3/G.Sumathi/mother of PW1 and LW4/G.Vinod Kumar/Brother of PW1 examined and recorded their statements and rushed to the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch / Ex.P5. He further deposed that he secured LW5/C.Venaktadri Naidu and LW6/K.Thulasi Naidu, examined and recorded their statements in the scene of offence and accordingly added sections of law 323 and 506 of IPC. He further deposed that on 26-01- 2020, A2 to A5 appeared before him and got released on bail as per the orders of Hon’ble III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati. He further deposed that on 27-06-2021, A1 surrendered before him and got

APCH080016732021 10 served 41(A) CrPC notice and after completion of investigation, he laid a charge sheet before this Honourable Court.

(ii) In his cross examination, he denied the suggestion that he conducted table investigation and A1 to A5 are no way related to alleged offences and he foisted false case against them to help PW1.

20.On perusal of records, it discloses that PW1 is the victim cum defacto complainant who lodged report and set the law in to motion. It is pertinent to note that she turned hostile to the case of prosecution deposing that she signed before police on paper but does not know the content on it. Consequently, the report lodged by her cannot be relied upon unless corroborated by independent evidence. It is pertinent to note that she admitted in the cross examination by learned APP that they settled the matter before elders and she got divorce from A1

21.Further the evidence available on record, it discloses that PW2 is the Investigating Officer who deposed regarding registration of the case, investigation conducted by him, examination of witnesses, preparation of rough sketch, arrest/bail formalities and filing of charge sheet. Except the evidence of PW2 who is the Investigating Officer, there is no independent evidence available on record to connect the accused persons with the commission of offences. In the absence of corroborative evidence and in view of the hostile testimony of PW1, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt for the offences u/s 498A, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC and sec 3 and 4 of DP Act. Accordingly, point no.1 is answered against the prosecution.

22.Point No.2:

In view of my finding in point No.1, the accused persons A-1 to

APCH080016732021 11

A-5 are entitled for benefit of doubt. This point is answered accordingly against the prosecution and in favour of the accused persons.

23.In the result, the accused A-1 to A-5 are found not guilty for the offences under section 498-A, 323, 506 г/w 34 IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act, accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for further period of six (6) months as per Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code and they are set at liberty. The unmarked non valuable case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade - II, corrected, signed

and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 7 th Day of May,

2026.

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

-CUM- J.F.C.MAGISTRATE,

TIRUPATI

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE//

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution

PW1: G. Kalpana

PW2: M. Ramakrishna, SI of Police

For Defence: NIL

/ / DOCUMENTS MARKED / /

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 is the Signature on the report.

Ex.P2 is the Sec.161 Cr P C statement of PW1.

APCH080016732021 12

Ex.P3 is the report.

Ex.P-4 is the FIR.

Ex.P-5 is the rough sketch.

For defence: --Nil-- // Material objects marked //

NIL

PCJ cum JFMC

FAIR Judgment in CC No.793/2021.

Dated 07-05-2026.

APCH080016732021 13

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION) -

CUM-JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE :: Tirupati.

CALENDAR IN C.C.No.793/2021

1.Date of offencePrior to 15-12-2019

2.Date of Report or complaint15-12-2019

3.Date of taken on file22-07-2021

Date of apprehension of A2 to A5 are apprehended pn 26-01- 4. accused2020. A1 is apprehended on 27-06-2021

A2 to A5 are released on 26-01-2020.

5.Date of release on bail A1 is released on 27-06-2021

6.Date of commencement of trial05.05.2026

7.Date of close of trial06.05.2026

8.Date of Sentence or Order07.05.2026

State, represented by :

Sub Inspector of Police,

9.Complainant Chandragiri Police station.

Cr.No.295/2019 of Chandragiri PS 10Description of accused 1. Abburi Chiranjeevi, Aged 38 years, s/o

A. Prabhakar, B. Kongaravaripali village,

Seshapuram post, Chandragiri Mandal, presently residing at U.A.E., Rasal

Khaimah, R.A.K. Ceramics, MC-9, Dubai.

