Boora Sirisha
III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
Prl District Courts, Chittoor · Chittoor · Andhra Pradesh
Boora Sirisha, III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, is posted at Prl District Courts, Chittoor, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh, India. 22 court orders on record since 2025. 4 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles STC, CC, OS cases.
Featured Judgments
APCH020030612022
STC No.469/2022 1 dated:10.11.2025
IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS:: CHITTOR
Present:- Kum B.Sirisha,
III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor
Monday, the Tenth (10 th ) day of NOVEMBER, 2025
S.T.C. No.469/ 2022
BETWEEN:
B. Venugopal Reddy s/o Late B.Errama Reddy, aged about 55 years, business, residing at Mangadanapalli Village Kotalam Post, Yadamari Mandal, Chittoor District. …Complainant.
AND:
C.Govinda Mandadi, s/o Late V.Chinna Mandadi, aged about 67 years, business, residing at D.No.28-817, 28-818, K.N. Colony, Chittoor Town & District.
...Accused.
This case was coming on 23.10.2025 before this Court for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.Rajendra, Advocatefor the complainant and of Sri
C.Harikrishna, Advocate for the accused and upon hearing their arguments and upon perusing the documents available on record, and the matter having been stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
1.This is a private complaint filed u/Sec.200 of Cr.PC seeking punishment of the accused for the offence u/Section 138 of Negotiable
Instrument Act, 1981 (hereafter referred as ‘the N.I Act’ for brevity) and award
APCH020030612022
STC No.469/2022 2 dated:10.11.2025
the amount covered under the dis-honored cheque from the fine amount towards compensation against the accused.
2. Precisely the contents of the complaint are:-
The accused approached the complainant and borrowed a sum of
Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees twelve lakhs only) from him on 05-11-2021 and inconsideration thereof, he executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same without any interest on demand or order. Thereafter, inspite of repeated demands made by the complainant for repayment of the said debt, on 11-07-2022 the accused voluntarily issued a cheque bearing No.358033 drawn on State Bank of India, Main Branch,
Chittoor in favour of the complainant for Rs.9,97,000/- towards partial discharge of the principal amount due under promissory note. At the request of the accused, on on 11-07-2022, the complainant presented said cheque in his banker viz., Union Bank of India, Darga Branch, Chittoor Branch, but the said cheque was returned as unpaid with an endorsement “INSUFFICIENT
FUNDS” through return memo dated 14.07.2022. The complainant got issued legal notice to the accused on on 18-07-2022 calling upon him to discharge the amount covered under the cheque within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The notice was served on accused on 19-07-2022, but neither replied nor complied to it. The accused has issued the cheque knowing fully aware of “insufficient funds” in his account and further failed to comply the demand made in the notice and willfully committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act r/w Section 142 of N.I.Act. The complainant approached this court and prayed to take cognizance against the accused for the offence u/Sec.138 r/w 142 of N.I.Act and to order for adequate compensation. Hence, the complaint.
APCH020030612022
STC No.469/2022 3 dated:10.11.2025
3.Considering the complaint and material on record this case was taken on file by my learned predecessor for the offence punishable u/Sec.138 of the
N.I.Act and issued process. In response to the summons the accused made his appearance, the copies on which the complainant intends to provided to the accused as envisaged u/Sec.207 Cr.PC.,
4. On appearance of the accused before this Court, he was examined u/Sec.251 Cr.PC by putting the substance of accusation for the offence punishable u/Sec.138 r/w 142 Negotiable Instruments Act for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5.To substantiate the accusation, the complainant himself was examined as PW1 and the scribe of promissory note by name G.Muneendra Reddy was examined as PW2 and through PW1, Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 were marked. Ex.P1 is
Cheque bearing No.358033 for Rs.9,97,000/- dated 11.07.2022 issued by the accused in favour of complainant, Ex.P2 is the counter foil dated 11.07.2022,
Ex.P3 is the cheque return memo dated 14.07.2022 issued by Union Bank,
Chittoor, Ex.P4 is the legal notice issued by PW1 to accused through counsel
dated 18.07.2022 and Ex.P5 is the acknowledgment for Ex.P4/legal notice.
6.After closure of evidence on behalf of complainant, the accused has been examined u/Sec.313 Cr.PC regarding the incriminating material appearing against the accused in the evidence of PW1 and PW2 which he denied and reported he has defence evidence on his behalf. Accordingly, the accused himself was examined as DW1 on his behalf. None of the documents were marked on behalf of the Accused.
APCH020030612022
STC No.469/2022 4 dated:10.11.2025
7Heard both sides. Perused the evidence on record. The learned counsel for the complainant and the accused have submitted their respective written arguments along with certain authorities in support of their contentions.
8.The counsel for complainant argued that all the necessary ingredients of Sec.138 of N.I.Act were established by the complainant with ocular and documentary evidence. He further contended that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- from PW1 and executed demand promissory note agreeing to repay the same without interest on demand or order and subsequently, on repeated demands made by PW1, DW1 has issued
Ex.P1/cheque for Rs.9,97,000/- towards partial discharge of principal debt and when it was presented for collection with his banker, it was dishonoured as unpaid. He further contended that the accused is categorically admitted that the signature on Ex.P1 is belongs to him. Learned counsel for complainant further argued that PW2 who is the scribe of promissory note also corroborated the version of PW1 on all aspects.
In support of his oral arguments, he also submitted written arguments along with authorities, in Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa reported in (2019) 2 ACR 1978.
By relying on it, he prayed to convict the accused for the offence punishable u/Sec.138 of NI Act.
9.Per contra, the learned counsel for accused contended that the complainant is stranger to him. The complainant falsely filed this case at the instance of his close relatives namely Ramesh Reddy and another against the accused based on empty signed cheque. He further contended that the complainant’s close relations have been running various chits worth of
Rs.25,000/-, Rs.50,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/-. The accused is one of the
APCH020030612022
STC No.469/2022 5 dated:10.11.2025
subscribers of chit worth of Rs.1,00,000/- during the year 2019. In that chit transaction, the relatives of complainant obtained empty signed cheque from the accused towards security. After receiving notice, the accused along with elders approached the complainant, but he did not heed the advice of elders and got filed the above case and prayed for acquittal from the alleged charge.
Apart from the above oral arguments, the learned defence counsel had submitted written arguments along with authorities -
1) in Khaleel Khan P Versus Shankarappa in Criminal Revision Petition
No.1456/2022 dated: 03.11.2023, (High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru)
2) in Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatraya G.Hegde on 11.01.2008, reported AIR 2008 Supreme Court 1325; 2008 (4) SCC 54,
By relying on the above decisions, the learned counsel for Accused submitted that the complainant has no capacity to lend such huge amount and he did not file any document to prove that he got capacity to lend such huge amount. Further submitted that the complainant has not filed any account copy or any other documents or even income tax returns to prove his capacity to lend such huge amount and further submitted that the above principles are squarely applicable to the present case on hand and prayed for acquittal of accused from the alleged charges.
10.Now, the point for determination is:-
Whether the complainant had proved the guilt of the accused
for the offence u/Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, beyond all
reasonable doubt.
POINT:-
11.Section 138 of NI Act deals with the offence stated to be committed on account of dishonor of cheques for insufficient funds etc., in the account.
APCH020030612022
STC No.469/2022 6 dated:10.11.2025
The essential ingredients of Sec.138 of N.I Act are as under.
a) A prima facie proof that the cheque was issued in discharge of or towards part payment of any legally enforceable subsisting debt.
b) That the cheque is issued by accused was presented for collection within its validity from the date on which it was drawn.
c) Whether cheque must have been returned from the banker for the reason that funds insufficient in the account of the drawer/accused.
d) That the drawee/complainant issued notice under Sec.138 of N.I Act within the statutory period of 30 days after receipt of information of return of the cheque as unpaid.
e) That the drawer must have failed to make the payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice.
f) That the complaint has to be made within 01 (one) month of the date on which the cause of action arises under class (c) proviso under Sec.138 of N.I Act.
12.If all the above ingredients are proved by the complainant or in other words, if all the above points were also answered positively in favour of the complainant and against the accused the presumption under Sec.139 of N.I
Act comes into play and the burden of proving the case shifts to the accused and he has to rebut the presumption arises under Sec.139 of N.I. Act in favour of the complainant.
13. Now, the evidence on record is required to be appreciated in the light of the above ingredients.
The evidence of PW1 is nothing but replica of the contents of his complaint. To prove the case against the accused u/Secs.138 and 142 of N.I
Act, the testimony of PW1 is that DW1 borrowed a sum of Rs.12,00,000/-
APCH020030612022
STC No.469/2022 7 dated:10.11.2025
(Rupees twelve lakhs only) from him on 05-11-2021 and inconsideration thereof, he executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same without any interest on demand or order.
Thereafter, inspite of repeated demands made by PW1 for repayment of the said debt, on 11-07-2022 DW1 voluntarily issued Ex.P1/cheque bearing
No.358033 drawn on State Bank of India, Main Branch, Chittoor in favour of the complainant for Rs.9,97,000/- towards partial discharge of the principal amount due under promissory note. At the request of DW1, on 11-07-2022,
PW1 presented the said cheque in his banker viz., Union Bank of India, Darga
Branch, Chittoor Branch under Ex.P2/counter foil, but the said cheque was returned as unpaid with an endorsement “INSUFFICIENT FUNDS” through return memo dated 14.07.2022 under Ex.P3. The complainant got issued legal notice to the accused on 18-07-2022 calling upon him to discharge the amount covered under the cheque within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice under Ex.P4. The notice was served on accused on 19-07-2022 as evidenced by Ex.P5/acknowledgment. But the accused was not chosen to pay the cheque amount.
14.During cross-examination of PW1, he stated that the accused is a retired Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. He has not filed his income tax returns regard to debt amount. He has not filed his bank statement to show that he is in possession of debt amount by the date of transaction. He lent amount to the accused by way of cash. He doesn’t know as per Income Tax
Rules, one cannot lend amount more than Rs.20,000/- by way of cash. He has not filed any document to show the source of his income. He further stated that Ex.P1 cheque was presented on 11.07.2022 in Union Bank. He denied the suggestion that he has no capacity to lend an amount of
Rs.12,00,000/-. He further denied that he is not conducting any chit business.
APCH020030612022
STC No.469/2022 8 dated:10.11.2025
He further denied that he is not conducting any chit business along with his father-in-law by name Narasimhareddy. He further denied that the accused is one of the subscribers for chit of Rs.2,00,000/- conducted by PW1 and his father-in-law. He further denied that he took blank and signed promissory notes and cheques from accused as surety for the amount taken by accused as highest bidder after auction. He further denied that as accused filed a petition against PW1 for conducting unauthorized chit business, on that PW1 developed grudge against accused and filed this false case. He further denied that the accused has not issued any cheque to PW1, but he filled the blank and signed cheque of accused, issued in connection with chit business.
He further stated that one Munindra filled the cheque on 11.07.2022. He further denied that the Munindra is his henchman. He deposed that Munindra introduced accused to him. After 7 months of execution of promissory note, the accused gave the present cheque to him. He further denied that the accused never executed the promissory note for Rs.12,00,000/- and issued cheque for Rs. 9,97,000/-.
