Sri Ch.Kishore Kumar

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangareddigudem (Criminal Court for Agency areas)

Junior Civil Courts Jangareddigudem · West Godavari · Andhra Pradesh

Sri Ch.Kishore Kumar, Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangareddigudem (Criminal Court for Agency areas), is posted at Junior Civil Courts Jangareddigudem, West Godavari, Andhra Pradesh, India. 2,900 court orders on record since 2023. 23 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, EP cases.

2,900

Total Orders

Judgments

102

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/321/2021 Acquitted

Kukkunoor Police Station vs Kunja Durgayya

21 Mar 2024

1

C.C.No.321 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS;

JANGAREDDIGUDEM

PRESENT: Sri.Ch.Kishore Kumar,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

FAC:Judicial Magistrate of I Class

THURSDAY, THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2024

C.C.No.321 of 2021 Between:

State Represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Kukkunoor PS ….Complainant

Vs.

1. Kunja Durgayya, s/o.Singa Raju, aged 27 years, Coolie, Maredubaka Village, Kukkunoor Mandal.

2. Kunja Veerayya, s/o.Singa Raju, aged 27 years, Coolie, Maredubaka Village, Kukkunoor Mandal.

..... Accused

This case coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri M.Mohanrao, Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Kukkunoor PS, filed charge sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2 in Cr.No.135/2020 for the offence punishable Under

Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act and Sections 188, 269, 270, 271

2

C.C.No.321 of 2021 r/w 34 IPC and Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act and Section 179(1) MV Act.

2. The brief facts of the charge-sheet are as follows:-

(a)On 20.06.2020 at about 11.00 am, LW.5/SI of Police and his staff reached near check post at Isukapadu village and there are two per- sons came on Hero Honda Splendor Plus motorcycle bearing No.AP 20 R 2822 on seeing the police party, said persons tried to escape from there, but not giving scope to them, they transporting of the illegal activities of the accused and he is in possession of Telangana made Liquor IML (duty paid) without bill or permit at his house with an intention to resale the same for excess price to gain wrongfully and seized the property. Then he drew samples from each contraband for chemical analysis purpose, and he affixed identity slip and prepared special report. LW.5 registered the special report as FIR in Crime No.135 of 2020 Under Section 34(a) of Andhra

Pradesh Excise Act and Sections 188, 269, 270, 271 r/w 34 IPC and Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act and Section 179(1) MV Act. and took up investigation.

3

C.C.No.321 of 2021

(b)During the course of investigation, LW.5 arrested the accused and sent them to judicial remand. During the course of further investigation, he prepared letter of advice and forwarded the same along with M.O through

SDPO, Polavaram. During the course of further investigation, he obtained the analysis report from Chemical Examiner, Kakinada in which he opined that the sample is “Indian Made Liquor’. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. The case was taken cognizance by this Court for the offence Under

Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act and Section 271 IPC and

Section 179(1) MV Act against Accused Nos.1 and 2.

4.On appearance of accused Nos.1 and 2, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. and accused were examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. for the allegations levelled against them from the charge sheet contents, for which they denied. Charge framed for the offence Under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act and Section 271

IPC and Section 179(1) MV Act against accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. On behalf of prosecution, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.P1 to P5 and

M.Os.1 and 2 were marked. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor given

4

C.C.No.321 of 2021 up the evidence of LW.4/G.Rajulu and closed the evidence of

LW.1/P.Manikanta,LW.2/T.Venkateswarlu,LW.3/V.Raghubabu.

Consequently prosecution side evidence is closed.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused Nos.1 and 2 were examined under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C and the incriminating material was put to them, they have denied the entire evidence against them and reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the material on record.

8.Now the point for determination is __ Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable Under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act and Section 271 IPC and Section 179(1) MV Act?

POINT : -

9.In the present case on hand, Ex.P.1 is Special report, Ex.P.2 is the

FIR, Ex.P3 is Letter of advice, Ex.P4 is Rough sketch, Ex.P5 is Chemical

Analysis report. M.Os.1 and 2 are the sample bottles.

10.PW.1/A.Pydibabu, SI of Police, has deposed that on 20.06.2020 at about 12.10 pm, himself along with staff while conducting raid in

Isukapadu check post, there they observed two persons coming on bike.

5

C.C.No.321 of 2021

Upon questioning, they revealed that they have been in possession of liquor bottles. On verification, he found knock out Old Admiral VSOP brandy 180ml-80 bottles, Mansion House 180ml-9 bottles. Then SI of Police drew one (1) sample from each brand for chemical analysis purpose, and he affixed identity slips. Then he prepared special report/Ex.P1. Basing on that he registered a case as in Ex.P2/FIR. Later he sent the sample bottle for chemical analysis purpose under a letter of advice/Ex.P-3 and prepared rough sketch/Ex.P4. Later he received chemical analysis report/Ex.P5 and sent requisition to Superintendent of Police for destruction of property.

After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the Accused.

He admitted in his cross examination that he did not mention the batch numbers and manufacturing details of liquor bottles. There is no mention in Ex.P1 who was the driver and pillion rider. At Isukapadu village, the villagers would available. He did not secure local inhabitants at the crime scene.

11.In this case, Pw.1 deposed that he did not secure mediators in this case. Simple statement made by P.W.1 that he did not secure mediators is not sufficient and it is expected from P.W.1 that he should put forth rea- sonable grounds and the attempts made by him to secure panchayatdars. If

6

C.C.No.321 of 2021 anybody refuses to act as mediators, the officials can take action against those persons U/S 187 of IPC, as contemplated U/S 100(8) of Cr.PC. But no action was taken by PW1. Except the evidence of police official, there is no independent corroborative piece of evidence and in the absence of it, the recovery of M.Os.1 and 2 from the possession of this accused is not proved by the prosecution.

12.No evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove that this accused disobeyed any rule made and promulgated by the Government and also this accused disobeyed of orders given by the persons authorize to give such di- rections.

13.Admittedly scene of offence is busy area. If the I.O really tried to secure mediators, definitely he may secure. This court finds it difficult to believe that in a rural residential locality, the police were unable to find a single independent witness. No name of any person has been mentioned who may have declined to be a witness.

