Miss D.B. Sheetal

Senior Civil Judge

Wanaparthy, PDJ Court Complex · Wanaparthy · Telangana

Miss D.B. Sheetal, Senior Civil Judge, is posted at Wanaparthy, PDJ Court Complex, Wanaparthy, Telangana, India. 481 court orders on record since 2017. 6 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, STC, OS cases.

481

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/63/2014 Acquitted

Anwar Begum vs Syed Rasool @ Rasool

29 Nov 2017

1 C.C. No. 63 of 201429.11.2017

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

ATMAKUR-A

This the 29th day of November, Two thousand and Seventeen

Present: D.B.SHEETAL, Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur-A

C.C.No. 63 of 2014

Between:

State through Sub-Inspector of Police, Cr.No.21/2014 of P.S. Atmakur.

...Complainant

And

Syed Rasool @ Rasool S/o Late Mahabub Sab @ Maibu, age: 27 years, caste: Muslim, occ: Driver R/o Bellari village of Shapur Tq. Gulbarga Dist.

...Accused.

Offence::: U/s 498-A I.P.C.

Plea of accused:: Not guilty

Finding :: Found not guilty.

Sentence or Order:: Accused is found not guilty for the offence U/sec. 498-A IPC and accordingly he is acquitted u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time ***

This case coming up before me for final hearing on 23.11.2017 in the presence of APP for the State and of Sri Y. Thippa Reddy, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:- :: J U D G M E N T ::-

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Atmakur P.S. laid Charge sheet against accused in Cr.No. 21/2014 for the offence 498-A IPC.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that the marriage of accused LW6

Waheeda Bee was performed with the accused in the year 2011 and they led happy life for only one year. After the birth of female child, the accused started harassing LW6 Waheeda Bee since two years physically and mentally 2 C.C. No. 63 of 201429.11.2017 due to family matters due to which LW6 Waheeda Bee fell sick but accused did not take care of her and that LW6 Waheeda Bee came to her parents house at Nandimalla village for treatment and stay there only. Since then the mother of LW6 Waheeda Bee and others repeatedly requested the accused to look after the health of LW6 Waheeda Bee but accused did not turn up and neglected their request. A panchayath in this regard was also held and they requested the accused to take care of the health of LW6

Waheeda Bee but the accused refused. Therefore, the accused is liable for punishment for the offence under sec. 498-A IPC.

3.Basing on the report given by PW1 / Anwar Bagum, LW7 Sub Inspector of Police, Atmakur Police Station registered a case in Cr.No. 21/2014 for the offence under sec. 498-A IPC against accused and took up the investigation.

During the course of investigation LW5 examined and recorded the statements of LW1 to LW6. On 04.03.2014 he arrested the accused and remanded him to Court for judicial custody. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under sec. 498-A

IPC.

4.After filing the charge sheet, the case was taken on file under section 498-A IPC against the accused.

5. On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him in compliance under section 207 Cr.P.C. and he was examined u/sec. 239 Cr.P.C. and charge for the offence U/sec. 498-A IPC were framed, explained and read over to him, of which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial the prosecution examined PW1 to PW5 got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating circumstances 3 C.C. No. 63 of 201429.11.2017 appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard the arguments of learned APP and learned counsel for accused.

9.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution

could able to prove the offence under section 498-A of I.P.C. beyond

all reasonable doubt?

POINT:-

10.PW1 who is the defacto complainant and mother of victim deposed about the marriage of the victim/ LW6 Waheeda Bee with the accused and further deposed that LW6 Waheeda Bee and accused lived happily together for one year after marriage and they were blessed with female child out of their lawful wedlock. The accused started neglecting LW6 Waheeda Bee by maintaining illicit relationship with some other woman and one day the accused came home in drunken condition and beat LW6 Waheeda Bee due to which she fell down and sustained toe injury and that she brought LW6

Waheeda Bee to her house for treatment and gave treatment for three months but the accused never turn up to take back LW6 Waheeda Bee to his house and hence she lodged a complaint to the police vide Ex.P1.