2. A. Munemma, Aged 63 years, W/o A.

Prabhakar, B. Kongaravaripali village,

APCH080016732021 14

Seshapuram post, Chandragiri Mandal,

Chittoor district.

3. A. Prabhakar, Aged 68 years, s/o A.

Yerrabba, B. Kongaravaripali village,

Seshapuram post, Chandragiri Mandal,

Chittoor district.

4. P.Manjula, age 40 years, W/o

Munirathnam, Paidipalli village, Tirupati

Rural Mandal, Chittoor district.

5. P.Danamma, age 43 years, w/o

P.Anand, Paidipalli village, Tirupati Rural

Mandal, Chittoor district.

Under section 498-A, 323, 506 г/w 34 IPC 11Section of Law and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

12Plea of Accused Pleaded not guilty.

13Finding of Court Found not Guilty.

14. Sentence or Order :

In the result, the accused A-1 to A-5 are found not guilty for the offences under section 498-A, 323, 506 г/w 34 IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act, accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for further period of six (6) months as per Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code and they are set at liberty. The unmarked non-valuable case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

15. Explanation for delay and Remarks:

This case was taken on file on 22.07.2021. On 02.05.2025 on

APCH080016732021 15 appearance of A1 to A5 before the Court, copies of documents was furnished to them as required under section 207 of Criminal Procedure

Code. A1 to A5 were examined under section 239 of Criminal Procedure

Code. Charges u/s 498 (A), 323 and 506 IPC against accused persons were framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW1 and PW2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5.

Hence, the prosecution side evidence was closed. After closure of prosecution side evidence, on 06.05.2026 the accused A1 to A5 were examined under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code by putting the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Hence, defence evidence is closed. Heard the arguments on both sides. Judgment pronounced in open court on 07-05-2026. Hence, the delay.

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Tirupati.

Copy submitted to :

The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Prl. Assistant Sessions

Judge, Chittoor.

APCH080049862023

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (Junior Division)-CUM-

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE:: TIRUPATI

Present: SMT. B.VANISREE,

Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum- Judl. First Class Magistrate

Monday, this the 11st day of May, 2026.

E.P.No. 202 /20 23

ARC .No. 34 /20 21

Between:

Shriram Raghavendra Chits Pvt., Ltd., is having its Registered Office at 9-1- 124/4, F.No.501, 5th Floor, AMSRI CLASSIC, Opp. St.Mary’s Church, S.D.Road, Secunderabad-3, A.P. having among other branches. A branch at Plot No.10-14-575/B, 1st Floor, PM.R.Plaza, V.V.Mahal Road, Tirupati, Rep. By its Authorized Signatory is Decree Holder. … D.Hr

Vs.

1. Sri V.Ravi S/o P.Venkatesan, Hindu,a ged 60 Years, R/o, at D.NO.2- 32/11C, Tank Street, NEERVOY khw, Velur (P0, Pichatur (M), Chittoor. Office: SGT, Z.P.School, Prahladapuram, Sathyavedu (M), Tirupati (D).

2. Sri P.Gopi, S/o P.Ponuswamy, Hindu aged 48 years, residing at D.No.0- 00, Velevadi DW (P&V), Nagari (M), Chittoor (D) – 517590. Office: School Asst, Z.P.High School, Nindra, Nindra (M), Chittoor (Dis)-517591.

3. Sri T.Bala Krishnaiah, S/o T.Guravaiah, Hindu, aged 51 Years, residing at D.No.0-00, Nindra (M), Chittoor (Dis)-517591. Office: SGT, MPUP School, Bairupalli, V Kota (M), Chittoor (Dis)-517591.

4. Sri K.Munaswamy, S/o K.Krishna Reddy, Hindu, aged 55 Years residing at D.No.3/18/A, Thotta Street, Nindra (M), Chittoor (Dis) – 517591. Office: School Asst, Z.P High school, Gudipalli, Gudipalli (M), Chittoor (Dis) – 517591. … J.Dr

This petition is coming before me on this day i.e, 11-05-2026 for arrest warrant in the presence of Sri M.Sivagopal Reddy, learned counsel for Decree holder Sri M.Jayachandra Reddy, Learned counsel for Judgment Debtor and on perusal of material papers on record and having stood over for consideration, this court has delivered the following:

APCH080049862023

// O R D E R //

This is an Execution Petition filed by the Decree Holder under order 21 Rule 48 CPC to order for salary attachment of JDrs 1 to 4 for realization of EP amount.