15.In support of the contention of the complainant/PW1, the scribe of promissory note by name G.Muneendra Reddy was examined as PW2 on behalf of the complainant/PW1. According to him, in the presence of PW2 and attestors/K.Muthu Kumar and V.Kamal, the accused/DW1 borrowed a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees twelve lakhs only) from PW1 on 05-11-2021 and inconsideration thereof, DW1 executed a demand promissory note in favour of PW1 agreeing to repay the same without any interest on demand or order. At the time of issuance of Ex.P1/cheque by DW1 in favour of PW1, he went to the house of PW1 on 11.07.2022 and at the request of DW1, he filled the cheque and DW1 handed over the same to PW1 after signing in it. Later, the said cheque was returned with an endorsement “funds insufficient”. It was
APCH020030612022
STC No.469/2022 9 dated:10.11.2025
informed to DW1 by PW1 in his presence. Again he along with PW1 went to the house of DW1 and informed him about dishonour of cheque. The accused informed then that he will arrange the cash and will take back the cheque, but he failed to do so. During cross-examination, he stated that he has not seen the bank passbook or income tax returns of PW1 in order to know the capacity of PW1. Witness adds that the complainant is doing business with mangoes as such he had capability to lend an amount of Rs.12,00,000/-. He has not seen the cash receipts of mangoes business of PW1 to say that PW1 earned
Rs.12,00,000/-. He is the scribe of promissory note. He denied the suggestion that he never prepared promissory note on any point of time and
PW1 never lent any amount to accused. He further denied that he has not filled the cheque/Ex.P1 at request of accused at any point of time. He admitted that after returning Ex.P1/cheque from bank, he has not met the accused.
16.Basing on the above evidence and documents exhibited, the learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant sufficiently established that the accused/DW1 had borrowed an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- from PW1 and on 11-07-2022, DW1 voluntarily issued a cheque bearing
No.358033 drawn on State Bank of India, Main Branch, Chittoor in favour of
PW1 for Rs.9,97,000/- towards partial discharge of the principal amount due under promissory note which was dishonoured with an endorsement that “Funds insufficient” vide memo dated 14.07.2022 and the accused neither paid the amount nor issued any reply though he has acknowledged the said notice under Ex.P5. Hence, constitute the offence and the accused is liable for punishment.
APCH020030612022
STC No.469/2022 10 dated:10.11.2025
17.In the light of above contentions in order to prove guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.138 and 142 of N.I Act, the complainant needs to follow the elements and requisite ingredients for the offence under
Sec.138 of N.I Act.
a) A prima facie proof that the cheque was issued in discharge of or towards part payment of any legally enforceable subsisting debt.
b) That the cheque issued by the accused, was presented for collection within the period of its validity.
c) Whether the cheque was returned from the bank for the reason funds insufficient in the account of the drawer/accused.
d) That the drawee issued notice under Sec.138 of N.I Act 1881 within the statutory period.
e) That the drawer received the said notice but failed to make any payment covered by the dis-honoured cheque within stipulated time as mentioned in Sec.138 of N.I Act.
f) That the complaint was filed within period of limitation.
18.Therefore, if all the above ingredients are proved by complainant or in other words if all the above points answered positively in favor of the complainant and against the accused. The presumption under Sec.138 of N.I
Act comes into play and the burden of proving the case shifts to the accused and he has to rebut the presumption arises under Sec.138 of N.I Act in favour of the complainant.
19.To prove all the ingredients and to attract the provisions under Sec.138 of N.I Act, the complainant adduced his evidence and the same is discussed
APCH020030612022
STC No.469/2022 11 dated:10.11.2025
hereunder point wise. For the purpose of convenience this court will proceed to discuss point Nos (b) to (f) at first and will discuss point (a) at the end.
20.POINT (b):
That the cheque issued by the accused, was presented for
collection within the period of its validity.
As per the evidence of PW1, Ex.P1 cheque was issued on 11.07.2022.
Evidently, the said cheque was presented by the complainant in the Union
Bank of India, Darga Branch, Chittoor on 11.07.2022 for collection under
Ex.P2/counter foil and it was returned under Ex.P3 cheque return memo on 11.07.2022 due to “Funds insufficient”. The presentation of cheque is within the period of its validity is not in dispute. As no specific date is specified, the validity of the cheque is for three months. It is clear from the record that the cheque was presented on the same day when it was issued by DW1 and the same is sufficiently proved through the evidence of PW1 and from Ex.P1 to
Ex.P3. Ex.P2/counter foil discloses that Ex.P1/cheque bearing no.358033 was presented on 11.07.2022 and the same was dis-honored on 14.07.2022 as evidenced by Ex.P3/return memo.
21.In chief-examination of DW1, he stated that the complainant is stranger to the accused. The complainant falsely filed the above case against the accused at the instance of his close relatives namely Ramesh Reddy and another as they were running various chits worth of Rs.25,000/-, Rs.50,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/-. The accused is one of the subscribers of chit worth of
Rs.1,00,000/- during the year 2019. In that chit transaction, the relatives of complainant obtained empty signed cheque along with empty signed pronote from the accused towards security. He further stated that the said Ramesh
Reddy possessed another empty signed cheque which was taken in
APCH020030612022
STC No.469/2022 12 dated:10.11.2025
connection with the above chit transaction. During his cross-examination, he admitted that he mentioned in his chief affidavit that he issued one promissory note and cheque in relation with chit to complainant. He further admitted that the signature on Ex.P5/acknowledgment is that of him. He further admitted that he had not issued any reply notice to the legal notice issued by PW1. He has not filed any private complaint or police report against PW1 for issuing false legal notice to him. He further admitted that PW1 filed a suit basing on promissory note before the II Additional Civil Judge’s Court (Junior Division)
Chittoor against him. He is in habit of issuing signed blank cheques and promissory notes. He admitted that he has not mentioned in his chief affidavit that he issued signed blank promissory note and cheque to his wife and she in turn gave the same to one Ramesh Reddy in lieu of the acquaintance between Ramesh Reddy and his wife. He has not enquired about the capacity of complainant either before filing of this case or after this case. He has not got issued any legal notice through his wife in this case. Witness adds that his wife took amount and issued cheque and promissory note on his behalf to
PW1. He has not issued any notice to his wife by stating that she gave his cheques and promissory notes to PW1 without his consent and now PW1 filed a criminal case against him.
22.The learned defence counsel has taken inconsistent and varied pleas at different stages of the case proceedings. These inconsistencies in the defence case would corroborate the testimony of PW1. In fact, in the chief- examination of DW1, it was stated that the complainant was a stranger to the accused, whereas in the cross-examination of PW1, a suggestion was made on behalf of the defence that the accused was one of the subscribers for the
Chit amount of Rs.2,00,000/- conducted by PW1 and his father-in-law and that
APCH020030612022
STC No.469/2022 13 dated:10.11.2025
PW1 took blank and signed promissory notes and cheques from accused as surety for the amount taken by accused as highest bidder after auction.
23.It is surprise to note that the learned defence counsel contradicted the above suggestion by taking suggestion in the cross-examination of PW1 that
PW1 has not been conducting any Chit business along with his father-in-law by name Narasimha Reddy. Further, according to DW1, after receiving notice, he approached the complainant along with elders, but the complainant did not heed the advise of elders and got filed the above case. It was also suggested to PW1 during his cross-examination that he filed this false case without heeding the words of panchayatdars, however, witness denied the said suggestion. At this juncture, an inference can be drawn from the above versions of defence that the accused/DW1 had issued Ex.P1/cheque towards partial discharge of principal amount in favour of the complainant/PW1.
Moreover, the accused categorically admitted that the signature on
Ex.P5/acknowledgment is that of him.
24.Further, DW1 during his cross-examination adds that his wife took amount and issued cheque and promissory note on his behalf to PW1 and further stated that at present his wife is not living with him, she left him three years back immediately after trail in this case. If that be the case, it is always open to him to take legal action against his wife. As a matter of fact, the accused has not taken any legal action against his wife. It was also admitted by him that he had not issued any legal notice to his wife regarding the issuance of his cheques and promissory notes to PW1 without his consent.
According to DW1, till date, he had not obtained any divorce from his wife.
APCH020030612022
STC No.469/2022 14 dated:10.11.2025
25.Further, the learned defence counsel had taken defence that the accused is in habit of issuing signed blank cheques and promissory notes. It is not the case of the accused that the accused had issued Ex.P1/cheque and promissory note in favour of the complainant without filling it. At this juncture, it is relevant to see the evidence of PW2 who has stated that at the request of
DW1, he filled Ex.P1 and scribed promissory note. As such, the testimony of
PW2 is corroborated with the testimony of PW1.
26.Furthermore, the learned defence counsel had taken another defence that one Ramesh Reddy and another who are the close relatives of PW1 were running various chits worth of Rs.25,000/-, Rs.50,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- and the accused was one of the subscribers of chit worth of Rs.1,00,000/- during the year 2019. During that period, the relatives of the complainant obtained empty signed cheque along with empty signed pronote from the accused towards security and further stated that the said Ramesh Reddy possessed another empty signed cheque which was taken in connection with the above chit transaction.
27.It is evident that even no single scrap of paper is filed by the accused to show that he is one of the subscribers for the chit amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.
Even if it can be assumed that the said Ramesh Reddy was in possession of another signed blank cheque of the accused issued in connection with the above chit transaction, no preventive or legal steps were taken against the said Ramesh Reddy either before or after the receipt of the notice marked as
Ex.P4/legal notice. Mere bald allegations and unsubstantiated allegations raised by the defence cannot be given any weight or taken into consideration.
APCH020030612022
STC No.469/2022 15 dated:10.11.2025
28.In view of the above admissions of DW1, this court, without hesitation, holds that there were monitory transactions in between PW1 and DW1 and in such course the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees twelve lakhs only) from PW1 on 05-11-2021 and in partial discharge of the principal amount the accused voluntarily issued Ex.P1/cheque bearing No.358033 on 11-07-2022 drawn on State Bank of India, Main Branch, Chittoor in favour of the complainant for Rs.9,97,000/- and Ex.P1 was presented by PW1 on the same day on 11.07.2022 for collection in his banker viz., Union Bank of India,
Darga Branch, Chittoor and it was returned as unpaid. Thus, PW1 presented
Ex.P1 with his banker within its stipulated time for collection.
29.POINT (c):
Whether the cheque was returned from the bank for the reason
“Funds Insufficient” in the account of the drawer/accused.
In the present case, on 11.07.2022, the cheque was presented by PW1 for collection through his banker i.e., Union Bank of India, Darga Branch,
Chittoor, the same was returned under Ex.P3 cheque return memo dt.14.07.2022 with an endorsement that “Funds Insufficient”. The nomenclature mentioned in cheque return memo play a vital role to make out under Sec.138 of N.I Act 1881, it becomes clear that the Section refers to dishonour of cheque on two grounds only i.e., (1) Due to insufficiency of funds in the account to honour the cheque (ii) the amount of cheque exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with the bank.
30.In the present case, Ex.P1 cheque was returned with an endorsement of “Funds Insufficient”. In order to prove the return of cheque by the banker for the reason of “Funds insufficient”, Ex.P3/cheque return memo issued by
APCH020030612022
STC No.469/2022 16 dated:10.11.2025
the banker filed by the complainant under Sec.146 of N.I Act, the court shall presume the fact of dis-honour of cheque on production of bankers slip or memo having official mark thereon, denoting that the cheque has been dishonored. In view of the said presumption Ex.P3 cheque return memo is proved sufficiently and same is not challenged. It is not in dispute that the cheque was dishonored by the banker for “Funds insufficient”. From the evidence of PW1 and from Ex.P3 cheque return memo and in view of presumption under Sec.146 of N.I Act, complainant sufficiently proved that the cheque was dishonored for “Funds Insufficient” in the account of the drawer which is one of the main ingredients for the offence under Sec.138 of N.I Act.