11.PW2 who is none other than the brother of LW6 Waheeda Bee also deposed about the marriage of the victim/ LW6 Waheeda Bee with the accused and further deposed that they lived happily together for one year after marriage and that they were blessed a female child out of their lawful wedlock and that thereafter the accused started harassed LW6 Waheeda Bee physically and mentally due to which PW1 brought LW6 Waheeda Bee to the house and got her treated at hospital and after completion of three months treatment they called the accused to take back LW6 Waheeda Bee but he refused to take her back and that they got convened panchayath in the village, but in vain. During cross-examination it is elicited from PW1 and PW2 that LW6 Waheeda Bee is no more and she died of illness. As per the case 4 C.C. No. 63 of 201429.11.2017 narrated by the prosecution , except due to family matters, it is nowhere specified the nature of harassment or the cause of harassement. Mere allegation that the accused harassed LW6 Waheeda Bee physically and mentally due to family matters, does not fall under the ambit of ingredients of cruelty for the offence under sec. 498-A IPC. PW1 in her evidence stated that the accused started neglected LW6 Waheeda Bee after the birth of their daughter, by maintaining illicit relationship with some other lady and that one day he came in drunken condition and beat LW6 Waheeda Bee due to which she fell ill. But surprisingly the said fact is nowhere finding place in

Ex.P1 or in the evidence of PW2. Therefore, it can be said that PW1 made improvements in the case during the course of her evidence in order to implicate the accused. Coming to the evidence of PW2, he except vaguely stating that the accused harassed LW6 Waheeda Bee physically and mentally, nowhere specified the reason for which LW6 Waheeda Bee was allegedly harassed by the accused. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 and

PW2, is not helpful to the prosecution to establish the ingredients of offence under sec. 498-A IPC against the accused.

12.PW3 deposed that LW6 Waheeda Bee is his niece and also deposed that 1 ½ year after the marriage of LW6 Waheeda Bee and accused, LW6

Waheeda Bee was blessed with a daughter and thereafter PW1 brought LW6

Waheeda Bee to her house due to her ill health for medical treatment and thereafter the panchayath was held at Ballari in his presence. Except stating that PW1 brought back LW6 Waheeda Bee to her house due to her ill health, there is no iota of evidence from PW3 to the effect the alleged harassment of the accused to LW6 Waheeda Bee.

13.PW4 who is cited as witnesses also deposed that LW6 Waheeda Bee came back to her parents house two years after the marriage. But he cannot say the reason. Basing on the evidence of PW4, the learned APP declared him hostile and during cross-examination he denied having stated before the police as in Ex.P2 (161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4), therefore, if the evidence of 5 C.C. No. 63 of 201429.11.2017

PW1 to PW4 is excluded from consideration, the only evidence available on record is that of PW5 who is none other than the Investigating Officer who deposed about the investigation done by him pursuant to registering Ex.P3 (FIR). During cross-examination PW5 admitted that he did not examine any independent witnesses or any person from the village of the accused. When the alleged harassment is said to have taken place at the house of the accused, it is needless to say that the neighbors to the house of the accused are material witnesses to speak about the alleged harassment by the accused to LW6 Waheeda Bee. But the failure of PW5 to examine any independent witnesses from the neighborhood of the house of the accused proved fatal to the case of the prosecution. Therefore, there is no evidence on record to establish the ingredients of offence under sec. 498-A IPC against the accused and to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under sec. 498-A IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and hence he is entitled for acquittal.

14)In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under sec. 498-A of Indian Penal Code and accordingly he is acquitted under sec.

248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Typist, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me

in the open court this the 29thday of November, 2017.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

ATMAKUR-A.