This court issued Order 21 Rule 48 CPC attachment warrant against JDrs 1 to 4. At this stage D.Hr filed memo on 04-08-2026 stating that EP is dismissed as not pressed against Jdr.No.1. Memo recorded. EP is dismissed against Jdr.No.1 on 04-08-2026.

Record further discloses that OR 21 r 48 CPC attachment warrant served to garnishee of Jdrs 2, 3 on 05-12-2025 and Jdr.No.4 on 24-04-2026.

Order 21 Rule 48 CPC attachment warrant effected against Jdrs 2, 3 on 05-12-2025 and Jdr.No.4 on 24-04-2026 are made absolute.

In the result, this petition stands closed. No costs.

Typed to Dictation to the Stenographer, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 11th May, 2026.

Prl.Civil Judge (Jr. Division)- cum-J.F.C.Magistrate

TIRUPATI.

Appendix of Evidence

Nil

PCJ (J.D), Tirupati.

FairOrder in EP No.202/2023 in ARC.No.34/2021, Dated:11- 05-2026.

APCH080047562025

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (Junior Division)-CUM-

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE:: TIRUPATI

Present: SMT. B.VANISREE,

Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum- Judl. First Class Magistrate

Tuesday, this the 12th day of May, 2026.

E.P.No. 248 /20 25

ARC .No. 36 /20 22

Between: M/S Margadarsi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd., having its Branch at Tirupati., Rep. By its Manager/ Foreman Sri C.Kesavulu Naidu, S/o Late C.Krishnama Naidu,

Hindu, a/a 49 Years, R/o. Tirupati.

… D.Hr

Vs.

1. Pakala Vani Devi, W/o C.S.Harish, a/a 39 Years, D.No.19-3-2G,

Srinivasapuram, Renigunta Road, Tirupati, Chittoor District. Now: Tirupati

District.

2. Chembedu Subramanyam Harish, S/o C.Subramanyam, a/a 41 Years,

D.No. 19-3-2G, Srinivasapuram, Renigunta Road, Tirupati, Chittoor

District. Now: Tirupati District.

3. Chamarti Nagendra Varma, S/o C.V.Subramanyam Raju, a/a 39 Years,

W/as Principal Consultant, Accion Labs & India Pvt. Ltd., Unit No. 201 to 211, Sigma Soft.Tech Park, Ramagondanahalli Village, Varthur Hobli,

Bangalore, Karnataka State.

4. Tupakula Pavan Kumar, S/o T.Vijay Kumar, a/a 39 Years, W/as

Develoment Officer, Sale & Dept., LIC of India, Piler, Chittoor District.

5. Katikam Pavan Kumar, S/o K.Bala Subramanyam, a/a 39 Years, D.No.19- 12-552, Flat No. 201, Prabha Enclave, Bairagipatteda, Tirupati, Chittoor

District. Now: Tirupati District.

… J.Drs

APCH080047562025

This petition is coming before me on this day i.e, 12-05-2026 for attachment warrant in the presence of Sri K.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for Decree holder and on perusal of material papers on record and having stood over for consideration, this court has delivered the following:-

// O R D E R //

This is an Execution Petition filed by the Decree Holder under order 21 Rule 48 CPC to order for salary attachment of JDr for realization of EP amount.

This court issued Order 21 Rule 48 CPC attachment warrant against Jdr on 21-04-2026.

Order 21 Rule 48 CPC attachment warrant served to garnishee of Jdr on 07-05-2026.

Order 21 Rule 48 CPC attachment warrant effected against JDr on 07-05-2026 is made absolute.

In the result, this petition stands closed. No costs.

Typed to Dictation to the Stenographer, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 12th May, 2026.

Prl.Civil Judge (Jr. Division)- cum-J.F.C.Magistrate

TIRUPATI.