31.For the purpose of convenience, it will be proper to discuss points (d) and (e) together.
POINTs (d) &(e)
(d) That the drawee issued notice under Sec.138 of N.I Act 1881 within the statutory period.
(e) That the drawer received the said notice but failed to make any
payment covered by the dis-honoured cheque within stipulated
time as mentioned in Sec.138 of N.I Act.
As per amendment of N.I Act (amendment Act 2002) payee is required to issue notice to the drawer of the cheque within 30 days from the date of intimation of its return under Sec.138 of N.I Act. In the present case, the complainant, presented the cheque for collection in Union Bank of India,
P.H.Road, Chittoor Branch on 11.07.2022 and the same is returned with
Ex.P3 cheque return memo on 14.07.2022 with an endorsement of “Funds
Insufficient”. Later, the complainant got issued legal notice to the accused on 18.07.2022 through registered post and said notice was acknowledged by the accused. The issuance of Ex.P4 notice by the complainant is within 30 days
APCH020030612022
STC No.469/2022 17 dated:10.11.2025
of its return is not denied by the accused.DW1 during his cross-examination has categorically admitted that PW1 got issued legal notice to him, but he has not replied to it. As such this court considered that the service of legal notice is held sufficient.
32.In view of the above discussion, issuance of notice by the complainant to the accused within the statutory period is proved by adducing documentary evidence under Ex.P5/acknowledgment. There is no material to prove that the accused paid amount to PW1 within 15 days, after receiving of Ex.P4/ legal notice or even during pendency of trial. According to DW1, the complainant is stranger to him and he never borrowed such a huge amount of
Rs.12,00,000/- from PW1 and he never executed any promissory note on 05.11.2021. If such is the case, then what is necessity for the accused to meet the complainant along with elders and why he got conducted mediation with the complainant through elders. It is an admitted fact that after receiving notice, he approached the complainant along with elders, but the complainant did not heed the advise of elders and got filed the above case. It was also suggested to PW1 during his cross-examination that he filed this false case without heeding the words of panchayatdars, however, witness denied the said suggestion. Even if it is assumed the version of DW1 that PW1 is a stranger to him, then why he did not take any legal action against the complainant. In fact, he did not take any legal action against the complainant, despite he had knowledge about the transactions covered under promissory note through Ex.P4/legal notice. Further, it is evident that DW1/accused always kept quite with regard to monetary transactions made between him and PW1. Even no reply to the Ex.P4/legal notice of PW1 has been given by
DW1 as it was already admitted by him during his cross-examination. In view of the aforesaid reasons, it doesn’t find any valuable reasons to build the
APCH020030612022
STC No.469/2022 18 dated:10.11.2025
version of DW1 and therefore, found no force in the contention of the defence counsel. Accordingly, the above points are answered in favour of the complainant.
33.POINT (f) That the complaint was filed within the period of limitation in the court having jurisdiction.
The complainant filed this complaint before this court within the stipulated period on 22.08.2022. As per Sec.142 (b) of Negotiable Instrument
Act complainant shall be filed within one month from the date of cause of action. Here, in this case cheque was issued on 11.07.2022 and was presented in Union Bank of India, P.H.Road, Chittoor Branch on 11.07.2022 for collection and it was returned on 14.07.2022 with an endorsement of “Funds Insufficient”. The legal notice was issued on 18.07.2022 and the same was acknowledged by the accused on 19.07.2022. But the accused failed to pay the amount within 15 days from the date of knowledge of registered legal notice. As such the cause of action for filing of the complaint will arose on 03.08.2022. As per Sec.142 (b) of Negotiable instrument Act, the complainant ought to have filed his complaint within one month i.e., before 02.09.2022.
Herein case, on 22.08.2022, the complainant filed his complaint before this
Hon’ble Court. Hence, the complaint falls within the prescribed period of
limitation. Coming to the aspect of jurisdiction, Ex.P1 cheque was drawn on
Sate Bank of India, Main Branch, Chittoor. Complainant presented the same in Union Bank of India, Darga Branch, Chittoor for collection which is within the jurisdiction of this court. The complaint filed by the complainant on 22.08.2022 before this court can be considered, as complaint filed by the complainant within the period of limitation and filed before the court having jurisdiction.
APCH020030612022
STC No.469/2022 19 dated:10.11.2025
34.From the above discussion in points (b) to (f) all the required and mandatory elements are proved by the complainant beyond all reasonable doubt. The only dispute and serious contest is with regard to the point (a) i.e., existence of “legally enforceable debt.”
35.POINT (a)
A primafacie proof that the cheque was issued in discharge of or
towards part payment of any legally enforceable subsisting debt.
This is the crucial aspect on which the entire result of the case rests upon. To prove this aspect the complainant himself examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. Ex.P1 is issued by the accused in favour of the complainant on repeated demands made by him on 11.07.2022 for
Rs.9,97,000/- in partial discharge of principal amount of Rs.12,00,000/- which is legally enforceable debt. It is pertinent to note that even in cross examination of PW1, the accused has not denied that the signature on Ex.P1 is not belongs to him rather admitted that the signature on Ex.P1 is of him.
36.The learned counsel for accused had taken another defence in his written arguments that the alleged cheque was fabricated and created taking advantage of the empty cheque issued by the accused to the relatives of the complainant. In fact, the accused nowhere in his defence has not been taken that the cheque was fabricated and created by the complainant at the initial stage of the case proceedings. It was an admitted fact that the signature that was available on Ex.P1/cheque is belonged to the accused. Even if it is assumed that Ex.P1/cheque was fabricated and created by PW1, no steps have been taken by DW1 till closure of evidence. Though DW1 had opportunity to get opinion from handwriting Expert on Ex.P1 by sending it through this court, but the accused did not choose to it. However, to counter
APCH020030612022
STC No.469/2022 20 dated:10.11.2025
blast the defence version, the complainant had examined the scribe of promissory note by name G.Muneendra Reddy was examined as PW2 on behalf of the complainant/PW1. According to him, in the presence of PW2 and attestors/K.Muthu Kumar and V.Kamal, the accused/DW1 borrowed a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees twelve lakhs only) from PW1 on 05-11-2021 and in consideration thereof, DW1 executed a demand promissory note in favour of PW1 agreeing to repay the same without any interest on demand or order. It was scribed by PW2. The accused also categorically admitted during his cross-examination that basing on the promissory note, the complainant filed a suit in O.S.No.766/2022 against the accused before the II
Additional Civil Judge’s Court (Junior Division), Chittoor and it is pending for
disposal.
37.Further, according to PW2, on repeated demands made by PW1, the accused/DW1 issued Ex.P1/cheque on 11.07.2022. By that time also, PW2 went to the house of PW1and at the request of DW1, he filled the cheque and
DW1 handed over the same to PW1 after signing it towards partial discharge of principal amount due under promissory note which is a legally enforceable debt. Even no single suggestion was made by the defence counsel to PW2 to the effect of Ex.P1 was not filled by PW2 and it was fabricated and created by the complainant/PW1 in order to get wrongful gain.
38.Further, the learned counsel vehemently contended that PW1 has no capacity to lend such a huge amount and that too the accused has no necessity to borrow such huge amount from him. At the outset, the learned counsel for the complainant submitted written arguments, wherein, he has mentioned that the complainant had more than 4 acres of fertile mango orchards and also had 10 acres of joint family agricultural lands and that he is
APCH020030612022
STC No.469/2022 21 dated:10.11.2025
earning more than Rs.9 lakhs per annum by selling mango produce and further mentioned that the complainant is being engaged in seasonal mango business on a large scale, purchasing mangoes from farmers and supplying them to factories. A perusal of evidence of PW2 who is the scribe of promissory note and Ex.P1/cheque, it is apparent that PW1 is doing mango business as such he had capability to lend an amount of Rs.12,00,000/-.
Though a suggestion was put-forth by the defence counsel to PW2 that he never prepared the promissory note and never filled Ex.P1/cheque at the request of accused at any point of time, the witness denied the said suggestion. In view of the aforesaid evidence supported by PW2, no discrepancy would appear in the substantial means and capability of the complainant to lend such a huge amount to the accused.
39.Further, the learned defence counsel had taken another plea that the complainant had failed to submit the tax returns to the concerned Department, though the law insists that any person will make a transaction more than
Rs.20,000/- it has to be disclosed to the Income Tax Authorities. At the outset, the learned counsel for complainant had mentioned in his written arguments that as per section 10 (1) of the Income Tax Act, agricultural income is fully exempted from income tax, and therefore, agriculturists are not required under law to submit income tax returns for such income. Upon perusal of entire defence taken by the accused, it doesn’t find any defence that the complainant is not the agriculturist and he shall not claim such exception as per proviso laid down u/Sec.10 (1) of the Income Tax Act. In the absence of specific denials with cogent evidence, it cannot be discredit the lawful source of funds earned by the complainant. Hence, there is no force in the defence taken by the accused.
APCH020030612022
STC No.469/2022 22 dated:10.11.2025
40.At this juncture, this court has relied on the authority of the Hon’ble High
Court of Madhya Pradesh in Dinesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Umesh Kumar
Agrwal in M.Cr.C.No.418989/2017 dated 19.07.2017, wherein it was held that “In order to draw presumption under Section 139 Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant is required to discharge his initial burden. Therefore, it is for the complainant to decide that in what manner, he would like to prove his case. The accused cannot direct the complainant to act in a particular manner. Further, whether the respondent had rightly paid the Income Tax or not is a matter which is to be considered by the Income Tax Department and the respondent can always prove the availability of required funds by leading evidence."
It has further relied upon another authority of the same Hon’ble High Court in
Ragini Gupta Vs. Piyush Dutt Sharma in Criminal Revision No.5263/2018,
wherein it has been held that “Mere non-filing of Income Tax Return, would not automatically dislodge the source of income of the complainant. Non-payment of income tax is a matter between the revenue and assessee and no adverse inference can be drawn in this regard only because of absence of Income Tax Return.”
In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the accused failed to rebut the case of the complainant.
41.It is also noteworthy that the accused did not deny the averments made in Ex.P4/legal notice, issued by the complainant despite acknowledged by him as evidenced by Ex.P5/acknowledgment. It was also admitted by DW1 that
APCH020030612022
STC No.469/2022 23 dated:10.11.2025
he did not give any reply to Ex.P4/legal notice. It seems that DW1 had knowledge about this transaction, but deliberately evaded. Admittedly, accused did not even lodge any complaint before police or before the court either against the complainant or Ramesh Reddy for return of Ex.P1/cheque which was alleged to be issued for the purpose of chit transaction.
42. It is worthwhile to quote an authority of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in S.L.P.,(Crl.)No.12802 of 2022. The above said authority is squarely applicable to the case on hand wherein it was held Rajesh Jain Vs
Ajay Singh that; “the signature on the cheque not being under dispute, and the presumption under Sec.139 having been drawn against the accused, there was nothing available on record to suggest that the accused had discharged his onus of rebutting the presumption.
“ the offence under Sec.138 of NI Act can be completed only with the concatenation of a number of acts. The following are the acts which are components of the said offence: 1) drawing of the cheque, 2) presentation of the cheque to the bank, 3) returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank,
4) giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount, 5)failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice”.