14.Hence, for the foregoing reasons, this Court is of considered opinion that except the contraband i.e., M.Os.1 and 2 nothing is proved beyond all reasonable doubt. There is no other material to connect the accused in the

7

C.C.No.321 of 2021 present case. Therefore it can be said that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, accused are entitled for acquittal.

In the result, this court found Accused Nos.1 and 2 are not guilty for the offence u/Sec.271 IPC and Section 179(1) of M.V.Act and Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and accordingly, they are acquitted U/sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of six months.

M.Os.1 and 2 Vide C.P.R.No.245 of 2024 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed my dictation to the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 21st day of March, 2024.

Digitally signed KISHOREby KISHORE KUMAR

KUMARCHEGUDI

CHEGUDIDate: 2024.03.21

Principal Civil Judge18:15:10 +0530

(Junior Division) FAC:Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Jangareddigudem

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE PW.1:A.Pydibabu- None –

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1: Special Report Ex.P.2: FIR

8

C.C.No.321 of 2021

Ex.P.3: Letter of Advice Ex.P.4: Rough sketch Ex.P.5: Chemical Analysis report

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.Os.1 and 2: Sample bottles

Digitally signedby KISHORE

KISHOREKUMAR

KUMARCHEGUDI

CHEGUDIDate: 2024.03.2118:15:22 +0530

PCJ(JD)

FAC:JFCM, JRG

9

C.C.No.321 of 2021

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS;

JANGAREDDIGUDEM

C.C.No.321 OF 2021 Date of

OffenceComplaintAccusedAccusedCommencemenClose of trialSentence arrestedReleasedt of trialor order 20.06.202020.06.202020.06.202020.06.202011.03.202418.03.202421.03.2024

Between:

State Represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Kukkunoor PS ….Complainant

Vs.

1. Kunja Durgayya, s/o.Singa Raju, aged 27 years, Coolie, Maredubaka Village, Kukkunoor Mandal.

2. Kunja Veerayya, s/o.Singa Raju, aged 27 years, Coolie, Maredubaka Village, Kukkunoor Mandal.

..... Accused

Offence: u/Sec. 7-B r/w 8-B of A.P. Prohibition Act

Pleading:”Pleaded Not Guilty”

Finding: “FOUND NOT GUILTY”

SENTENCE

In the result, this court found Accused NOs.1 and 2 are not guilty for the offence u/Sec.271 IPC and Section 179(1) of M.V.Act and Section 34(a) of

A.P. Excise Act and accordingly, they are acquitted U/sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C.

10

C.C.No.321 of 2021

The bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of six months.

M.Os.1 and 2 Vide C.P.R.No.245 of 2024 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

EXPLANATION FOR DELAY: None Digitally signed KISHOREby KISHORE

KUMARKUMAR

CHEGUDI

CHEGUDIDate: 2024.03.21 18:14:57 +0530

Principal Civil Judge

(Junior Division) FAC:Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Jangareddigudem

Copy submitted to:The Hon’ble I Additional District AND Sessions Judge, Eluru, West Godavari (Through Compact Disk).

CC/732/2020 Acquitted

Jangareddygudem Police Station vs Yalla Raja Lingeswara rao

25 Jul 2023

1 C.C.No.732 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS;

JANGAREDDIGUDEM

PRESENT: Sri.Ch.Kishore Kumar, Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial First Class Magistrate FAC: Judicial First Class Magistrate

TUESDAY, THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

C.C.No.732 of 2020 Between:

State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Jangareddigudem Police Station. ….Complainant

Vs.

1. Yalla Raja Lingeswararao, s/o.Eswara Rao, aged 34 years, occ:Rod bending work, Rajeev Nagar, Jangareddigudem Village and Mandal.

2. Yalla Mahalakshmi, w/o.Eswararao, aged 55 years, Housewife, Rajeev Nagar, Jangareddigudem Village and Mandal.

... Accused

This case coming on this day for hearing in the presence of the

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri R.Vasantha

Rao, Learned Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Jangareddigudem Police Station, filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.231/2020 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. The brief facts of the charge-sheet are as follows:-

(a) LW.1/Dendukuri Madhavi @ Yalla Mahdavi is the de facto complainant in this case. At about 11 years back, LW.1 marriage was performed with A.1 and blessed with son. At the time of marriage, her 2 C.C.No.732 of 2020 parents Rs.1,50,000/- towards dowry and other paraphernalia. Thereafter, she lead her conjugal life for some time amicably. She is physically handicapped and now she is working as attender under outsourcing in Jangareddigudem

Court. Since 4 years, A.1 and A.2 used to harass LW.1 both mentally and physically by stating that she is physically handicapped and they get huge dowry, if got married with another woman. They demanded her to bring some additional dowry and her husband used to beat her and her son in drunken state with the instigation of her mother-in-law. He raised suspicion over her fidelity when she talked with others. On 03.06.2020, A.1 beat her indiscriminately, she went away to the house of her parent, which nearer to her house. On the same day night at about 11.00 pm, A.1 visited the house of her parents in drunken state, beat LW.1 and her son. On that, she placed the matter before the elders, but he did not change his attitude. Hence, she gave report to police. On receipt of report of L.W.1, L.W.7/S.I registered a case against the accused in Cr.No.231/2020 for the offences punishable under

Sections 498-A r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act, later, LW.7/SI took up further investigation.

(b) During the course of investigation, LW.7 examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch. He served notice under section 41-A of Cr.P.C to the accused. After completion of investigation, he of police filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. The case was taken cognizance by this Court for the offence under

Sections 498-A r/w 34 of IPC.

3 C.C.No.732 of 2020

4. On appearance of accused Nos.1 and 2, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Accused were examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. for the allegations levelled against them from the charge sheet contents, for which they denied. Charge framed for the offence under Section 498-A r/w 34 of IPC against accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. On behalf of prosecution, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.P1 to P.3 were got marked. The learned APP given up the evidence of

LW.3/D.Srinivasarao,LW.4/B.Manga,LW.5/A.SrinivasaReddy,

LW.6/K.Ganikamma, LW.7/SSRGangadhar.