Appendix of Evidence

Nil

PCJ (J.D), Tirupati.

Fair Order in EP No.248/2025 in ARC.No.36/2022, Dated:12- 05-2026.

1

APCH080026842022

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (Junior Division)-CUM-

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE:: TIRUPATI

Present: Smt. B.VANISREE,

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (Junior Division)-CUM-JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE, TIRUPATI

Monday, the 11th day of May, 2026

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 755 /202 2

Between:

1. Darkewala Vallemma, W/o late Darkewala Settu, Hindu, aged about 51 years.

2. Darkewala Murugan, @ J.Murugan, S/o late Darkewala Settu, Hindu, aged about 28 years.

3. Darkewala Murali, S/o Late Darkewala Settu, Hindu, aged about 22 years,

4. Darkewala Surya, S/o late Darkewala Settu, Hindu, aged about 18 years

5. Darkewala Nagma, @ J.Nagma, D/o Late Darkewala Settu, Hindu, aged aboutg 26 years.

All are residing at D.No.5-134/1, Nakkala Colony, Oteru, Vedanthapuram Panchayat, Avilala Post, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District, A.P., … Plaintiffs And :

The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, rep. By its Executive Officer, having office at T.T.D. Administrative buildings, K.T.Roa, Tirupati town, Chittoor District, A.P.

… Defendant

This suit is coming before me on 11-05-2026 for trial in the presence of

Sri Salva Rajendra Raju, Learned counsel for the Plaintiff and Sri P.Balaram,

Learned counsel for the Defendant having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

2

APCH080026842022

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against defendants for declaration.

Record discloses that the suit is of the year, 2022 and since 19-03-2025 suit is coming for trial. Hence this court imposed costs of Rs.100/- and posted the matter to 11-05-2026.

Today ie., on 11-05-2026 also plaintiffs called absent. No representation on his behalf. Costs not paid and thereby conditions imposed by this court as per docket orders dated 23-04-2026 and 05-05-2026 not complied by the

Plaintiff. This court waited till 5 PM, even then the plaintiff did not turn up.

It seems that the plaintiff has no interest in prosecuting the case.

In the result, this suit is dismissed for default for non-compliance of conditions imposed by this court and for non-appearance of plaintiff. No costs.

Typed to Dictation to the Stenographer corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 11nd day of May, 2026.

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-

CUM-J.F.C.MAGISTRATE,

TIRUPATI.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

Nil

PCJ (J.D), Tirupati.

Fair Judgment in OS No.755/2022, Dated 11-05- 2026.

1

APCH080011972026

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (Junior Division)-CUM-

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE:: TIRUPATI

Present: Smt. B.VANISREE,

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (Junior Division)-CUM-JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE, TIRUPATI

Monday, the 11th day of May, 2026

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 304 /202 6

Between: T.Anand, S/o T.Somaiah, Hindu, aged about 57 years, Business, residing at D.No.16-6-453, Karnala Lay-out, Tirupati, Tirupati District.

… Plaintiff And : Smt C.Chinnari, W/o C.Venkata Sivaiah, Hindu, aged about 50 years, Milk Business, residing at D.No.57/2B, Bhavani Nagar, Kothapeta, Chandragiri Mandal, Tirupati District.

… Defendant

This suit is coming before me on 11-05-2026 for trial in the presence of

Sri I.C.S.Reddy, Learned counsel for the Plaintiff and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff-Bank against defendant for recovery of money for an amount of Rs.3,39,167/-.

Learned counsel for plaintiff filed memo stating that suit is settled out of court between the plaintiff and defendant with the interventions of elders and mediators. Plaintiff is not pressing the suit. Memo recorded.

2

APCH080011972026

Memo discloses the signature of plaintiff and counsel for plaintiff.

Accordingly Memo is recorded.

In the result, this suit is dismissed as not pressed.

Typed to Dictation to the Stenographer corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 11nd day of May, 2026.

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-

CUM-J.F.C.MAGISTRATE,

TIRUPATI.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

Nil

PCJ (J.D), Tirupati.

Fair Judgment in OS No.304/2023, Dated 11-05- 2026.