“The NI Act provides for two presumptions: Section 118 and Section
139. Section 118 of the Act inter alia directs that it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, Section 139 of the Act stipulates that ‘unless the contray is prove, it shall be presumed, that the holder of the cheque received the cheque, for the discharge of, whole or part of any debt or liability’. It will be seen that the ’presumed fact’ directly relates to one of the crucial ingredients necessary to sustain a conviction under Sec.138.
“that the presumption takes effect even in a situation where the accused contends that ‘a blank cheque leaf was voluntarily signed and handed over by him to the complainant.(Bir Singh V Mukesh Kumar). Therefore, mere admission of the drawer’s signature, without admitting the
APCH020030612022
STC No.469/2022 24 dated:10.11.2025
execution of the entire contents in the cheque, is now sufficient to trigger the presumption.” “The accused has neither replied to the demand notice nor has led any rebuttal evidence in support of his case. The case set up by him needs to be drawn from the suggestions put during the cross examination and from his reply given in the statement recorded under Sec.313 Cr.PC.” “The accused has also not explained as to why he has not set up his defense at the earliest point, that is , at the stage of receiving the demand notice, even though he admits having received the demand notice in his 313 statement, yet he makes a suggestion to the complainant in his cross examination that no legal notice had been issued. The theory of ‘blank cheque’ being misused has been suggested, only to be denied by both, the complainant and Gita Sunar-CW-3. No action has been taken by way of registering a police complaint in order to persecute the alleged illegal conduct of his blank cheque having been misused by CW-3.
“ in fact the signature on the cheque having not been disputed, and the presumption under Sec.118 and 139 having taken effect, the complaint’s case stood satisfied every ingredient necessary for sustaining a conviction under Sec.138. The case of the defense was limited only to the issue as to whether the cheque had been issued in discharge of a debt/liability. The accused having miserably failed to discharge his evidential burden, that fact will have to be taken to be proved by force of the presumption, without requiring anything more from the complainant. As rightly contended by the appellant, there is no fundamental flaw in the way both the courts below have proceeded to appreciate the evidence on record. Once the presumption under Sec.139 was given effect to, the courts ought to have proceeded on the premise that the cheque, was indeed, issued in discharge of a debt/liability. The entire focus would then necessarily have to shift on the case set up by the accused, since the activation of the presumption has the effect of shifting the evidential burden on the accused. The nature of inquiry would then be to see whether the accused has discharge his onus of rebutting the presumption.
In the present case also, the accused has not issued any reply to the legal notice issued by the complainant and even he was not explained the reason for non issuance of reply in his examination u/Sec.313 Cr.PC. Moreover, in
APCH020030612022
STC No.469/2022 25 dated:10.11.2025
this case also nowhere accused denied his signature on Ex.P1, as such the findings in the above authority are aptly applicable to the present case on hand.
43. Further, it is not the case of DW1 that he did not sign on Ex.P1 cheque. As discussed supra, even there is no denial from the accused that the signature on Ex.P1 is not belongs to him. It is pertinent to note that the accused did not choose to give any reply to Ex.P4 notice though he acknowledged the same on 18.07.2022. In the absence of any positive, reliable corroborative evidence the self serving evidence of the accused that
Ex.P1 was not issued by him to PW1 with regard to the discharge of legally enforceable debt is not tenable. Moreover, the credibility of PW1 is not shaken in the cross examination. In view of the above discussion, and from non denial of accused regard to issuance of Ex.P1 cheque and admission of his signature is proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Except the oral allegations of accused no other reliable material is produced to rebut presumption drawn in favour of the complainant with regard to the consideration under Sec.118 of N.I Act. The allegations of accused are nothing but self serving and without any corroboration. By proving Ex.P1 cheque the complainant discharged his initial burden of proving the consideration under Ex.P1/cheque. For all the above reasons it can be safely concluded that the Ex.P1/cheque was issued by the accused is legally enforceable debt. On the other hand, the accused failed to discharge his burden in disproving the case of complainant by rebutting the presumption under Sec.118 and under Sec.139 of N.I Act.
44.In general, in criminal law, accused is presumed to be innocent and an un-shifted burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt is on the shoulders of
APCH020030612022
STC No.469/2022 26 dated:10.11.2025
the prosecution. But the offence punishable under Sec.138 and 142 of
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 is made under special enactment, wherein the mandatory presumption of law under Sec.118 and 139 of the Act are prescribed. Section 118(a) of the Act says that “there shall be a presumption until the contrary is proved that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that every such instrument when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred was accepted endorsed negotiated or transferred for consideration.
45.Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act says that “it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in Section 138 of Negotiable instrument
Act, for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. The term cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instrument Act appeared in Sec.139 of Negotiable Instrument Act means any cheque drawn by a person from and out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, which is returned unpaid by the bank either because the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honor the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank.
46.A conjoint reading of the above three Sections will show that whenever the drawer of the cheque is either admitted or proved his signature on the cheque, the presumption under Sec.118 (a) of the Negotiable instruments Act will come into picture to say that the cheque is supported by consideration.
The presumption under Sec.139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act is explanatory and supplementary to presumption under Sec.118 (a) of the Act to show that the cheque was received by the holder for the discharge of
APCH020030612022
STC No.469/2022 27 dated:10.11.2025
whole or in part of the debt or other liability. Therefore, this court has to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that in a case where the signature of the drawer of the cheque is admitted or proved, then, there shall be a presumption in regard to the purpose for which the cheque was issued and the burden shall be cast upon the accused to rebut such presumption. In case of such rebuttal, the burden shall be again shifted on the complainant to prove the existence of debt or other liability for discharge of which the cheque was issued. Of course, there are number of decisions of our Hon’ble Apex court to the effect that the evidence need to be adduced by the accused for rebutting such presumption shall not be comparable with the evidence required to adduced on the side of the prosecution. The prosecution is expected to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt whereas the defense case can be proved by preponderance of probabilities. But, here, the defence solely rely on the cross examination of P.W.1, but did not choose to adduce any defence evidence.
47.Relating to statutory presumption is concerned this court relying on the following judgments. In a decision reported in 2004 (2) ALD (Crl.)234 (SC) between Hiten P.Dala Vs.Bratindranath Benerjee and another
Their Lord ship while reiterating the law written in “AIR 1964 SC 575 between Banwantarai Desai Vs State of Maharastra” dealt with the phrase ‘unless contrary is proved’ appeared in 139 of N.I Act and held that.
“in that case of mandatory presumption the burden resting on the accused person in such a case would not be light as it is where a presumption is raised under Sec.114 of the Evidence Act and cannot be held to be discharged merely by reason of the fact that the explanation offered by the accused is reasonable and probable. It must further be shown that the explanation is a true one. The words ‘unless the contrary is proved’ which
APCH020030612022
STC No.469/2022 28 dated:10.11.2025
occur in this provision make it clear that the presumption has to be rebutted by ‘proof’ and not by a bare explanation which is merely plausible A fact is said to be proved when its existence is directly established or when upon the material before it, the court finds its existence to be so probable that a reasonable on would act on the supposition that it exits. Unless, therefore the explanation is supported by proof, the presumption created by the provision cannot be said to be rebutted”.
48.Further in a decision reported in 2003(2) ALD (Crl.) page 237 AP between Sudheer Sabarwal Vs Anil Prabhakar Nilgirwar and another their
Lord-ships held- “Whenever the person accused of offence under Sec.138 of N.I Act intends to plead that there is existing legal enforceable debt it is for him to place such material before the court in the form of oral or documentary evidence which is sufficient and adequate to neutralize the presumption under Sec.139 of N.I Act.
49.In view of the above discussions, in a prosecution for the offence under
Sec.138 of N.I Act unless contrary is proved, the court must statutorily presume.
a)that the cheque was drawn on an account maintained by the drawer with the banker,
b)that it was for the purpose of paying money to any other person out of that account;
c)that it was for discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or any other liability; and
d)that it was received by the holder in discharge of any debt or any liability
50.In the present case, the complainant/PW1 proved his case on all the above aspects through his oral and documentary evidence. Thus, all the
APCH020030612022
STC No.469/2022 29 dated:10.11.2025
above presumptions are drawn in favour of complainant/PW1. Accused failed to rebut the presumption arose in favour of complainant.
51.Hence the presumption of consideration and other presumptions drawn in favour of complainant under Sec.118 and Sec.139 of the Act hold good as the defence failed to rebut the same with any reliable rebuttable evidence.
52.As seen from the evidence on record, it is clear that not only with the aid of legal presumption, even otherwise the complainant successfully proved the existence of legally enforceable debt with convincing evidence. The Ex.P1 cheque which was issued by the accused is sufficient evidence for the proof of subsistence of legally enforceable debt. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 is convincing and inspires confidence. The credibility of PW1 and PW2 is not impeached during the cross examination. This court has no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW1 and PW2. Since the evidence is fully corroborating with Ex.P1. Other aspects which were raised by the defence in the cross-examination of PW1 are not sufficient to disprove the case of the prosecution as the credibility of PW1 was not shaken. In the cross- examination nothing improbable is elicited to doubt the testimony. Hence, the evidence of PW1 is convincing and natural. Thus, in absence of any corroborative rebuttal evidence on behalf of the accused in disproving the case of prosecution the mere oral contention of accused that there is no legally enforceable debt is not acceptable one.
53.In the light of above discussion and as seen from Ex.P4 office copy of legal notice the complainant categorically mentioned all material contents of the complaint. The intimation of the notice was given and it was acknowledged
APCH020030612022
STC No.469/2022 30 dated:10.11.2025
by DW1. But the accused neither complied nor replied to Ex.P4/office copy of legal notice. Failure of accused in giving reply to the legal notice issued by the complainant and Ex.P1/cheque was issued towards full and final payment of legally enforceable debt. If at all the plea taken by the accused is true, he might have given the reply notice with true facts immediately as and when he gets knowledge about the notice from the complainant.
54.From the above discussion it is clear that the complainant proved his case that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- 05.11.2021, and in partial discharge of the principal amount, he issued Ex.P1/cheque
dt:11.07.2022. The cheque was presented within the period of its validity and
it was returned with Ex.P3 memo dt.14.07.2022 stating “funds insufficient” which attracts under Sec.138 of N.I Act, so also it is sufficiently established that the complainant got issued the legal notice within the stipulated time and waited for 15 days for compliance of the accused to the demand made in the notice. As the accused not paid the cheque amount to the complainant he filed the present compliant within the stipulation period of one month in the court having jurisdiction. Existence of legally enforceable debt in respect of
Ex.P1 cheque was sufficiently proved by filing Ex.P1. Accused admitted that the signature found on Ex.P1 belongs to him. Hence, the presumption u/Sec.139 of N.I Act are in favour of complainant. The accused failed to disprove the case of the complainant.
55.Thus, the material on record adduced by the complainant categorically and conclusively established issuing of Ex.P1/cheque by accused/DW1 to complainant towards partial discharge of principal amount which is a legally enforceable debt and it was dishonoured when presented. In the absence of any grain of rebuttal evidence by accused to the contrary, this court holds that
APCH020030612022
STC No.469/2022 31 dated:10.11.2025
the complainant has proved the guilt of accused for the offence under Sec.138 of the Act. Hence, the prosecution proved its case against the accused for the offence under Sec.138 of N.I Act beyond all reasonable doubt. The point is answered accordingly.
56.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable u/Sec 138 of N.I.Act and accordingly, he is convicted under
Section 255(2) Cr.P.C.,
Directly typed to my dictation on Computer by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this 10th day of NOVEMBER, 2025.