:: Appendix of evidence:: Witnesses examined for Prosecution:

Pw1. Anwar Begum / Complainant. Defence: None Pw2. Raj Mohemmed / witness. Pw3. Rasool / witness Pw4. Chand / witness Pw5. SK Ghouse / Investigating Officer.

6 C.C. No. 63 of 201429.11.2017 ::Exhibits marked for:: Prosecution: Defence:Nil

Ex.P1: Complaint lodged by PW1. Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4. Ex.P3: First Information Report.

::Material objects marked for:: -NIL-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

ATMAKUR-A.

CC/382/2016 Acquitted

Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector vs Nenavath Laxmi

24 Nov 2017

1 C.C. No. 382 of 201624.11.2017

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

ATMAKUR-A

This the 24th day of November, Two thousand and Seventeen

Present: Ms. D.B.SHEETAL, Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur-A

C.C.No. 382 of 2016

Between: State through Proh. & Excise Sub-Inspector of Police, Excise P.S. Atmakur.

...Complainant

And

Nenavath Laxmi W/o Nenavath Obla, age: 54 years, occ: Coolie, caste: Lambada, R/o Balakistapur Thanda H/o Gopanpet village of Atmakur Mandal.

...Accused.

Offence:: U/s. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P Prohibition Act. Plea of accused:: Not guilty

Finding :: Found not guilty.

Sentence or Order:: Accused is found not guilty of the offence U/sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and accordingly she is acquitted of the same under sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

***

This case coming up before me for final hearing on 20.11.2017 in the presence of APP for the State and of Sri G.K. Ramulu, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:- :: J U D G M E N T ::-

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Excise P.S. Atmakur laid Charge sheet against accused in PCOR.No. 471/2015-16 for the offence 7(A) r/w 8(e) of

A.P. Prohibition Act.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that, on 08.09.2015 at 10.30 a.m. on receipt of reliable information with regard to the illegal possession of I.D

Liqour, PW3 along with staff and mediators proceeded to Balakistapur

Thanda and went to the suspected house of accused. There they noticed the house was opened. Then PW3 prepared search memo and pasted on the 2 C.C. No. 382 of 201624.11.2017 door. On search of house they found one plastic can containing (5) litres of

I.D. Liqour. He seized the said contraband in the presence of mediators under cover of panchanama, brought the contraband to the Police station and drawn two samples about (350) ml. and sealed them as per procedure and send them to Chemical Examiner for analysis report. He registered case in

P.C.O.R No. 471/2015-16 for the offence U/sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.

Prohibition Act. During course of investigation he recorded the statements of

PW1 and PW2. On 12.09.2015 he issued a notice under sec. 41(a) Cr.P.C to the accused. He received a C.E. report on 07.04.2016. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against accused for the offence under sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

3.After filing the charge sheet, the case was taken on file under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to her in compliance under section 207 Cr.P.C. and she is examined u/sec. 239 Cr.P.C. and charge there upon was framed against accused for the offence under sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act was explained and read over to her in Telugu, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial the prosecution examined PW1 to PW3 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and M.O.1.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against her in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which she denied and reported no defence evidence.

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

8.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution

could able to prove the offence against the accused under section

7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:-

9.PW1 and PW2 who are the panch witnesses herein turned hostile and they did not support the case of the prosecution. Ex.P2 is the signature of

PW2 on panchanama.

10.PW3 is the Investigating officer and he deposed that on 08.09.2015 at 10.30 a.m., on receipt of reliable information with regard to the illegal possession of I.D Liqour, he along with staff and PW1 and PW2 proceeded to

Balakistapur Thanda and went to the suspected house of accused. There 3 C.C. No. 382 of 201624.11.2017 they found one plastic can in the house of accused. On verification they found (5) litres of I.D. Liqour in the said can. He seized the said contraband in the presence of mediators under cover of panchanama, brought the contraband to the Police station and drawn two samples about (350) ml. He registered case in P.C.O.R No.471/2015-16 for the offence U/sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act. He received a C.E. report. On 12.09.2015 he issued a notice under sec. 41(a) Cr.P.C to the accused. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against accused.