6. As there is no incriminating evidence appeared against accused, Sec.313

Cr.P.C examination dispensed with. No defence.

7. Heard arguments of learned APP for the prosecution and the learned counsel for accused.

8.Now the point that arose for determination is as follows:-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Section 498-A r/w 34 of IPC?

POINT : -

9.The de facto complainant in this case is testified as PW.1. Accused No.1 is her husband and A.2 is my mother-in-law. Her marriage was solemnized with A.1 with a Church, Jangareddigudem in the year, 2010. They have one male child and she does not know anything about his case. One day, she went to the police station, police obtained her signature on a written paper and she signed without knowing its contents. The theory of prosecution was 4 C.C.No.732 of 2020 suggested to P.W.1, and she denied it as false, and therefore her Sec.161

Cr.P.C statement became Ex.P.2.

Exs.P.2 and P.3. As can be seen from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it can be said that there is no evidence against accused to prove the alleged offence against them. Prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and accused are entitled for acquittal.

In the result, this Court found Accused Nos.1 and 2 are not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.498-A r/w 34 IPC, accordingly, they are acquitted U/sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused Nos.1 and 2 shall be in force for six months.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 25th day of July, 2023.

Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial First Class Magistrate Jangareddigudem FAC: Judicial First Class Magistrate Jangareddigudem

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE PW.1: Y.Madhavi - None – PW.2: D.Venkata Lakshmi

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1: Signature of P.W.1 on statement. Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW1 Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW2 5 C.C.No.732 of 2020

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-Nil-

Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial First Class Magistrate Jangareddigudem FAC: Judicial First Class Magistrate Jangareddigudem 6 C.C.No.732 of 2020

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS;

JANGAREDDIGUDEM

C.C.No.732 OF 2020 Date of

OffenceComplaintNotice servedCommencemClose ofDate of to the accusedent of trialtrialJudgment u/s 41(A) Cr.P.C. 05.06.202005.06.2020--24.07.202324.07.202325.07.2023

Between:

State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Jangareddigudem Police Station. ….Complainant

Vs.

1. Yalla Raja Lingeswararao, s/o.Eswara Rao, aged 34 years, occ:Rod bending work, Rajeev Nagar, Jangareddigudem Village and Mandal.

2. Yalla Mahalakshmi, w/o.Eswararao, aged 55 years, Housewife, Rajeev Nagar, Jangareddigudem Village and Mandal.

... Accused

Offence: U/sec.498-A r/w 34 IPC.

Pleading:”Pleaded Not Guilty”

Finding: “FOUND NOT GUILTY”

SENTENCE

In the result, this Court found Accused Nos.1 and 2 are not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.498-A r/w 34 IPC, accordingly, they are acquitted U/ sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused Nos.1 and 2 shall be in force for six months.

EXPLANATION FOR DELAY:

This case was taken on file on 18.12.2020. On 12.09.2022 on appearance of accused, the copies of documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated under Sec.207 Cr.P.C. On 24.07.2023, Accused were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C, charge framed against Accused for the offence under Section 498-A r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code., read over and explained to 7 C.C.No.732 of 2020 them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and on the same day, on behalf of prosecution, P.Ws.1 and 2 are examined and Exs.P1 to P.3 are marked. There is no incriminating material appeared against Accused, hence 313 Cr.P.C. examination is dispensed with. On 25.07.2023 heard arguments and Judgment pronounced in open Court.

Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial First Class Magistrate Jangareddigudem FAC: Judicial First Class Magistrate Jangareddigudem

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Additional District AND Sessions Judge, Eluru, West Godavari (Through Compact Disk).

CC/1294/2017

SHO JANGAREDDIGUDEM PS vs Manthena Venkata Krishna Bangarraju

20 Mar 2024

1 C.C.No.1294 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS;

JANGAREDDIGUDEM

PRESENT: Sri.Ch.Kishore Kumar,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

FAC:Judicial Magistrate of I Class

WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

C.C.No.1294 of 2017 Between:

State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Jangareddigudem Police Station.

….Complainant

Vs.

Manthena Venkata Krishna Bangarraju, s/o.Anjaneya Raju, aged 36 years, Plot No.105, Sri Sai Nikethana Apartments, A.S.Raju Nagar, K.P.H.B colony, Hyderabad.

... Accused

This case coming on this day for hearing in the presence of the

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri

P.S.R.K.Lakshmana Rao, Learned Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Jangareddigudem Police Station, filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.190/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as IPC).

2 C.C.No.1294 of 2017

2. The brief facts of the charge-sheet are as follows:-

(a) LW.1/Manthena Lakshmi Sridevi is resident of Rajula Colony, Jan- gareddigudem village and Mandal and her marriage was performed with ac- cused on 08.06.2003. At the time of marriage, her parents gave

Rs.1,00,000/-, 60 sovereigns of gold, silver articles to the accused towards dowry and also Rs.3,00,000/- towards adapaduchu lanchanams. After their marriage, he went to the house of accused at K.P.H.B Colony, Hyderabad and she leads her conjugal life with accused happily for some time. During their wedlock, they blessed with two children. Thereafter, accused was il- legal intimacy with other woman and neglecting LW.1 and harassed her for both physically and mentally, for additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-. Re- cently, her son was suffered with blood cancer, but the accused did not take care and necked out her and her children from their house. Then she returned to her parent’s house. Later on 13.04.2017, she telephoned to ac- cused and requested him to look after their welfare, after two or three days, accused came to her house, and disputed with her and her parents, and threatened to kill her. Then LW.1 gave report to police. On receipt of report of L.W.1, L.W.8/SI of Police registered a case against the accused in

Cr.No.190/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 of 3 C.C.No.1294 of 2017

IPC.During the course of investigation, LW.8 examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and he issued 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused and took up further investigation and filed charge sheet against the ac- cused.

3. The case was taken cognizance by this Court for the offences under

Sections 498-A, 506 IPC against the accused.

4. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Accused was examined U/Sec.239

Cr.P.C. for the allegations levelled against him from the charge sheet contents, for which he denied. Charges framed for the offence under

Sections 498-A, 506 of IPC against accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. On behalf of prosecution, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.P1 to

P.3 were got marked. The learned APP given up the evidence of LWs.3 to

LW.8.

