Sri Beera Srinivasu

1 JFCM Court, Kaikaluru

CC No. 1095 of 2021

Dt 21.11.2023

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KAIKALURU.

Present:- Sri Beera Srinivasu,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kaikaluru.

Tuesday, this the 21 st day of September, 2023.

C.C.No. 1095/2021

Between:

The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Mudinepalli Police Station. …Complainant

And

A1. Voora Ayayappaji S/o Adinarayana Murthy Age 36 years, Bantumilli village and Mandal. A2. Voora Naga Mani W/o Adinarayana Murthy Age 45 years, Bantumilli village and Mandal. A3. Voora Adinarayana Murthy S/o Rama Krishna Rao Age 54 years, Bantumilli village and Mandal. A4. Kurucheti Naga Padma sri W/o Rama Krishna Age 28 years, Rajupeta, Machilipatnam. ...A1 to A4

Present:

For Complainant : Smt. Ganga Mani, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

For Accused : Sri.T. Srinivasarao, counsel for Accused.

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Mudinepalli. filed charge sheet in Cr.No.215/2021 against the A1 to A4 for the offences punishable under Section 498(A) r/w 34 IPC Sec. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. and the averments therein in brief are as follows:-

2.LW1 native of Pedapalaparru village of Mudinepalli Mandal. Her marriage has been celebrated with A1 on 30.06.2018 according to their customs, rites in the presence of elders and relatives at the temple of lord Rama situated at their village. At the time of marriage Lws 2 and 3 presented cash of Rs. 5,00,000/-, 10 sov., gold ornaments, cash of

Rs. 1,00,000/- toward sister in law formalaties to her husband, in laws toward pasupu kum kuma. Thereafter she joined at her in laws house, Bantumilli village for matrimonial life along with house hold articles worth Rs. 1,00,000/- at the time of marriage they belived that A1 is living by doing advoocate, but not advocate. From the date of her joining at her in laws house, A1 with active support of A2 to A4 subjected her for cruel treatment, huimiliate and taunt her both physically & mentally by alleging that dowry which is given to the mate at the time of marriage could not sufficient to them and demanded to bring additional dowry an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-, A1 tried to do away her life by squeezing her neck. Due to unbearable harassment made by them, she narrated 2 JFCM Court, Kaikaluru

CC No. 1095 of 2021

Dt 21.11.2023

the saem to her parents, they provided cash an amount of Rs. 80,000/- in two installments. They spend entire dowry and gold ornaments for their lavish expensives. In the month of January-2021 A1 to A4 necked out her from her matrimonal house by demanding her to bring additional dowry. As there is no way she came to her parents house, Pedapalaparru village, narated the same to her parents. LW2 with active support of Lws 8 and 9, tried to pacify the matter, but they refused to join her along with them.

On 11.08.2021 while LW1 was present at her parents house, A1 to A4 rushed to her parents house, Pedapalaparru village picked up a quarrel with LW1 by alleging that why she failed to fulfill their unlawful demands so saying beat her with hands over her body and also threatened her that unless bring additional dowry an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- don’t come to their house. Mean while Lws 2 and 3, 6 and 7 who are adjacent neighbours of said locality were rushed there, on seeing them they then flew away from that place.

The same was fully corroborated by Lws 2 to 13.

on 21.08.2021 at 11.00 hours, LW1 turned upto Mudinepalli P.S., presented a written report to LW14, LW14 registered the same as a case in Cr.No. 215/2021 U/Sec 498A IPC, Section 3 and 4 of DP Act submitted original FIR to the Hon’ble JFCM, Kaikaluru along with LW1 report and remaining copies of FIRs are submitted to the concerned authorities and took up further investigation in this case.

During the course of investigation LW14 visited the scene of offence, got drafted rough sketch of the scene of offence; secured witnesses, examined them and recorded their detailed statements in his part-II of CD, as many as 13 witnesses and served notices to A1 to A4 on 30.08.2021 under section 41A Cr.P.C after completition of investigation of LW14 filed charge sheet against the accused accroding to law.

Therefore, A1 with an intention subjected LW1 by demanded to cruel treatment, humiliate and taunt her both physically & mentally bring additional dowry with active support of A2 to A4. As she failed to fulfill his unlawful demands, necked her out from her matrimonial house. A1 to A4 are liable to be prosecuted for the offences U/Sec 498A IPC, section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

3.Cognizance of offence was taken on file against the accused 1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 498 (A) I.P.C Sec. 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

3 JFCM Court, Kaikaluru

CC No. 1095 of 2021

Dt 21.11.2023

4.Copies of case documents were supplied to accused as contemplated under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure and A1 to A4 were examined under Section 239 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, A1 to A4 denied the offences against them. Hence under Section 240 of Code of Criminal Procedure charges under Section 498(A) r/w 34 IPC Sec. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. were framed against A1 to A4 and read over and explained to them in Telugu for when A1 to A4 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove the charges, the prosecution examined P.W.1 and PW2 got marked Exs.P1 to P3, since there is no incriminating evidence the accused the examination of the A1 to A4 U/Sec.313 is dispensed with.