11.On perusal of entire material on record, except the evidence of PW3 who is the Investigating officer, there is no other independent corroborative evidence supporting the evidence of PW3. In the absence of independent corroborative evidence, it cannot be said that the accused was selling M.O.1 illegally. The prosecution failed to prove that the accused was in possession of MO.1. Further, it is also noticed that PW3 is the investigating officer cum complainant in the present case and in such a case, his sole testimony cannot be relied to believe the prosecution case and to connect the guilt to the accused. Hence, there is no material and cogent evidence against the accused to connect the alleged offence against accused for the offence under sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and hence he is entitled for acquittal.

12.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and accordingly she is acquitted of the same under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 24th day of November, 2017.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

ATMAKUR-A.

:: Appendix of evidence:: Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence:

Pw1. Ananthamma / panch witness. None Pw2. Srinivasulu / Panch witness.

4 C.C. No. 382 of 201624.11.2017

Pw3. G. Gopal / Investigating Officer.

::Exhibits marked for:: Prosecution: Defence:Nil

Ex.P1: Signature of PW2 on panchanama. Ex.P2: Seizure panchanama. Ex.P3: Original P.C.O.R Ex.P4: Laboratory analysis report dt. 07.04.2016.

::Material objects marked for:: -M.O.1:- 5 litres of I.D. Liqour-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

ATMAKUR-A.

CC/57/2016 Acquitted

Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector vs Boya Ananthamma

24 Nov 2017

1 C.C. No. 57 of 201624.11.2017

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

ATMAKUR-A

This the 24th day of November, Two thousand and Seventeen

Present: Ms. D.B.SHEETAL, Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur-A

C.C.No. 57 of 2016

Between: State through Proh. & Excise Sub-Inspector of Police, Excise P.S. Atmakur.

...Complainant

And

Boya Ananthamma W/o Late Somanna, age: 55 years, occ: Coolie, caste: Boya, R/o Sanjay Colony, Atmakur village and Mandal.

...Accused.

Offence:: U/s. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P Prohibition Act. Plea of accused:: Not guilty

Finding :: Found not guilty.

***

This case coming up before me for final hearing on 20.11.2017 in the presence of APP for the State and of Sri Y. Thippa Reddy, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:- :: J U D G M E N T ::-

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Excise P.S. Atmakur laid Charge sheet against accused in PCOR.No. 415/2014-15 for the offence 7(A) r/w 8(e) of

A.P. Prohibition Act.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that, on 08.10.2014 at 01.15 p.m. on receipt of reliable information with regard to the illegal possession of I.D

Liqour, PW1 along with staff and mediators proceeded to Sanjay Colony of

Atmakur village and conducted raids in the jeep bearing No. AP22TV0785 and went to the suspected house of accused. There they found the accused 2 C.C. No. 57 of 201624.11.2017 came out from the house. On seeing them the accused ran away from there.

Then PW1 prepared search memo and pasted on the door. On search of house they found one plastic pot filled with (70) arrack pockets. each containing (60) ml. He seized the said contraband in the presence of mediators under cover of panchanama, brought the contraband to the Police station and drawn two samples each sample containing (6) pockets and sealed them as per procedure and send them to Chemical Examiner for analysis report. He handed over the same to PW2 for further action. PW2 registered case in P.C.O.R No. 415/2014-15 for the offence U/sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act. During course of investigation he recorded the statements of LW1 Akeel and LW2 Krishna. On 01.07.2015 he issued a notice under sec. 41(a) Cr.P.C to the accused. He received a C.E. report on 07.03.2015. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against accused for the offence under sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

3.After filing the charge sheet, the case was taken on file under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act against the accused.

5.During the course of trial the prosecution examined PW1 and PW2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 and M.O.1.