Sd/- B.Sirisha
III Addl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class Chittoor
Accused is explained about the punishment provided u/Sec.138 of N.I
Act and also questioned about the quantum of sentence to be imposed on him.
The accused when questioned, submitted that “I am having a son who is physically challenged person and he is dependant on me as my wife not residing with us, as such I have to attend all the basic needs of my son”. I am aged about 73 years.” Hence, prayed to take lenient view.
Considering the nature of the offence proved against the accused as the accused is deliberately issued Ex.P1 cheque without having sufficient funds in his account, if the accused is released under Probation of Offenders
Act, it is nothing but traverse of justice and the very object of the legislative mandate of making bouncing of cheuqe as punishable will be ruin. Therefore,
I am of the view that it is not fit case to invoke beneficial provisions of
Probation of Offenders Act in favour of the accused.
APCH020030612022
STC No.469/2022 32 dated:10.11.2025
Further our Honble Apex Court in a decision reported in S.Suresh Kumar Vs Jagadeeshan (2002(1) ALD (Crl)417 held that “it should be the look out of the trail court Magistrate that the sentence for the offence under Sec.138 of N.I Act,1881 should be of such a nature as to give proper effect to the object of the legislation. No drawer of the cheque can be allowed to take dishonor of the cheuqe issued by him light heartedly. The very object of the enactment of the provisions like Sec.138 of N.I Act , 1881 would stand defeated if the sentence is flee bite in nature. It is a different matter, if the accused is paid the amount at least during the pendency of the case”. In view of the above decision and in the circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case to take a lenient view. Further, The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘R.Vijayan Vs Baby and another’ (2012(1) SCC 260) held that granting of compensation is must in cheque bounce cases to maintain uniformity in the decisions of the courts. It was held that “As the provisions of Chapter XVII of the Act strongly lean towards grant of reimbursement of the loss by way of compensation, the courts should, unless there are special circumstances, in all cases of conviction, uniformly exercise the power to levy fine up to twice the cheque amount (keeping in view the cheque amount and the simple interest thereon at 9% per annum as the reasonable quantum of loss) and direct payment of such amount as compensation. Direction to pay compensation by way of restitution in regard to the loss on account of dishonor of the cheque should be practical and realistic, which would mean not only the payment of the cheque amount but interest thereon at a reasonable rate. Uniformity and consistency in deciding similar cases by different courts, not only increase the credibility of cheque as a negotiable instrument, but also the credibility of courts of justice”. Furthermore, there used to be some discussion as to whether the default sentence can be imposed for non payment of compensation. The said discussion is settled at rest and it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘K.A.Abahas H.S.A., Vs Sabu Joseph & Anr’ (2010 STPL (Web) 384 SC (D.B)) arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.334 of 2008 that default sentence can be imposed for non payment of compensation.
However, bearing the representation of the accused and his age and having a son who is physically challenged person, dependent on him will certainly gives much hardship to the accused, hence, this court earnestly felt that these are some of the mitigating circumstances in imposing the sentence
APCH020030612022
STC No.469/2022 33 dated:10.11.2025
of imprisonment against the accused. Considering all these circumstances sympathetically, this court feels that the following sentence will meet the ends of the justice.
Hence, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months and to pay a fine of Rs.9,97,000/- (Rupees Nine lakhs and ninety seven thousands only) i.e., cheque amount. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall have to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month in addition to the actual sentence, imposed on him. The accused has to pay the cheque amount of Rs.9,97,000/- (Rupees Nine lakhs and ninety seven thousands only) to the complainant as compensation u/Sec.357 (3) of Cr.P.C within one month from the date of order.
The remand period, if any, shall be set off under Section 428 of
Criminal Procedure Code.
The accused is informed about his right to appeal against this Judgment
before the Hon'ble Sessions Court and also informed about the right of free
Legal Aid as contemplated u/Sec.304 of Criminal Procedure Code through
Hon'ble Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, Chittoor if he has no
means.
Office is directed to prepare conviction warrant and also to provide a copy of this judgment, free of cost to the convict forthwith.
Directly typed to my dictation on Computer by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this 10th day of NOVEMBER, 2025.
Sd/- B.Sirisha
III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class Chittoor
APCH020030612022
STC No.469/2022 34 dated:10.11.2025
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
witnesses examined
Complainant: Accused:
PW1:B.Venugopal ReddyDW1:C.Govinda Mandadi
PW2G.Muneendra Reddy
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Prosecution : (Marked through PW1)
Ex.P.1Cheque bearing No.358033 for Rs.9,97,000/- dated 11.07.2022 issued by the accused in favour of complainant.
Ex.P.2Counter foil dated 11.07.2022
Ex.P.3Cheque return memo dated 14.07.2022 issued by the Union Bank, Chittoor
Ex.P.4Legal notice issued by PW1 to accused through counsel dated 18.07.2022.
Ex.P.5Acknowledgment of Ex.P4/legal notice.
For Defence:
-nil-
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
-Nil-
Sd/- B.Sirisha
III Addl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class Chittoor // true copy //
III Addl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class Chittoor
APCH020030612022
STC No.469/2022 35 dated:10.11.2025
APCH020030612022
STC No.469/2022 36 dated:10.11.2025
IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS :: CHITTOOR
S.T.C.No.469 of 2022
Date of offence:14.07.2022
Date of complaint:22.08.2022
Date of cognizance taken:24.08.2022
Date of appearance of:18.10.2022 accused Date of commencement of:17.07.2025 trial Date of close of trial:23.10.2025
Date of Judgment:10.11.2025
Complainant : B. Venugopal Reddy s/o Late B.Errama Reddy, Hindu, aged about 55 years, business, residing at Mangadanapalli Village Kotalam Post, Yadamari Mandal, Chittoor District.
Description of the accused: C.Govinda Mandadi, s/o Late V.Chinna Mandadi, aged about 67 years, business, residing at D.No.28-817, 28-818, K.N. Colony, Chittoor Town & District. Nature of offence: Dishonour of Cheque
Section of Law: u/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Plea of the Accused: Pleaded not guilty
Finding of the Court: Found guilty
Reasons for delay: Non appearance of both parties since several adjournments.
Sentence or Order:
IN THE RESULT, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable u/Sec 138 of N.I.Act and accordingly, he is convicted under
Section 255(2) Cr.P.C., and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a
APCH020030612022
STC No.469/2022 37 dated:10.11.2025
period of six (06) months and to pay a fine of Rs.9,97,000/- (Rupees Nine lakhs and ninety seven thousands only) i.e., cheque amount. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall have to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month in addition to the actual sentence, imposed on him. The accused has to pay the cheque amount of Rs.9,97,000/- (Rupees Nine lakhs and ninety seven thousands only) to the complainant as compensation u/Sec.357 (3) of Cr.P.C within one month from the date of order.
The remand period, if any, shall be set off under Section 428 of Criminal procedure Code.
The accused is informed about his right to appeal against this Judgment
before the Hon'ble Sessions Court and also informed about the right of free
Legal Aid as contemplated u/Sec.304 of Cr.P.C., through Hon'ble Chairman,
District Legal Services Authority, Chittoor if he has no means.
Office is directed to prepare conviction warrant and also to provide a copy of this judgment, free of cost to the convict forthwith.
The operation of the sentence imposed on the accused stands suspended till 10.12.2025 as per the orders of this Court in
Crl.M.P.No.1612/2025 dated 10.11.2025.
Sd/- B.Sirisha
III Addl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class Chittoor // true copy //
III Addl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class Chittoor
APCH020030612022
STC No.469/2022 38 dated:10.11.2025
IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS :: CHITTOOR
QUESTIONNAIRE UNDER SECTION 255 (2) OF Cr.P.C.,
S.T.C.No. 469 of 2022
Name:
Father’s/:age: Husband’s name
Village:Calling:
Mandal:Date:
Q.You are found guilty by this court for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act Punishable with imprisonment which may be extended up to two years and also fine which may extend twice of the cheque amount? Do you want to say anything with regard to quantum of sentence.
Ans:
APCH020030612022
STC No.469/2022 39 dated:10.11.2025
IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS:: CHITTOR
Present:- Kum B.Sirisha,
III Additional Judicial Magistrate Of First Class, Chittoor
Monday, the Tenth (10 th ) day of NOVEMBER, 2025
S.T.C. No.469/ 2022
BETWEEN:
B. Venugopal Reddy s/o Late B.Errama Reddy, Hindu, aged about 55 years, business, residing at Mangadanapalli Village Kotalam Post, Yadamari Mandal, Chittoor District. …Complainant.
AND:
C.Govinda Mandadi, s/o Late V.Chinna Mandadi, Hindu, aged about 67 years, business, residing at D.No.28-817, 28-818, K.N. Colony, Chittoor Town & District.
...Accused.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
u/Sec.363 of Criminal Procedure Code and Rule 72 of Criminal Rules of
Practice and Circular Orders, 1990
We received the gratis copy of judgment in the above case today.
Accused Counsel for Accused
APCH020030612022
STC No.469/2022 40 dated:10.11.2025
APCH020011272022
O.S.No.351/2022 1 dt.07.11.2025
IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR
DIVISION) :: CHITTOOR
Present:- Kum B.Sirisha,
III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chittoor
Friday, this the Seventh (7th ) day of NOVEMBER, 2025.
O.S.No.351/2022
Between:
K.Jayamma, aged about 33 years, W/o K.Chiranjeevi, House wife, residing at K.P.Vaddigudisalu Village, Guthavandlavuru Panchayat, Santhambakam Post, Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District.
...Plaintiff
And
1.K.Nagaraju, aged about 57 years, S/o late K.R.N.Swamy residing at K.P.Vaddigudisalu Village, Guthavandlavuru Panchayat, Santhambakam Post, Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District.
2. K.Munirajulu, aged about 54 years, S/o late K.R.N.Swamy residing at K.P.Vaddigudisalu Village, Guthavandlavuru Panchayat, Santhambakam Post, Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District.
3. K.Venkatesulu, aged about 57 years, S/o K.Munuswamy, K.P.Vaddigudisalu Village, Guthavandlavuru Panchayat, Santhambakam Post, Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District.
4.K.Bhaskar, aged about 65 years, S/o Venkataswamy, K.P.Vaddigudisalu Village, Guthavandlavuru Panchayat, Santhambakam Post, Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District.
...Defendants.
This suit coming on 24.06.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri V.Jayakumar, Advocate for plaintiff and of defendants called absent and set ex-parte, and upon hearing the arguments of plaintiff, and upon
APCH020011272022
O.S.No.351/2022 2 dt.07.11.2025
perusing the documents available on record, and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their men, agents, assignees, servants and other followers from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule mentioned property.
2. The averments of the plaint are summarized as follows-
Originally the suit schedule mentioned property is government land and the same was acquired by the ancestors of the plaintiff about 50 years ago and they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by constructing a thatched house therein. In recognition of possession of the said property, the revenue authorities have issued house site patta, bearing ROC
No. 33/2022 dt. 10.02.2022 in the name of the plaintiff. Ever since the date of grant of patta, the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same as absolute owner thereof. Thereafter, the plaintiff removed the old thatched house and while cleaning the house site for construction of RCC building the defendants approached the plaintiff and requested her to sell the said property to them. But the plaintiff refused their request to sell the property.