6. As there is no incriminating evidence appeared against accused,

Sec.313 Cr.P.C examination dispensed with. No defence.

4 C.C.No.1294 of 2017

7. Heard arguments of learned APP for the prosecution and the learned counsel for accused.

8.Now the point that arose for determination is as follows:-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 IPC?

POINT : -

9.The de facto complainant in this case is testified as PW.1. She de- posed that her marriage was solemnized with Accused on 08.06.2003, at

Jangareddigudem. They lived happily and blessed with two children. There- after some disputes arose between them. One day, she went to the police station, police obtained her signature on a written paper and she signed without knowing its contents. The theory of prosecution was suggested to

P.W.1, she denied it as false, and therefore her Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement became Ex.P.2.

10.P.W.2, who is mother of P.W.1 categorically deposed that she does not know anything about this case and police never examined her and recorded her statement. The theory of prosecution was suggested to her, and she denied it as false, and therefore her Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement be- came Ex.P.3. In this case, prosecution version could have been established 5 C.C.No.1294 of 2017 by the complainant Smt.Lakshmi Sridevi along with other material witness i.e. PW-2. However, none of the afore stated material witnesses has sup- ported the prosecution case. Since the victim as well as the material wit- ness have failed to depose anything incriminating against the accused, so no direct evidence against the accused has come on record. Keeping in view the fact that injured/victim and witnesses themselves have not uttered a single word against the accused, therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and accused is entitled for acquittal.

In the result, this Court found Accused is not guilty for the offences punishable U/secs.498-A, 506 of Indian Penal Code, accordingly, he is ac- quitted U/sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for six months.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20th day of March, 2024.

Digitally signed KISHOREby KISHORE KUMAR

KUMARCHEGUDI

CHEGUDIDate: 2024.03.20

Principal Civil Judge 14:29:59 +0530

(Junior Division) FAC: Judicial Magistrate of I Class Jangareddigudem 6 C.C.No.1294 of 2017

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE PW.1: Lakshmi Sridevi - None – PW.2: D.Annapurna Devi

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1: Signature of P.W.1 on statement. Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW1 Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW2

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-Nil-

Digitally signed by

KISHOREKISHORE

KUMAR

KUMARCHEGUDI

CHEGUDIDate: 2024.03.20 14:29:46 PCJ(JD)+0530 FAC:JFCM JRG 7 C.C.No.1294 of 2017

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS;

JANGAREDDIGUDEM

C.C.No.1294 OF 2017 Date of

OffenceComplaintArrest ofCommenceClose of trialDate of accusedment ofJudgment trial 06.06.201706.06.2017-19.03.202419.03.202420.03.2024

Between:

State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Jangareddigudem Police Station.

….Complainant

Vs.

Manthena Venkata Krishna Bangarraju, s/o.Anjaneya Raju, aged 36 years, Plot No.105, Sri Sai Nikethana Apartments, A.S.Raju Nagar, K.P.H.B colony, Hyderabad.

... Accused

Offence: U/secs.498-A, 506 of Indian Penal Code

Pleading:”Pleaded Not Guilty”

Finding: “FOUND NOT GUILTY”

SENTENCE

In the result, this Court found Accused is not guilty for the offences pun- ishable U/secs.498-A, 506 of Indian Penal Code, accordingly, he is acquit- ted U/sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for six months.

8 C.C.No.1294 of 2017

EXPLANATION FOR DELAY:

This case was taken on file on 28.08.2017. On 21.05.2018, on appearance of accused, the copies of documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated under Sec.207 Cr.P.C. On 21.06.2018, Accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C, charges framed against Accused for the offences under Sections 498-A, 506 of Indian Penal Code, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On 19.03.2024 on behalf of prosecution, P.Ws.1 and 2 are examined and Exs.P1 to P.3 are marked. There is no incriminating material appeared against Accused, hence 313 Cr.P.C. examination is dispensed with. On 20.03.2024 heard arguments and Judgment pronounced in open Court.

KISHOREDigitally signed by KISHORE

KUMARKUMAR

CHEGUDI

CHEGUDIDate: 2024.03.20 14:30:12 +0530

Principal Civil Judge

(Junior Division) FAC: Judicial Magistrate of I Class Jangareddigudem

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Additional District AND Sessions Judge, Eluru, West Godavari (Through Compact Disk).

CC/2254/2022 Acquitted

Jeelugumilli sho vs Thonta Pullarao

10 Aug 2023

1 C.C.No.2254 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS;

JANGAREDDIGUDEM

PRESENT: Sri.Ch.Kishore Kumar, Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial First Class Magistrate FAC: Judicial First Class Magistrate

THURSDAY, THIS THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

C.C.No.2254 of 2022 Between:

State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Jeelugumilli Police Station.

….Complainant

Vs.

1. Thota Pulla Rao, s/o.Ramulu, aged 30 years, C/Yadava, P.Ankampalem Village, Jeelugumilli Mandal.

2. Thota Naga Manga Devi @ Manga, w/o.Pullarao, aged 20 years,, C/yadava, P.Ankampalem Village, Jeelugumilli Mandal.

... Accused

This case coming on this day for hearing in the presence of the

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri

D.R.V.Krishna Rao, Learned Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Jeelugumilli Police Station, filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.77/2018 for the offences punishable under

Sections 323 and 448 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as IPC).

2. The brief facts of the charge-sheet are as follows:-

(a)LW.1/Thota Balaraju is the defacto complainant. LW.1 and his wife/LW.2 were doing cultivation for their livelihood. The parents of LW.1 have cultivating land an extent of Ac.6.00 cents, the mother of LW.1 and younger brother/A.1 sell away the said land, but did not give his share 2 C.C.No.2254 of 2022 amount. On that, he used to ask them to give his share amount, but did not give any share amount. On 02.06.2018 at about 8.30 pm, A.1 and A.2 to- gether criminally trespassed into the house of LW.1 and disputed with him, and his wife/LW.2, and also beat LWs.1 and 2 with hands indiscriminately. As a result, LW.1 received contusion injuries over his abdomen, chest, head and left side buttock and also LW.2 received contusion injuries over her back, ab- domen, waist. LWs.1 and 2 shifted to Government hospital, for treatment.