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

8.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution

could able to prove the offence against the accused under section

7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:-

9.The prosecution examined PW1 and PW2 who are the Investigating

Officers and they deposed about investigation done by them and pursuant to registering PCOR. On perusal of entire material on record, except the evidence of PW1 and PW2 who are the Investigating officers, there is no 3 C.C. No. 57 of 201624.11.2017 other independent corroborative evidence supporting the evidence of PW1 and 2. In the absence of independent corroborative evidence, it cannot be said that the accused was selling M.O.1 illegally. The prosecution failed to prove that the accused was in possession of MO.1. Further, it is also noticed that PW1 is the investigating officer cum complainant in the present case and in such a case, his sole testimony cannot be relied to believe the prosecution case and to connect the guilt to the accused. Hence, there is no material and cogent evidence against the accused to connect the alleged offence against accused for the offence under sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.

Prohibition Act. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and hence he is entitled for acquittal.

10.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and accordingly she is acquitted of the same under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 24th day of November, 2017.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

ATMAKUR-A.

:: Appendix of evidence:: Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence:

Pw1. Sayanna / Investigaing Officer. None Pw2. G. Gopal / Investigating Officer.

::Exhibits marked for:: Prosecution: Defence:Nil

Ex.P1: Seizure panchanama. Ex.P2: Original P.C.O.R Ex.P3: Laboratory analysis report.

::Material objects marked for:: -M.O.1:- 70 arrack packets.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, 4 C.C. No. 57 of 201624.11.2017

ATMAKUR-A.