6.Heard the arguments of both counsel.

7. Now, the point for determination is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the A1 to A4 for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) r/w 34 IPC, Sec. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. beyond reasonable doubt?

8.POINT:

P.W.1 is the defacto complainant / victim woman. Even though she admitted her

Ex.P1 signature in the complaint, but she did not support the version of the prosecution.

As per her evidence, A1 is her husband, A2 and A3 are her in-laws, A4 is sister of A1.

Nearly four year back her marriage with the A1 was performed at Pedapalaparru village, after marriage she joined with the A1 to lead marital life at Bantumilli. She further deposed that there after some disputes arose between PW1 and A1, at request of the elders, she signed in a paper, Ex.P1 is her signature in the paper, but she does not know the contents of the paper. Police not examined her and not recorded her statement.

PW2 is the Mother of PW1. She also did not support the version of the prosecution.

Since the material witness I.e PW.1 and PW2 did not support the version of the prosecution, the learned APP sought permission from this court to cross examine the PW1 and PW2 and suggest to PW1 and PW2 that they stated before the police as per Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 respectively but PW1 and PW2 denied the suggestion made by the learned APP.

Hence there is no evidence against the A1 to A4 to prove that A1 to A4 took dowry from the parents of PW1, harassed the PW1 physically and mentally and demanded for

additional dowry there by committed for the offences punishable u/s 498(A) r/w 34 IPC

Sec. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

4 JFCM Court, Kaikaluru

CC No. 1095 of 2021

Dt 21.11.2023

9.Hence after considering the evidence of the PW1 and PW2 other material on record, I opine that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the A1 to A4 for the offences punishable under Sec. 498(A) r/w 34 IPC Sec. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

10.In the result, A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under

Section 498(A) r/w 34 IPC Sec. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. and accordingly they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of A1 to

A4 shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the judgment under

Section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 21st day of November, 2023.

Sd/- B. Srinivasu

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kaikaluru

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Prosecution side:- Defence side:-

P.W.1 : Voora Hema Durga Bhavani None P.W.2 : Padi Srinivasa Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

Prosecution

Ex.P1 : Signature of PW1 in the report Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 Ex.P3 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2

For defence:-Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS

Nil

Sd/- B. Srinivasu

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kaikaluru.

5 JFCM Court, Kaikaluru

CC No. 1095 of 2021

Dt 21.11.2023

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KAIKALURU.

C.C.No. 1095 /2021

1Offence : 21.08.2021

2.Complaint : 21.08.2021

3.Apprehension of Accused: 21.08.2021

4.Commencement of Trial: 12.09.2023

5.Close of Trial: 20.11.2023

6.Judgment: 21.11.2023

7.Complainant: The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Mudinepalli Police station.

8.Name of the Accused: A1. Voora Ayayappaji S/o Adinarayana Murthy Age 36 years, Bantumilli village and Mandal. A2. Voora Naga Mani W/o Adinarayana Murthy Age 45 years, Bantumilli village and Mandal. A3. Voora Adinarayana Murthy S/o Rama Krishna Rao Age 54 years, Bantumilli village and Mandal. A4. Kurucheti Naga Padma sri W/o Rama Krishna Age 28 years, Rajupeta, Machilipatnam.

9.Offence: Under Sections 498(A) r/w 34 IPC Sec. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

10.Finding: Pleaded not guilty.

11.Result: In the result, A1 to A4 are found not guiltyfor the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) r/w 34 IPC Sec. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. and accordingly they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of A1 to A4 shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the judgment under Section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure.

12.Explanation for delay: No delay.

Sd/- B. Srinivasu

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kaikaluru

Copy submitted to:- The Hon’ble 1 Additional District & Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam.

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KAIKALURU

Present: Beera Srinivasu

Junior Civil Judge

Tuesday, this the 21st day of November, 2023

E.P.No.26 of 2022 in O.S.No.204 of 2019

Between: Nallamalli Ramachandra Reddy S/o Nallamalli Satyanarayana Reddy Bank Colony, Mandapeta. … Decree Holder AND

1. Chaparala Venkateswararao S/o Chaparala Adinarayana Koduru village and Mudinepalli Mandal.

2. Chaparala Annapurna W/o Venkateswararao Koduru village and Mudinepalli Mandal. …Judgment Debtors

This E.P. is filed to issue Order 21 Rule 37 notice to the JDr, thereafter issue sale proclamation and conduct the sale of the schedule property under Order 38 Rule 55 of CPC for the realization of the decree amount in the interest of justice.