LW.1 gave statement to the police.

(b).On receipt of the statement of LW.1, LW.9/SI of police registered the case in Cr.No.77 of 2018, u/S 448 and 323 r/w 34 IPC and investigated into and he visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch, and ex- amined witnesses and recorded their detailed statements and he issued notice

Section 41-A Cr.P.C to the accused. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. The case was taken cognizance by this Court for the offences under

Sections 448, 323 r/w 34 IPC.

4.On appearance of A1 and A.2, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. and A1 and A.2 were examined

U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C for the allegations levelled against them from the charge sheet contents, for which they denied. A1 and A.2 pleaded not guilty for the offence under Sections 448, 323 r/w 34 IPC against A1 and A.2, and claimed to be tried.

3 C.C.No.2254 of 2022

5. On behalf of prosecution, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.P1 to P.3 were got marked. The learned APP given up the evidence of LWs.3 to 9.

6. As there is no incriminating evidence appeared against accused, Sec.313

Cr.P.C examination dispensed with. No defence.

7. Heard arguments of learned APP for the prosecution and the learned counsel for accused.

8.Now the point that arose for determination is as follows:-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Sections 448, 323 r/w 34 of IPC?

POINT : -

9.The de-facto complainant/Injured in this case is testified as PW.1. He deposed that in the year, 2018, he received injuries and he does not know anything about this case. Police never examined him and recorded his state- ment. One day, he went to the police station, police obtained his signature on a written paper and he signed without knowing its contents. PW.2 who is an- other injured and wife of PW.1 also categorically deposed that she does not know anything about this case and police never examined her and recorded her statements. The theory of prosecution was suggested to P.W.1 and 2 but they denied it as false, and therefore their Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements became

Ex.P.2 and P3.

10.In this case, none of the afore stated material witnesses has supported the prosecution case qua causing of injuries on the person of complainant by the accused. The complicity of the accused in the alleged offences could have been established by way of direct evidence. Since the injured/victims who are 4 C.C.No.2254 of 2022 material witnesses have failed to depose anything incriminating against the ac- cused, so no direct evidence against the accused has come on record. There is no evidence before this court that the accused criminally trespassed into the property of PW.1 and caused hurt to PW.1 or PW.2. Therefore, the prosecu- tion has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and accused are entitled for acquittal.

In the result, this Court found Accused Nos.1 and 2 are not guilty for the offences punishable U/secs.448 and 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, ac- cordingly, they are acquitted U/sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused

Nos.1 and 2 shall be in force for six months.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 10th day of August, 2023.

Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial First Class Magistrate Jangareddigudem FAC: Judicial First Class Magistrate Jangareddigudem

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE PW.1: T.Balaraju - None – PW.2: T.Nagaratnam

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1: Signature of P.W.1 on statement. Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW1 Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW2

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-Nil-

JCJ-CUM-JFCM

FAC:JFCM,JRG 5 C.C.No.2254 of 2022

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS;

JANGAREDDIGUDEM

C.C.No.2254 OF 2022 Date of

OffenceComplaintArrest ofCommencemClose ofDate of accusedent of trialtrialJudgment 02.06.201808.06.2018-09.08.202309.08.202310.08.2023

Between:

State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Jeelugumilli Police Station. ….Complainant

Vs.

1. Thota Pulla Rao, s/o.Ramulu, aged 30 years, C/Yadava, P.Ankampalem Village, Jeelugumilli Mandal.

2. Thota Naga Manga Devi @ Manga, w/o.Pullarao, aged 20 years,, C/yadava, P.Ankampalem Village, Jeelugumilli Mandal.

... Accused

Offence: U/secs.448, 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code

Pleading:”Pleaded Not Guilty”

Finding: “FOUND NOT GUILTY”

SENTENCE

In the result, this Court found Accused Nos.1 and 2 are not guilty for the of- fences punishable U/secs.448 and 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, accord- ingly, they are acquitted U/sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused Nos.1 and 2 shall be in force for six months.

EXPLANATION FOR DELAY:

This case was taken on file on 24.07.2018. On 03.08.2023, on appearance of accused, the copies of documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated under Sec.207 Cr.P.C and on the same day, Accused Nos.1 and 2 were examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C for the allegations levelled against them from the charge sheet contents, for which they denied. A1 and A.2 6 C.C.No.2254 of 2022 pleaded not guilty for the offence under Sections 448, 323 r/w 34 IPC against

A1 and A.2, and claimed to be tried. On 09.08.2023 on behalf of prosecution,

P.Ws.1 and 2 are examined and Exs.P1 to P.3 are marked. There is no incriminating material appeared against Accused, hence 313 Cr.P.C.

examination is dispensed with. On 10.08.2023 heard arguments and Judgment

pronounced in open Court.

Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial First Class Magistrate Jangareddigudem FAC: Judicial First Class Magistrate Jangareddigudem

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Additional District AND Sessions Judge, Eluru, West Godavari (Through Compact Disk).

CC/1387/2023 Acquitted

Jangareddygudem Police Station vs Vsansuri satyateja

11 Jul 2024

1 C.C.No.1387 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

(JUNIOR DIVISION) :: JANGAREDDIGUDEM

PRESENT: Sri.Ch.Kishore Kumar,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

FAC:Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Junior Division)

THURSDAY, THIS THE 11 TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

C.C.No.1387 of 2023

Between:

State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Jangareddigudem Police Station. ….Complainant

Vs.