Therefore they developed enmity upon the plaintiff. On 03.04.2022 at about 9.00 A.M. while the plaintiff was cleaning the land for construction of the house, the defendants highhandedly attempted to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff, however, the plaintiff thwarted their attempts with the help of neighbours. While leaving the premises, they stated that they would renew their attempts with large following. The plaintiff is a women not a match to the defendants. The defendants have no right, title,
APCH020011272022
O.S.No.351/2022 3 dt.07.11.2025
interest, possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule mentioned property. They are utter strangers to the suit properties. Hence, the suit.
3. On service of summons, Defendant nos.3 and 4 failed to appear before this
Court and hence they are set exparte on 27.06.2022. Suit summons were not served on the defendant nos.1 and 2 in spite of issuance of summons on several times. Then the plaintiff has taken steps for issuance of summons on the defendant nos.1 and 2 by way of paper publication in Eenadu Telugu Daily
Newspaper on 04.07.2024. It was filed on 16.07.2024. But the defendant nos.1 and 2 did not make their appearance before this court and did not choose to contest the suit. On seeing their obscene, this court set the defendant nos.1 and 2 as exparte and proceeded with trial.
4.The plaintiff herself examined as PW1, apart from oral evidence, Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 were marked on behalf of plaintiff.
5.Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the documents available on record.
6.Now, the points that arose for consideration are:
1. “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of Permanent
Injunction against the defendants and for costs of the suit as prayed?”
2. To What relief?
POINT No.1:-
7.To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiffherself examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. Ex.A1 is the VHS Patta dt:10.02.2022 in the name of the plaintiff and Ex.A2 is theMarket value certificate.
APCH020011272022
O.S.No.351/2022 4 dt.07.11.2025
8.The plaintiff in her chief affidavit as PW1 reiterated the contents of plaint
It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property is government land and the same was acquired by the ancestors of the plaintiff about 50 years ago and they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by constructing a thatched house therein. In recognition of possession of the said property, the revenue authorities have issued house site patta, bearing ROC
No. 33/2022 dt. 10.02.2022 in the name of the plaintiff which was marked as
Ex.A1. Ever since the date of grant of patta, the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same as absolute owner thereof. On 03.04.2022 at about 9.00 A.M. while the plaintiff was cleaning the land for construction of the house, the defendants highhandedly attempted to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff, however, the plaintiff thwarted their attempts with the help of neighbours and the defendants while leaving the suit schedule properties proclaimed that they will renew their attempts. Under the above said circumstances, the plaintiffs are constrained to file above suit for Permanent Injunction against the defendants.
9. PW1 was not cross-examined as there is no representation for defendants. The cross-examination of PW1 was treated as nil since the defendants were set exparte. As seen from the evidence of PW1 coupled with
Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 and taking into consideration of the overall circumstances, this being a suit for Permanent injunction, this Court is of paramount consideration whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on date of the filing of the suit and whether there is unlawful interference by the defendants. The lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff established by adducing documentary evidence under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. Ex.A1 reveals that in recognition of her long possession of the suit schedule property, the revenue authorities have issued house site patta,
APCH020011272022
O.S.No.351/2022 5 dt.07.11.2025
bearing ROC No. 33/2022 dt. 10.02.2022 in the name of the plaintiff. Since then the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. The defendants have demanded the plaintiff to sell the said property in their favour. When the plaintiff refused their demands, the defendants have created troubles to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.
10. Since the defendants remained exparte, PW1 was not cross-examined.
The unchallenged evidence of PW1 proved the case of plaintiff. The evidence of PW1 is corroborated with Ex.A1. Hence, this court found no reason to disbelieve the evidence of plaintiff. The plaintiff succeeded in proving her case. The plaintiff proved that she is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendant nos.1 to 4 having no manner of right, title, or interest in the suit schedule property are unlawfully attempting to interfere with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment thereof, solely because she refused to sell the plaint schedule property to them.
11.In these circumstances, the case of the plaintiff is proved and the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their men, agents, assignees, servants and other followers from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Accordingly, the point no.1 is answered.
POINT No.2: To what relief?
12.IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs and permanent injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants, their men, agents, assignees, servants and other followers from in any way
APCH020011272022
O.S.No.351/2022 6 dt.07.11.2025
interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule mentioned property.
Typed to my dictation directly on the computer by Stenographer G-III, corrected the soft copy and pronounced by me in open court, this the 7 th day of NOVEMBER, 2025.
Sd/- B.Sirisha
III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chittoor.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
witnesses examined
Plaintiff Defendants
P.W1:K.JayammaSet Exparte
DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
Plaintiff:
Ex.A1:VHS Patta dt:10.02.2022 in the name of the plaintiff. Ex.A2:Market value certificate.
Defendants:
Set Exparte
Sd/- B.Sirisha
III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chittoor. // true copy //
III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chittoor.
APCH020011272022
O.S.No.351/2022 7 dt.07.11.2025
APCH020011272022
O.S.No.351/2022 1 dt.07.11.2025
IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR
DIVISION) :: CHITTOOR
Present:- Kum B.Sirisha,
III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chittoor
Friday, this the Seventh (7th ) day of NOVEMBER, 2025.
O.S.No.351/2022
Between:
K.Jayamma, aged about 33 years, W/o K.Chiranjeevi, House wife, residing at K.P.Vaddigudisalu Village, Guthavandlavuru Panchayat, Santhambakam Post, Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District.
...Plaintiff
And
1.K.Nagaraju, aged about 57 years, S/o late K.R.N.Swamy residing at K.P.Vaddigudisalu Village, Guthavandlavuru Panchayat, Santhambakam Post, Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District.
2. K.Munirajulu, aged about 54 years, S/o late K.R.N.Swamy residing at K.P.Vaddigudisalu Village, Guthavandlavuru Panchayat, Santhambakam Post, Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District.
3. K.Venkatesulu, aged about 57 years, S/o K.Munuswamy, K.P.Vaddigudisalu Village, Guthavandlavuru Panchayat, Santhambakam Post, Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District.
4.K.Bhaskar, aged about 65 years, S/o Venkataswamy, K.P.Vaddigudisalu Village, Guthavandlavuru Panchayat, Santhambakam Post, Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District.
...Defendants.
This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their men, agents, assignees, servants and other followers from in anny way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule mentioned property.
Plaint presented on 04.04.2022, Plaint filed on 04.04.2022.
APCH020011272022
O.S.No.351/2022 2 dt.07.11.2025
PARTICULARS OF VALUATION
1Market Value of the plaint schedule property Rs.1,00,000-00 2Notional Value of the Suit schedule propertyRs.10,000-00 3Court Fee paid thereon u/Sec.26 (c) of APCF andRs. 786-00 S.V.Act
The cause of action of the suit arose on 50 years ago acquired by the ancestors of the plaintiff and residing in the plaint schedule mentioned property, by constructing a thatched house and on 10.02.2022 the date of issuance of House site patta to the plaintiff and on 03.04.2022 the date of attempt of interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule mentioned property and de-die-dieum at K.. Vaddigudasalu Village of Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District with in the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Court.
This suit coming on 24.06.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri V.Jayakumar, Advocate for plaintiff and of defendants called absent and set ex-parte, and upon hearing the arguments of plaintiff, and upon perusing the documents available on record, and having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court doth order and decree as follows:
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed with costs and permanent injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiff, restrain- ing the defendants, their subordinates, their men, agents, servants and their followers from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule mentioned property.;
2) that the defendants 1 to 4 jointly and severally do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.7,091/- being the costs of the suit.
Given under my hand and seal of the court, this the 7th day of NOVEMBER, 2025.
Sd/- B.Sirisha
III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chittoor.
APCH020011272022
O.S.No.351/2022 3 dt.07.11.2025
STATEMENT OF COSTS
S.NoDescriptionPlaintiffDefendants 1Stamp on Vakalat2-00 2Stamp on Plaint 786-00Exparte.
3Stamp on process 445-00 4Advocate Fee1500-00 5Paper publication 4,158-00 charges 6Typing Charges 100-00 7Writing Charges100-00
Total : 7,091-00
Sd/- B.Sirisha
III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chittoor.
SCHEDULE
Chittoor District Chittoor Sub District Penumur Mandal – Penumur Mandal -
Kalavagunta Revenue Village Accounts - K.P. Vaddigudasalu Sy.No. 862
Extent Ac. 0.02 cents within the following boundaries.
East: House of Munirathnam West: Lands of Ramachandraiah Naidu North: Milk centre South: Veedhi
Sd/- B.Sirisha
III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chittoor. // true copy //
APCH020011272022
O.S.No.351/2022 4 dt.07.11.2025
APCH020011272022
O.S.No.351/2022 5 dt.07.11.2025
APCH020011272022
O.S.No.351/2022 1 dt.07.11.2025
IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR
DIVISION) :: CHITTOOR
Present:- Kum B.Sirisha,
III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chittoor
Friday, this the Seventh (7th ) day of NOVEMBER, 2025.
O.S.No.351/2022
Between:
K.Jayamma, aged about 33 years, W/o K.Chiranjeevi, House wife, residing at K.P.Vaddigudisalu Village, Guthavandlavuru Panchayat, Santhambakam Post, Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District.
...Plaintiff
And
1.K.Nagaraju, aged about 57 years, S/o late K.R.N.Swamy residing at K.P.Vaddigudisalu Village, Guthavandlavuru Panchayat, Santhambakam Post, Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District.
2. K.Munirajulu, aged about 54 years, S/o late K.R.N.Swamy residing at K.P.Vaddigudisalu Village, Guthavandlavuru Panchayat, Santhambakam Post, Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District.
3. K.Venkatesulu, aged about 57 years, S/o K.Munuswamy, K.P.Vaddigudisalu Village, Guthavandlavuru Panchayat, Santhambakam Post, Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District.
4.K.Bhaskar, aged about 65 years, S/o Venkataswamy, K.P.Vaddigudisalu Village, Guthavandlavuru Panchayat, Santhambakam Post, Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District.
...Defendants.
This suit coming on 24.06.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri V.Jayakumar, Advocate for plaintiff and of defendants called absent and set ex-parte, and upon hearing the arguments of plaintiff, and upon
APCH020011272022
O.S.No.351/2022 2 dt.07.11.2025
perusing the documents available on record, and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their men, agents, assignees, servants and other followers from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule mentioned property.
2. The averments of the plaint are summarized as follows-
Originally the suit schedule mentioned property is government land and the same was acquired by the ancestors of the plaintiff about 50 years ago and they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by constructing a thatched house therein. In recognition of possession of the said property, the revenue authorities have issued house site patta, bearing ROC
No. 33/2022 dt. 10.02.2022 in the name of the plaintiff. Ever since the date of grant of patta, the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same as absolute owner thereof. Thereafter, the plaintiff removed the old thatched house and while cleaning the house site for construction of RCC building the defendants approached the plaintiff and requested her to sell the said property to them. But the plaintiff refused their request to sell the property.
Therefore they developed enmity upon the plaintiff. On 03.04.2022 at about 9.00 A.M. while the plaintiff was cleaning the land for construction of the house, the defendants highhandedly attempted to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff, however, the plaintiff thwarted their attempts with the help of neighbours. While leaving the premises, they stated that they would renew their attempts with large following. The plaintiff is a women not a match to the defendants. The defendants have no right, title,
APCH020011272022
O.S.No.351/2022 3 dt.07.11.2025
interest, possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule mentioned property. They are utter strangers to the suit properties. Hence, the suit.