This is coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of Sri V.S.N. Chowdary., Advocate for Decree­Holder and the matter is coming for filing of sale paper and encumbrance certificate, this Court made the following:

ORDER

The counsel for the petitioner/D3 holder filed a memo by stating that the respondent/J.Dr., died on 13.03.2023 as such he is not pressing this petition and prayed this honourable court to dismiss this E.P., as not press. Memo is recorded.

This petition is dismissed as not pressed.

Pronounced by me in open Court, this the 21st day of November, 2023.

Sd/­ B. Srinivasu

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KAIKALURU.

Appendix of Evidence Nil.

Sd/­ B. Srinivasu

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KAIKALURU.

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KAIKALURU

Present:Beera Srinivasu

Junior Civil Judge

Tuesday, this the 21st day of November, 2023

O.S.No.8 of 2019

Between: Maragani Subramanyeswara Rao S/o Venkateswara Rao Aged about 45 years, Gopalapuram village, Kalidindi Mandal. …Plaintiff AND

Matta Radha Krishna Murthy S/o Late Bhogaiah Aged about 60 years Gopalapuram village, Kalidindi Mandal. …Defendant Suit filed for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and for possession directing the defendant to vacate plaint schedule property and for future profits and for costs.

This is coming on this day before me in the presence of Sri.M. Pamulu , Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri, G. P. Dikshitulu Advocate for defendant; and the matter is coming for steps, this Court made the following:

JUDGMENT

The counsel for the plaintiff filed a memo by stating that as per the intervention of the elders the plaintiff wants to withdraw the suit voluntarily and prayed this Hon’ble Court dismissed the suit as not press. Memo is recorded.

The suit is dismissed as not pressed.

Pronounced by me in open Court, this the 21st day of, November, 2023.

Sd/­ B. Srinivasu

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KAIKALURU.

Appendix of Evidence

Witness Examined

For Plaintiff For Defendant  NilNil

Documents Marked 

For Plaintiff: Nil For Defendant: Nil

Sd/­ B. Srinivasu

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KAIKALURU.

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KAIKALURU

Present: Beera Srinivasu

Junior Civil Judge

Monday, this the 20th day of November, 2023

E.P.No.4 of 2022 in O.S.No.157 of 2021

Between: Mohammad Galib S/o Khasim Aged about 45 years, Kaikaluru village and Mandal. … Decree Holder AND Shaik Abdul Rahim S/o Basha Aged about 45 years, Kaikaluru village and Mandal. …Judgment Debtor

The Decree Holder filed the present Execution petition under Order 21 Rule 37 of CPC praying to issue arrest warrant against the Judgment debtor and to send him to civil detention as the Judgment debtor failed to comply the decree in OS No.157/2021

Thw Execution petition coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of Sri M. Satyanarayana Raju., Advocate for Decree­Holder and Sri B. Lakshman rao, Advocate for the judgment debtor/defendant and upon hearing the matter having stood over to this day, this Court made the following:

ORDER

The D.Hr., is called absent. The counsel for the D.Hr., filed a memo to dismiss this E.P. memo is recorded. This petition is dismissed as not pressed.

Pronounced by me in open Court, this the 20th day of November, 2023.

Sd/­ B. Srinivasu Junior Civil Judge Kaikaluru

Appendix of Evidence Nil. Sd/­ B. Srinivasu Junior Civil Judge Kaikaluru

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE I CLASS, KAIKALURU

Present: Beera Srinivasu,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Monday, this the 20th day of November, 2023

C.C.No.417 of 2019

Between: Vemavarapu Dayakar S/o Swamasonu Ingapuram, Kaikaluru Mandal.

Krishna district. ...Complainant

AND

Punem Gopala Rao S/o Borrayya Kotha Kondapalli, Bhadrachalam

Telangana State. ...Accused

JUDGMENT

Defacto Complainant present reported that he compromised the accused and prayed this Hon’ble court to released the accused. The complainant also filed a petition U/Sec 257 Cr.P.C., and the same is allowed. Hence, the accused is acquitted U/Sec 257 Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused if any shall stands cancelled.

Pronounced by me in open Court, this the 20th day of November, 2023

Sd/- B. Srinivasu

J.F.C.M., KKLR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

- N I L -

Sd/- B. Srinivasu

J.F.C.M., KKLR