1. Anusuri Satyateja, s/o.Veera Prasad, aged 36 years, D.No.29-14-92, Near Budhudu hospital, Devichowk, Rajahmundry.

2. Anusuri Veera Prasad, s/o.Satyanarayana, aged 65 years, D.No.29-14- 92, near Budhudu Hospital, Devichowk, Rajahmundry. (Offence not proved)

3. Anusuri Jayasri, w/o.Veera Prasad, aged 60 years, D.No.29-14-92, near Budhudu Hospital, Devichowk, Rajahmundry(Offence not proved)

4. Narla Ramya, w/o.Srinivas, aged 38 years, Resident of Bangalore.

5. Medisetti Tirumala Kumar, s/o.Tatabbai, aged 64 years, Bangalore. (Offence not proved)

... Accused

This case coming on this day for hearing in the presence of the Learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri B.Nagendra

Kumar, Learned Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Jangareddigudem Police Station, filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.447/2022 for the offences punishable 2 C.C.No.1387 of 2023 under Sections 498-A Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as IPC) and

Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. The brief facts of the charge-sheet are as follows:-

(a) On 09.02.2020, LW.1/Anusuri Asha marriage was performed with

A.1, at the time of her marriage, Lws.2 and 3 gave Rs.10,00,000/- and also one sovereign gold ring and chain, and ½ kg silver plate to her in-laws. A.1 harassed

LW.1 both mentally and physically for additional dowry and LW.1 unbearable his harassment she came from Rajahmundry to Jangareddigudem to stay with

LWs.2 and 3. Hence, LW.1 gave report to police. On receipt of report of L.W.1,

L.W.8/SI of Police registered a case against the accused in Cr.No.447/2022 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A r/w 34 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of DP Act.

(b) During the course of investigation, LW.8 examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and he issued 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused and he took up further investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. The case was taken cognizance by this Court for the offences under

Sections 498-A r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act against A.1 and A.4.

4. On appearance of accused Nos.1 and 4, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Accused were examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. for the allegations levelled against them from the charge sheet contents, for which they denied. Charges framed for the offence under Sections 498-A r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act against

A,.1 and A.4, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. On behalf of prosecution, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.P1 to P.3 were got marked. The learned APP given up the evidence of LW.2/K.G.Rao, 3 C.C.No.1387 of 2023

LW.4/V.Avinash, LW.5/B.Pavan Kumar, LW.6/M.krishna Murthy,

Lw.7/M.Kesavarao, LW.8/M.Sagar Babgu. Consequently, prosecution evidence is closed.

6. As there is no incriminating evidence appeared against accused,

Sec.313 Cr.P.C examination dispensed with. No defence.

7. Heard arguments of learned APP for the prosecution and the learned counsel for A.1 and A.4.

8. Now the point that arose for determination is as follows:-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act ?

POINT:-

9. The de facto complainant in this case is testified as PW.1. She deposed that in the month of February, 2020, her marriage solemnized with A.1 at

Rajahmundry, they have no issues. They lived happily for some time. Later, one day, there was a small dispute between them, she went to police station and police obtained her signature on written paper and she signed without knowing its contents. The theory of prosecution was suggested to P.W.1 and she denied it as false, and therefore her Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement became Ex.P.2.

10. P.W.2 deposed that PW.1 is daughter of her sister, categorically she does not know anything about this case and police never examined her and recorded her statement. In this case, prosecution version could have been established by the complainant Smt. Anusuri Asha along with other material witness i.e. PW-2. However, PW.2 has supported the prosecution case qua causing miscarriage on the person of complainant by the accused. Since the victim has failed to depose anything incriminating against the accused, so no direct evidence against the accused has come on record. Keeping in view the 4 C.C.No.1387 of 2023 fact that victim herself has not uttered a single word against the accused, therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and accused are entitled for acquittal.

In the result, this Court found Accused Nos.1 and 4 are not guilty for the offences punishable U/secs.498-A r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act, and they are acquitted U/sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for six months.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11 th day of July, 2024.

KISHOREDigitally signed by

KISHORE KUMAR

KUMARCHEGUDI

CHEGUDIDate: 2024.07.11 21:32:26 +0530

Principal Civil Judge,

(Junior Division)

FAC:Judicial Magistrate of I Class

(Junior Division) Jangareddigudem

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE

PW.1: A.Asha - None – PW.2: K.Surya Kumari

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1: Signature of P.W.1 on statement. Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW1 Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW2

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-Nil-

KISHOREDigitally signed by KISHORE

KUMARKUMAR

CHEGUDI

PCJ(JD) CHEGUDIDate: 2024.07.11 21:32:39 +0530 FAC:JFCM(JD) JRG 5 C.C.No.1387 of 2023

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

(JUNIOR DIVISION) :: JANGAREDDIGUDEM

C.C.No.1387 OF 2023

Date of

Offence Complaint Arrest of accused CommenceClose of trial Date of ment of trial Judgment 22.11.2022 22.11.2022 Section 41-A 11.07.2024 11.07.2024 11.07.2024 Cr.P.C notice

Between: State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Jangareddigudem Police Station. ….Complainant

Vs.

1. Anusuri Satyateja, s/o.Veera Prasad, aged 36 years, D.No.29-14-92, Near Budhudu hospital, Devichowk, Rajahmundry.

2. Anusuri Veera Prasad, s/o.Satyanarayana, aged 65 years, D.No.29-14- 92, near Budhudu Hospital, Devichowk, Rajahmundry. (Offence not proved)

3. Anusuri Jayasri, w/o.Veera Prasad, aged 60 years, D.No.29-14-92, near Budhudu Hospital, Devichowk, Rajahmundry(Offence not proved)

4. Narla Ramya, w/o.Srinivas, aged 38 years, Resident of Bangalore.

5. Medisetti Tirumala Kumar, s/o.Tatabbai, aged 64 years, Bangalore. (Offence not proved)

... Accused

Offence: U/secs.498-A r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act Pleading:”Pleaded Not Guilty” Finding:“FOUND NOT GUILTY”

SENTENCE

In the result, this Court found Accused Nos.1 and 4 are not guilty for the offences punishable U/secs.498-A r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act, and they are acquitted U/sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for six months.

6 C.C.No.1387 of 2023

EXPLANATION FOR DELAY: NONE KISHOREDigitally signed by KISHORE

KUMARKUMAR

CHEGUDI

CHEGUDIDate: 2024.07.11 21:32:16 +0530

Principal Civil Judge,

(Junior Division) FAC:Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

(Junior Division)

Jangareddigudem

Copy submitted to:The Hon’ble I Additional District AND Sessions Judge, Eluru, West Godavari (Through Compact Disk).