3. On service of summons, Defendant nos.3 and 4 failed to appear before this
Court and hence they are set exparte on 27.06.2022. Suit summons were not served on the defendant nos.1 and 2 in spite of issuance of summons on several times. Then the plaintiff has taken steps for issuance of summons on the defendant nos.1 and 2 by way of paper publication in Eenadu Telugu Daily
Newspaper on 04.07.2024. It was filed on 16.07.2024. But the defendant nos.1 and 2 did not make their appearance before this court and did not choose to contest the suit. On seeing their obscene, this court set the defendant nos.1 and 2 as exparte and proceeded with trial.
4.The plaintiff herself examined as PW1, apart from oral evidence, Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 were marked on behalf of plaintiff.
5.Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the documents available on record.
6.Now, the points that arose for consideration are:
1. “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of Permanent
Injunction against the defendants and for costs of the suit as prayed?”
2. To What relief?
POINT No.1:-
7.To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiffherself examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. Ex.A1 is the VHS Patta dt:10.02.2022 in the name of the plaintiff and Ex.A2 is theMarket value certificate.
APCH020011272022
O.S.No.351/2022 4 dt.07.11.2025
8.The plaintiff in her chief affidavit as PW1 reiterated the contents of plaint
It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property is government land and the same was acquired by the ancestors of the plaintiff about 50 years ago and they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by constructing a thatched house therein. In recognition of possession of the said property, the revenue authorities have issued house site patta, bearing ROC
No. 33/2022 dt. 10.02.2022 in the name of the plaintiff which was marked as
Ex.A1. Ever since the date of grant of patta, the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same as absolute owner thereof. On 03.04.2022 at about 9.00 A.M. while the plaintiff was cleaning the land for construction of the house, the defendants highhandedly attempted to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff, however, the plaintiff thwarted their attempts with the help of neighbours and the defendants while leaving the suit schedule properties proclaimed that they will renew their attempts. Under the above said circumstances, the plaintiffs are constrained to file above suit for Permanent Injunction against the defendants.
9. PW1 was not cross-examined as there is no representation for defendants. The cross-examination of PW1 was treated as nil since the defendants were set exparte. As seen from the evidence of PW1 coupled with
Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 and taking into consideration of the overall circumstances, this being a suit for Permanent injunction, this Court is of paramount consideration whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on date of the filing of the suit and whether there is unlawful interference by the defendants. The lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff established by adducing documentary evidence under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. Ex.A1 reveals that in recognition of her long possession of the suit schedule property, the revenue authorities have issued house site patta,
APCH020011272022
O.S.No.351/2022 5 dt.07.11.2025
bearing ROC No. 33/2022 dt. 10.02.2022 in the name of the plaintiff. Since then the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. The defendants have demanded the plaintiff to sell the said property in their favour. When the plaintiff refused their demands, the defendants have created troubles to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.
10. Since the defendants remained exparte, PW1 was not cross-examined.
The unchallenged evidence of PW1 proved the case of plaintiff. The evidence of PW1 is corroborated with Ex.A1. Hence, this court found no reason to disbelieve the evidence of plaintiff. The plaintiff succeeded in proving her case. The plaintiff proved that she is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendant nos.1 to 4 having no manner of right, title, or interest in the suit schedule property are unlawfully attempting to interfere with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment thereof, solely because she refused to sell the plaint schedule property to them.
11.In these circumstances, the case of the plaintiff is proved and the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their men, agents, assignees, servants and other followers from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Accordingly, the point no.1 is answered.
POINT No.2: To what relief?
12.IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs and permanent injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants, their men, agents, assignees, servants and other followers from in any way
APCH020011272022
O.S.No.351/2022 6 dt.07.11.2025
interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule mentioned property.
Typed to my dictation directly on the computer by Stenographer G-III, corrected the soft copy and pronounced by me in open court, this the 7 th day of NOVEMBER, 2025.
Sd/- B.Sirisha
III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chittoor.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
witnesses examined
Plaintiff Defendants
P.W1:K.JayammaSet Exparte
DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
Plaintiff:
Ex.A1:VHS Patta dt:10.02.2022 in the name of the plaintiff. Ex.A2:Market value certificate.
Defendants:
Set Exparte
Sd/- B.Sirisha
III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chittoor. // true copy //
III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chittoor.
APCH020011272022
O.S.No.351/2022 7 dt.07.11.2025
APCH020011272022
O.S.No.351/2022 1 dt.07.11.2025
IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR
DIVISION) :: CHITTOOR
Present:- Kum B.Sirisha,
III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chittoor
Friday, this the Seventh (7th ) day of NOVEMBER, 2025.
O.S.No.351/2022
Between:
K.Jayamma, aged about 33 years, W/o K.Chiranjeevi, House wife, residing at K.P.Vaddigudisalu Village, Guthavandlavuru Panchayat, Santhambakam Post, Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District.
...Plaintiff
And
1.K.Nagaraju, aged about 57 years, S/o late K.R.N.Swamy residing at K.P.Vaddigudisalu Village, Guthavandlavuru Panchayat, Santhambakam Post, Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District.
2. K.Munirajulu, aged about 54 years, S/o late K.R.N.Swamy residing at K.P.Vaddigudisalu Village, Guthavandlavuru Panchayat, Santhambakam Post, Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District.
3. K.Venkatesulu, aged about 57 years, S/o K.Munuswamy, K.P.Vaddigudisalu Village, Guthavandlavuru Panchayat, Santhambakam Post, Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District.
4.K.Bhaskar, aged about 65 years, S/o Venkataswamy, K.P.Vaddigudisalu Village, Guthavandlavuru Panchayat, Santhambakam Post, Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District.
...Defendants.
This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their men, agents, assignees, servants and other followers from in anny way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule mentioned property.
Plaint presented on 04.04.2022, Plaint filed on 04.04.2022.
APCH020011272022
O.S.No.351/2022 2 dt.07.11.2025
PARTICULARS OF VALUATION
1Market Value of the plaint schedule property Rs.1,00,000-00 2Notional Value of the Suit schedule propertyRs.10,000-00 3Court Fee paid thereon u/Sec.26 (c) of APCF andRs. 786-00 S.V.Act
The cause of action of the suit arose on 50 years ago acquired by the ancestors of the plaintiff and residing in the plaint schedule mentioned property, by constructing a thatched house and on 10.02.2022 the date of issuance of House site patta to the plaintiff and on 03.04.2022 the date of attempt of interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule mentioned property and de-die-dieum at K.. Vaddigudasalu Village of Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District with in the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Court.
This suit coming on 24.06.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri V.Jayakumar, Advocate for plaintiff and of defendants called absent and set ex-parte, and upon hearing the arguments of plaintiff, and upon perusing the documents available on record, and having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court doth order and decree as follows:
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed with costs and permanent injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiff, restrain- ing the defendants, their subordinates, their men, agents, servants and their followers from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule mentioned property.;
2) that the defendants 1 to 4 jointly and severally do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.7,091/- being the costs of the suit.
Given under my hand and seal of the court, this the 7th day of NOVEMBER, 2025.
Sd/- B.Sirisha
III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chittoor.
APCH020011272022
O.S.No.351/2022 3 dt.07.11.2025
STATEMENT OF COSTS
S.NoDescriptionPlaintiffDefendants 1Stamp on Vakalat2-00 2Stamp on Plaint 786-00Exparte.
3Stamp on process 445-00 4Advocate Fee1500-00 5Paper publication 4,158-00 charges 6Typing Charges 100-00 7Writing Charges100-00
Total : 7,091-00
Sd/- B.Sirisha
III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chittoor.
SCHEDULE
Chittoor District Chittoor Sub District Penumur Mandal – Penumur Mandal -
Kalavagunta Revenue Village Accounts - K.P. Vaddigudasalu Sy.No. 862
Extent Ac. 0.02 cents within the following boundaries.
East: House of Munirathnam West: Lands of Ramachandraiah Naidu North: Milk centre South: Veedhi
Sd/- B.Sirisha
III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chittoor. // true copy //
APCH020011272022
O.S.No.351/2022 4 dt.07.11.2025
APCH020011272022
O.S.No.351/2022 5 dt.07.11.2025
APCH020011272022
O.S.No.351/2022 1 dt.07.11.2025
IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR
DIVISION) :: CHITTOOR
Present:- Kum B.Sirisha,
III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chittoor
Friday, this the Seventh (7th ) day of NOVEMBER, 2025.
O.S.No.351/2022
Between:
K.Jayamma, aged about 33 years, W/o K.Chiranjeevi, House wife, residing at K.P.Vaddigudisalu Village, Guthavandlavuru Panchayat, Santhambakam Post, Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District.
...Plaintiff
And
1.K.Nagaraju, aged about 57 years, S/o late K.R.N.Swamy residing at K.P.Vaddigudisalu Village, Guthavandlavuru Panchayat, Santhambakam Post, Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District.
2. K.Munirajulu, aged about 54 years, S/o late K.R.N.Swamy residing at K.P.Vaddigudisalu Village, Guthavandlavuru Panchayat, Santhambakam Post, Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District.
3. K.Venkatesulu, aged about 57 years, S/o K.Munuswamy, K.P.Vaddigudisalu Village, Guthavandlavuru Panchayat, Santhambakam Post, Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District.
4.K.Bhaskar, aged about 65 years, S/o Venkataswamy, K.P.Vaddigudisalu Village, Guthavandlavuru Panchayat, Santhambakam Post, Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District.
...Defendants.
This suit coming on 24.06.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri V.Jayakumar, Advocate for plaintiff and of defendants called absent and set ex-parte, and upon hearing the arguments of plaintiff, and upon
APCH020011272022
O.S.No.351/2022 2 dt.07.11.2025
perusing the documents available on record, and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their men, agents, assignees, servants and other followers from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule mentioned property.
2. The averments of the plaint are summarized as follows-
Originally the suit schedule mentioned property is government land and the same was acquired by the ancestors of the plaintiff about 50 years ago and they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by constructing a thatched house therein. In recognition of possession of the said property, the revenue authorities have issued house site patta, bearing ROC
No. 33/2022 dt. 10.02.2022 in the name of the plaintiff. Ever since the date of grant of patta, the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same as absolute owner thereof. Thereafter, the plaintiff removed the old thatched house and while cleaning the house site for construction of RCC building the defendants approached the plaintiff and requested her to sell the said property to them. But the plaintiff refused their request to sell the property.
Therefore they developed enmity upon the plaintiff. On 03.04.2022 at about 9.00 A.M. while the plaintiff was cleaning the land for construction of the house, the defendants highhandedly attempted to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff, however, the plaintiff thwarted their attempts with the help of neighbours. While leaving the premises, they stated that they would renew their attempts with large following. The plaintiff is a women not a match to the defendants. The defendants have no right, title,
APCH020011272022
O.S.No.351/2022 3 dt.07.11.2025
interest, possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule mentioned property. They are utter strangers to the suit properties. Hence, the suit.
3. On service of summons, Defendant nos.3 and 4 failed to appear before this
Court and hence they are set exparte on 27.06.2022. Suit summons were not served on the defendant nos.1 and 2 in spite of issuance of summons on several times. Then the plaintiff has taken steps for issuance of summons on the defendant nos.1 and 2 by way of paper publication in Eenadu Telugu Daily
Newspaper on 04.07.2024. It was filed on 16.07.2024. But the defendant nos.1 and 2 did not make their appearance before this court and did not choose to contest the suit. On seeing their obscene, this court set the defendant nos.1 and 2 as exparte and proceeded with trial.
4.The plaintiff herself examined as PW1, apart from oral evidence, Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 were marked on behalf of plaintiff.
5.Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the documents available on record.
6.Now, the points that arose for consideration are:
1. “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of Permanent
Injunction against the defendants and for costs of the suit as prayed?”