Order Record 2,879 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
EP/6/2026	Veedhi.N.V.S.D.Kishor vs Cherukuri Srinivasa Babu	05 May 2026	Order	—
OS/150/2025	Papolu Easwaramma vs Alapati Triveni	05 May 2026	Order	—
OS/40/2026	Balle Prabhavathi vs Balle Gangaraju	01 May 2026	Judgement	—
OS/123/2025	The Karur Vysya Bank , Jangareddigudem rep Manager, Bhargava Sriram vs Palati Rama Chandra Rao	01 May 2026	Judgement	—
OS/172/2025	Pothana Venkata Srinivasarao vs Challari Ramesh	29 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
EP/12/2026	M/s Sriram Chits INDIA (P) LTD, Jangareddygudem vs K.Bhanu Anusha	27 Apr 2026	Order	—
EP/17/2026	M/s Sriram Chits INDIA (P) LTD, Jangareddygudem vs K.Nagaraju	27 Apr 2026	Order	—
OS/66/2024	Union Bank of India, Jangareddygudem Rep by its Branch Manager D.V.V.G. Prasada Rao vs Nadapala Challamma	23 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/14/2026	Manchi Geetha Pushpalatha vs Shaik Sameer	16 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/47/2015	Mullapudi Venkata Ramana vs Balle Satyanarayana	15 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/98/2022	Dasari Mangamma vs Dasari Maaresh @ Ishaq	15 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/719/2024	Kukkunoor Police Station vs Muppala Sambasiva Rao @ Sivayya	15 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/224/2025	Pothana Krishna Kishore Appa Ro vs Yavanmandi Jagannadha Raju	13 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/609/2025	Polavaram Police Station vs Rayala Sanyas rao	13 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/104/2025	Nelaturi Venkata Apparao vs Yavanmandi Jagannadharaju	10 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
EP/11/2021	Kodari Marry vs Balle Veeranna	09 Apr 2026	Other	—
OS/115/2023	Paladugula Venkata Ramana vs Paladugula Sankara Narayana	09 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/30/2025	Kukkunoor Police Station vs Villuri Shekar	09 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/609/2025	Polavaram Police Station vs Rayala Sanyas rao	09 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/716/2025	The Excise Police Station, Polavaram vs Chintalapudi Nagamani	09 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/752/2024	SEB POLAVARAM POLICE STATION vs Adapa Prasanth	09 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/764/2025	SEB polavaram vs Deyyam Annapurna	09 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/138/2021	Kosuri Srinivas vs Buddavarapu Venkateswara Rao	07 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/238/2025	Tanigadapa Venkatesh vs Pallantla Ganniraju	07 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
EP/24/2022	Duvvarapu Govind vs Bommale Veerraju	06 Apr 2026	Order	—
PRC/3/2026	Velerupadu Police Station vs Madakam Deva	06 Apr 2026	Order	—
FDP/6/2023	Shaik Gali Bee (Died) vs Shaik Joram Bee	06 Apr 2026	Order	—
OS/12/2026	Ogirala Mary Pushpa vs Padilam Bhagamma	02 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
EP/16/2025	Barla Kondala rao vs Meduri Ramachandra Rao	31 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/291/2018	Ganisetti Sarva Lakshmi vs Ganisetti Nageswara Rao	30 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/170/2026	ANDHRA PRADESH vs Karam Sambaiah	30 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/36/2023	Bank of Baroda Jangareddygudem Branch vs Gadde Lakshmanarao	25 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/193/2025	Pathala Sundara Vijayanand vs Shailk Raja Saheb	25 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
EP/8/2026	Khandabattu Soma Sekhara Krishnam Raju vs Kolamuri Rambabu	24 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/1/2020	Kanuparthi Govindrao vs Ryali Bindu VV Naga Mahalakshmi	24 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/43/2025	State Bank of India rep.by Branch Manager vs Narsi Atcharao	24 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/131/2019	Kovvuri Usharani vs Seemakurthi Brahmarambha	18 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/204/2025	Kotra Masiyya vs Karedla Vara lakshmi	17 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/13/2024	Maddipati Bulli Raju vs Kappala Jayamma	16 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/249/2018	Kone Sureshkumar vs Komatigunta Sitharamalakshmi	16 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
EP/2/2026	Boddu Krishna Kumari vs Rachaprolu Rajendra Prasad	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
EP/4/2021	Parepalli Veeraswamy vs Kande Rama Krishna	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
EP/4/2026	Inigadapa Ratna Kumari vs Kangala Jhansi Rani	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
EP/9/2026	Kollepara Venkateswara Rao vs Jammi Satyanarayana	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
EP/11/2023	Saragada Suryachandra Rao vs Aanem Sri VenkataSubbash	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
EP/24/2024	Thota Arjunarao vs Korukonda Venkatesh	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
EP/29/2025	Gadam Lakshamana Rao vs Rowthu Suresh	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
OS/9/2026	Thirumalasetti Rambabu vs Thutti Eeswara Rao	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
OS/112/2022	Raghavaraju Nageswara Rao vs Vema Padmavathi	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
OS/139/2025	Katamani Venkata Subbarayudu vs Kantamani Hymavathi	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
OS/184/2023	Kandukuri Vijayakumari vs Routhu Tulasi	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
OS/207/2019	Baviresetti Prasad vs Kalagara Bhagyarekha	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
OS/213/2022	Basava Srinivas vs Vema Padmavathi	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
OS/219/2023	Bank of Baroda, Gopalapuram Branch Rep by its Manager Akella Pavan Kishore vs Duggirala Rama Krishna	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
OS/271/2023	Gullapudi Keerthi Priya vs Allamsetti Padmaja Rani	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/23/2026	Kukkunoor Police Station vs Burgu Ajay Kumar	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/33/2026	Lakkavaram Police Station vs Vidiyala Venkateswara Rao	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/149/2026	Kukkunoor Police Station vs Madivi Naveen	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/150/2026	Kukkunoor Police Station vs Kuram Ravi	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/151/2026	Polavaram Excise and Prohibition vs Tellam Tulasi	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/152/2026	Polavaram Excise and Prohibition vs Matta Sandhya Rani	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/153/2026	Polavaram Excise and Prohibition vs Yadala Ramakrishna	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/455/2016	Tammisetti. Maleswarai vs Matta. Ganga Ratnam	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/470/2024	Lakkavaram Police Station vs Gurram Venkanna	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/598/2024	Lakkavaram Police Station vs Gurram Siva	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/2500/2022	Lakkavaram Police Station vs Jeeri Mohan	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
DVC/4/2025	Avuluri Sowjanya vs Villuri Shekar	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
MC/6/2025	Avuluri Sowjanya vs Villuri Shekar	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/381/2021	Kukkunoor Police Station vs Kantipalli Raju	13 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/2167/2022	SHO KUKKUNOOR PS vs Korukonda Ramesh Gupta	13 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
EP/5/2026	Tommidella Evkataratnam vs Kolamuri Rambabu	12 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/577/2023	Kukkunoor Police Station vs Vsvallepalli Anjaneyulu	06 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/856/2024	Kukkunoor Police Station vs Yalamandhala Madhava Rao	06 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
EP/3/2024	Gurajala Uday Karthik vs Dandamudi Durga Rao	05 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/94/2025	Karibandi Stayanarayana vs Ummadi Srinu	03 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/90/2026	Lakkavaram Police Station vs Karri Vamsi Krishna	03 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/91/2026	Lakkavaram Police Station vs Mungamuri Venkateswara Rao	03 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/116/2026	Lakkavaram Police Station vs Tammisetti Raju	03 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/640/2021	SHO KUKUNOOR PS vs Angadala Suresh	03 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/5/2025	Velerupadu Police Station vs Akula Venkateswararao	02 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/95/2022	SHO KUKUNOOR PS vs Patla Laxmayya	02 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/532/2025	Polavaram Police Station vs Chikkala Sai Satish	02 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/610/2025	Polavaram Police Station vs Janni Rama Krishna	02 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/830/2022	SHO KUKUNOOR PS vs Pambi Ashok Kumar	02 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/19/2021	Shaik Bajitha vs Shaik Munthaj	27 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/546/2022	SHO Lakkavaram PS vs Akula Suryanarayana @ Suribabu	27 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
EP/22/2023	Varre Ravi Kumar vs Hanumara Murali Mohanrao	25 Feb 2026	Order	—
CC/645/2025	Polavaram Police Station vs Kagitha Rambabu	25 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/1036/2024	Lakkavaram Police Station vs Thama Venkateswararao	25 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/550/2024	Kukkunoor Police Station vs Indla Uma Maheswarao	24 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
OS/125/2022	Konala Padma vs Kaka Lakshmana Rao (Died)	23 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
EP/22/2024	Thummuri Sitayamma vs Adamilli Anandarao	20 Feb 2026	Order	—
OS/34/2023	Bank of Baroda Jangareddygudem Branch vs Pichikiala Sirisha Rani	20 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
OS/257/2023	Union Bank of India,Rep By its Manager Tadepalli.pandu Babu Jangareddygudem Branch. vs Kunjja.Lakshmanrao	20 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
OS/261/2023	Union Bank of India, Rep by its Manager ,Tadepalli.Pandu Babu,Janagareddygudem Branch. vs Sodem.Gangaraju	20 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/14/2025	Velerupadu Police Station vs Vuke Laxmaiah	20 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/601/2025	Polavaram Police Station vs Chode Venkatesh	20 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/644/2025	Polavaram Police Station vs Akula Srinu	20 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/714/2025	The Excise Police Station, Polavaram vs Margani Veera Venkayya	20 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
EP/7/2023	Tattikota Eswaramma vs Kallepalli Rama Kalayanam	19 Feb 2026	Order	—

Showing 100 of 2,879 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

May 2026		4
Apr 2026		24
Mar 2026		57
Feb 2026		48
Jan 2026		38
Dec 2025		144
Nov 2025		42
Oct 2025		57
Sep 2025		118
Aug 2025		64
Jul 2025		279
Jun 2025		45

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri Ch.Kishore Kumar handled?

Sri Ch.Kishore Kumar has handled 2900 court orders since 2023 at Junior Civil Courts Jangareddigudem. The average disposal rate is 102 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri Ch.Kishore Kumar hear?

Based on available records, Sri Ch.Kishore Kumar primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Junior Civil Courts Jangareddigudem.

Where is Sri Ch.Kishore Kumar currently posted?

Sri Ch.Kishore Kumar is posted as Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangareddigudem (Criminal Court for Agency areas) at Junior Civil Courts Jangareddigudem, West Godavari, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Sri Ch.Kishore Kumar available online?

Yes. 23 judgments by Sri Ch.Kishore Kumar are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri Ch.Kishore Kumar dispose cases?

Sri Ch.Kishore Kumar disposes approximately 102 cases per month, based on 2900 orders handled over their tenure at Junior Civil Courts Jangareddigudem.

Since when is Sri Ch.Kishore Kumar serving?

Sri Ch.Kishore Kumar has been serving at Junior Civil Courts Jangareddigudem since 2023.

Case Types

CC 59%

OS 28%

EP 8%

MC 2%

PRC 1%

STC 1%

DVC 1%

A 1%

Posting History

Jun 2025 — Sep 2025

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangareddigudem (Criminal Court for Agency areas) · 255 orders
Mar 2025 — Mar 2025

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangareddigudem (Criminal Court for Agency areas) · 126 orders
Jun 2024 — Jul 2024

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangareddigudem (Criminal Court for Agency areas) · 59 orders
Jan 2024 — Apr 2024

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangareddigudem (Criminal Court for Agency areas) · 156 orders
Jul 2023 — Aug 2023

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangareddigudem (Criminal Court for Agency areas) · 4 orders
May 2023 — Present

Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangareddigudem · 2,237 orders
May 2023 — May 2023

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangareddigudem (Criminal Court for Agency areas) · 63 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 10

Convicted 2

Compromised 1

Other Judges at this Court

Ms E.Annamani

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangareddigude...

2 orders

← View all judges at Junior Civil Courts Jangareddigudem