2. To What relief?
POINT No.1:-
7.To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiffherself examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. Ex.A1 is the VHS Patta dt:10.02.2022 in the name of the plaintiff and Ex.A2 is theMarket value certificate.
APCH020011272022
O.S.No.351/2022 4 dt.07.11.2025
8.The plaintiff in her chief affidavit as PW1 reiterated the contents of plaint
It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property is government land and the same was acquired by the ancestors of the plaintiff about 50 years ago and they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by constructing a thatched house therein. In recognition of possession of the said property, the revenue authorities have issued house site patta, bearing ROC
No. 33/2022 dt. 10.02.2022 in the name of the plaintiff which was marked as
Ex.A1. Ever since the date of grant of patta, the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same as absolute owner thereof. On 03.04.2022 at about 9.00 A.M. while the plaintiff was cleaning the land for construction of the house, the defendants highhandedly attempted to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff, however, the plaintiff thwarted their attempts with the help of neighbours and the defendants while leaving the suit schedule properties proclaimed that they will renew their attempts. Under the above said circumstances, the plaintiffs are constrained to file above suit for Permanent Injunction against the defendants.
9. PW1 was not cross-examined as there is no representation for defendants. The cross-examination of PW1 was treated as nil since the defendants were set exparte. As seen from the evidence of PW1 coupled with
Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 and taking into consideration of the overall circumstances, this being a suit for Permanent injunction, this Court is of paramount consideration whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on date of the filing of the suit and whether there is unlawful interference by the defendants. The lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff established by adducing documentary evidence under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. Ex.A1 reveals that in recognition of her long possession of the suit schedule property, the revenue authorities have issued house site patta,
APCH020011272022
O.S.No.351/2022 5 dt.07.11.2025
bearing ROC No. 33/2022 dt. 10.02.2022 in the name of the plaintiff. Since then the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. The defendants have demanded the plaintiff to sell the said property in their favour. When the plaintiff refused their demands, the defendants have created troubles to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.
10. Since the defendants remained exparte, PW1 was not cross-examined.
The unchallenged evidence of PW1 proved the case of plaintiff. The evidence of PW1 is corroborated with Ex.A1. Hence, this court found no reason to disbelieve the evidence of plaintiff. The plaintiff succeeded in proving her case. The plaintiff proved that she is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendant nos.1 to 4 having no manner of right, title, or interest in the suit schedule property are unlawfully attempting to interfere with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment thereof, solely because she refused to sell the plaint schedule property to them.
11.In these circumstances, the case of the plaintiff is proved and the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their men, agents, assignees, servants and other followers from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Accordingly, the point no.1 is answered.
POINT No.2: To what relief?
12.IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs and permanent injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants, their men, agents, assignees, servants and other followers from in any way
APCH020011272022
O.S.No.351/2022 6 dt.07.11.2025
interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule mentioned property.
Typed to my dictation directly on the computer by Stenographer G-III, corrected the soft copy and pronounced by me in open court, this the 7 th day of NOVEMBER, 2025.
Sd/- B.Sirisha
III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chittoor.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
witnesses examined
Plaintiff Defendants
P.W1:K.JayammaSet Exparte
DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
Plaintiff:
Ex.A1:VHS Patta dt:10.02.2022 in the name of the plaintiff. Ex.A2:Market value certificate.
Defendants:
Set Exparte
Sd/- B.Sirisha
III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chittoor. // true copy //
III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chittoor.
APCH020011272022
O.S.No.351/2022 7 dt.07.11.2025
APCH020011272022
O.S.No.351/2022 1 dt.07.11.2025
IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR
DIVISION) :: CHITTOOR
Present:- Kum B.Sirisha,
III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chittoor
Friday, this the Seventh (7th ) day of NOVEMBER, 2025.
O.S.No.351/2022
Between:
K.Jayamma, aged about 33 years, W/o K.Chiranjeevi, House wife, residing at K.P.Vaddigudisalu Village, Guthavandlavuru Panchayat, Santhambakam Post, Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District.
...Plaintiff
And
1.K.Nagaraju, aged about 57 years, S/o late K.R.N.Swamy residing at K.P.Vaddigudisalu Village, Guthavandlavuru Panchayat, Santhambakam Post, Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District.
2. K.Munirajulu, aged about 54 years, S/o late K.R.N.Swamy residing at K.P.Vaddigudisalu Village, Guthavandlavuru Panchayat, Santhambakam Post, Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District.
3. K.Venkatesulu, aged about 57 years, S/o K.Munuswamy, K.P.Vaddigudisalu Village, Guthavandlavuru Panchayat, Santhambakam Post, Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District.
4.K.Bhaskar, aged about 65 years, S/o Venkataswamy, K.P.Vaddigudisalu Village, Guthavandlavuru Panchayat, Santhambakam Post, Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District.
...Defendants.
This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their men, agents, assignees, servants and other followers from in anny way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule mentioned property.
Plaint presented on 04.04.2022, Plaint filed on 04.04.2022.
APCH020011272022
O.S.No.351/2022 2 dt.07.11.2025
PARTICULARS OF VALUATION
1Market Value of the plaint schedule property Rs.1,00,000-00 2Notional Value of the Suit schedule propertyRs.10,000-00 3Court Fee paid thereon u/Sec.26 (c) of APCF andRs. 786-00 S.V.Act
The cause of action of the suit arose on 50 years ago acquired by the ancestors of the plaintiff and residing in the plaint schedule mentioned property, by constructing a thatched house and on 10.02.2022 the date of issuance of House site patta to the plaintiff and on 03.04.2022 the date of attempt of interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule mentioned property and de-die-dieum at K.. Vaddigudasalu Village of Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District with in the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Court.
This suit coming on 24.06.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri V.Jayakumar, Advocate for plaintiff and of defendants called absent and set ex-parte, and upon hearing the arguments of plaintiff, and upon perusing the documents available on record, and having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court doth order and decree as follows:
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed with costs and permanent injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiff, restrain- ing the defendants, their subordinates, their men, agents, servants and their followers from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule mentioned property.;
2) that the defendants 1 to 4 jointly and severally do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.7,091/- being the costs of the suit.
Given under my hand and seal of the court, this the 7th day of NOVEMBER, 2025.
Sd/- B.Sirisha
III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chittoor.
APCH020011272022
O.S.No.351/2022 3 dt.07.11.2025
STATEMENT OF COSTS
S.NoDescriptionPlaintiffDefendants 1Stamp on Vakalat2-00 2Stamp on Plaint 786-00Exparte.
3Stamp on process 445-00 4Advocate Fee1500-00 5Paper publication 4,158-00 charges 6Typing Charges 100-00 7Writing Charges100-00
Total : 7,091-00
Sd/- B.Sirisha
III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chittoor.
SCHEDULE
Chittoor District Chittoor Sub District Penumur Mandal – Penumur Mandal -
Kalavagunta Revenue Village Accounts - K.P. Vaddigudasalu Sy.No. 862
Extent Ac. 0.02 cents within the following boundaries.
East: House of Munirathnam West: Lands of Ramachandraiah Naidu North: Milk centre South: Veedhi
Sd/- B.Sirisha
III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chittoor. // true copy //
APCH020011272022
O.S.No.351/2022 4 dt.07.11.2025
APCH020011272022
O.S.No.351/2022 5 dt.07.11.2025
Order Record 20 total
| Case No. | Parties | Date | Type | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| STC/469/2022 | B.Venugopal Reddy vs C.Govinda Mandadi | 10 Nov 2025 | Judgement | Convicted |
| OS/351/2022 | K.Jayamma vs K.Nagaraju | 07 Nov 2025 | Judgement | — |
| EP/169/2023 | S.Liksher Saheb vs S.Hidhayath | 13 Sep 2025 | Order | — |
| OS/126/2020 | K.Babu vs P.R.Sree Harsha | 13 Sep 2025 | Order | — |
| OS/308/2024 | V.Sivaji Ganesh vs Vootukuru Govindaiah | 13 Sep 2025 | Order | — |
| CC/23/2022 | Shiram Transport Finance Limited. vs K.M. Tharaka Raman | 13 Sep 2025 | Order | — |
| CC/578/2025 | State rep by Inspector of Police, Chittoor Traffic PS. vs S.Kumaresan | 13 Sep 2025 | Order | — |
| CC/710/2024 | The S.H.O of Chittoor Traffic PS, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh vs K.Boopathy | 13 Sep 2025 | Order | — |
| CC/761/2025 | State represented by the Inspector of polcie vs S.Ramesh | 13 Sep 2025 | Order | — |
| DVC/3/2019 | Smt M.Sireesha vs M.Jeevan Babu | 13 Sep 2025 | Order | — |
| STC/54/2022 | G.Sekhar Babu vs P.Girivasulu | 13 Sep 2025 | Order | — |
| STC/67/2022 | K.Reddylakshmi vs G.Chengalrayalu | 13 Sep 2025 | Order | — |
| STC/289/2022 | Cholamandalam Investment and finance Co., Limited, Chittoor branch vs M/s J.R.Traders, rep. by its Prop. Jeevarathnam Reddy | 13 Sep 2025 | Order | — |
| STC/382/2022 | Mahindra and mahindra financial services ltd. vs Subbalakshmamma | 13 Sep 2025 | Order | — |
| STC/418/2022 | M/s Mahindra and Mahindra Fin.Services Ltd., Chittoor Branch vs Pulikanti Devamma | 13 Sep 2025 | Order | — |
| STC/443/2022 | M/s Shriram Chits Private Limited, Chittoor Branch vs S.Sadiq Basha | 13 Sep 2025 | Order | — |
| STC/573/2022 | M/s Mahindra and Mahindra Financil Services Ltd., branch office at Chittoor vs Pamala Suresh Babu | 13 Sep 2025 | Order | — |
| CC/355/2022 | The SHO, Chittoor Taluk PS,Andhra Pradesh vs M.Chandra babu@Payyodu | 28 Jul 2025 | Judgement | — |
| OS/389/2019 | E.Bhaskar Reddy vs E.Bali Reddy | 05 Jul 2025 | Order | — |
| CC/997/2020 | The SHO Chittoor Traffic PS, Andhra Pradesh vs D.Rajith Kumar | 16 May 2025 | Judgement | — |
Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)
| Nov 2025 | 4 | |
| Sep 2025 | 15 | |
| Jul 2025 | 2 | |
| May 2025 | 1 |
Log in for full trend data.
Frequently Asked Questions
How many cases has Boora Sirisha handled?
Boora Sirisha has handled 22 court orders since 2025 at Prl District Courts, Chittoor. The average disposal rate is 2 orders per month.
What types of cases does Boora Sirisha hear?
Based on available records, Boora Sirisha primarily handles Criminal matters (Summary Trial Cases, Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Prl District Courts, Chittoor.
Where is Boora Sirisha currently posted?
Boora Sirisha is posted as III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE at Prl District Courts, Chittoor, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh.
Are judgments by Boora Sirisha available online?
Yes. 4 judgments by Boora Sirisha are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.
How fast does Boora Sirisha dispose cases?
Boora Sirisha disposes approximately 2 cases per month, based on 22 orders handled over their tenure at Prl District Courts, Chittoor.
Since when is Boora Sirisha serving?
Boora Sirisha has been serving at Prl District Courts, Chittoor since 2025. and is currently posted there.
Case Types
Posting History
-
May 2025 — PresentIII ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE · 22 orders
Outcomes on Record
Other Judges at this Court