H.M.O.P/77/2019

R.Anjalli vs R.Shivudu

30 Jul 2021

OS/41/2016

Smt. Padmamma vs D1. Erukali Krishnaih

23 Nov 2017

Order Record 454 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
H.M.O.P/77/2019	R.Anjalli vs R.Shivudu	30 Jul 2021	Order	—
OS/95/2019	K.Balakrishna vs J.Venkatesh	05 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/4/2020	G.Rajeshwari vs Budatha Balakrishna	05 Mar 2021	Order	—
H.M.O.P/19/2020	Vellepu Vijayalaxmi vs Jurpati SDrisailam	26 Feb 2021	Order	—
H.M.O.P/20/2020	Rameshwari vs B.Bala Anjaneyulu	26 Feb 2021	Order	—
H.M.O.P/63/2019	B.Shiva Kumar vs Y.Arun Jyothi	19 Feb 2021	Order	—
H.M.O.P/28/2020	S.V.Murali Krishna vs G.Shantha	12 Feb 2021	Order	—
H.M.O.P/37/2020	Sri Hari Rao vs Sri Latha	12 Feb 2021	Order	—
CC/63/2014	Anwar Begum vs Syed Rasool @ Rasool	29 Nov 2017	Judgement	Acquitted
OS/54/2012	Smt.Golla Jayamma vs Golla kathalanna.	24 Nov 2017	Judgement	—
CC/57/2016	Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector vs Boya Ananthamma	24 Nov 2017	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/382/2016	Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector vs Nenavath Laxmi	24 Nov 2017	Judgement	Acquitted
OS/41/2016	Smt. Padmamma vs D1. Erukali Krishnaih	23 Nov 2017	Judgement	—
OS/64/2012	The Krishna Bheema Samrudhi local Area Bank. vs Shaik Jilekha Begum	23 Nov 2017	Judgement	—
CC/112/2013	Harjan Rajamani vs Jangonibai Savaranna	23 Nov 2017	Judgement	—
CC/202/2013	Smt.Sayamma vs Wadde Krishnaiah	23 Nov 2017	Judgement	—
CC/13/2015	Lambadi Manyam Naik vs Lambadi Hanmanthu Naik	22 Nov 2017	Judgement	—
CC/64/2013	Smt. Sankati Remulamma vs Sankati Ram Chander	22 Nov 2017	Judgement	—
CC/141/2015	Puram Chandrakala vs Janakiramreddy	22 Nov 2017	Judgement	—
STC/164/2017	The SHO, Atmakur vs Gandla Srinu	22 Nov 2017	Judgement	—
STC/165/2017	The SHO, CC Kunta vs Mohammed Jahangir	22 Nov 2017	Judgement	—
STC/166/2017	The SHO, Atmakur vs A.Ramakrishna Reddy	22 Nov 2017	Judgement	—
STC/167/2017	The SHO, Atmakur vs Mudavath Venkat	22 Nov 2017	Judgement	—
STC/168/2017	The SHO, Deverkadra vs Kodipodichina Yadhagiri	22 Nov 2017	Judgement	—
CC/163/2016	Smt. Beesamma vs A1. Kashapogulu Raju@ K.Raju	21 Nov 2017	Judgement	—
CC/281/2015	I.Srinivasulu. vs A1.Sk.Chinna mahabub bahsa	21 Nov 2017	Judgement	—
OP/2/2013	Binchen Hanmanthu. vs Sridhar reddy.	17 Nov 2017	Order	—
OS/21/2017	Mahadur Rahamn vs D1. Pedda Siraj	17 Nov 2017	Judgement	—
CC/203/2014	Tappa Raghu vs Mogali Balaiah	16 Nov 2017	Judgement	—
MC/3/2013	Smt.U.Suvarna. vs Uppari Sudharshan	15 Nov 2017	Order	—
STC/158/2017	The SHO, Atmakur vs Nayeem	15 Nov 2017	Judgement	—
STC/159/2017	The SHO, Atmakur vs K.Vinod	15 Nov 2017	Judgement	—
STC/160/2017	The SHO, Atmakur vs S.Gangaiah	15 Nov 2017	Judgement	—
STC/161/2017	The SHO, Deverkadra vs Yeddula Chinna Venkatanna	15 Nov 2017	Judgement	—
STC/162/2017	The SHO, Deverkadra vs Metla Mohan Rao	15 Nov 2017	Judgement	—
STC/163/2017	The SHO, Deverkadra vs Dhasari Srinivasulu	15 Nov 2017	Judgement	—
CC/85/2013	Godugu Thirupathaiah vs Bolli Naganna	14 Nov 2017	Judgement	—
CC/183/2014	Khaleel Ahmed vs Mahamad Fazal	14 Nov 2017	Judgement	—
OS/20/2012	Smt.Laxmamma. vs Gopal	13 Nov 2017	Judgement	—
OS/21/2012	Smt.Ananthamma. vs Gopal	13 Nov 2017	Judgement	—
OS/23/2012	Golla Buchanna. vs Gopal	13 Nov 2017	Judgement	—
OS/31/2012	M.Golla Gopal vs Golla Buchanna.	13 Nov 2017	Judgement	—
CC/120/2014	Santi Nagesh vs Kathri Bharath	13 Nov 2017	Judgement	—
CC/184/2015	Kunti Janardhan Reddy. vs Bugajangam Managamma.	13 Nov 2017	Judgement	—
CC/182/2015	Dasari Sathyamma vs Dasari Yellamma	09 Nov 2017	Judgement	—
STC/153/2017	The SHO, Atmakur vs P.Kurma Reddy	09 Nov 2017	Judgement	—
STC/154/2017	The SHO, CC Kunta vs Manchala Ramesh	09 Nov 2017	Judgement	—
STC/155/2017	The SHO, CC Kunta vs Golla Pedda Parusharamulu @ Parusharamulu	09 Nov 2017	Judgement	—
STC/156/2017	The SHO, CC Kunta vs Guggilla Ramulu	09 Nov 2017	Judgement	—
STC/157/2017	The SHO, CC Kunta vs Mahababu	09 Nov 2017	Judgement	—
OS/80/2016	S.Neela Prakash vs T.Sukanna	08 Nov 2017	Judgement	—
CC/148/2015	Boya Penkula Bhagavanthu. vs M.Ibraheem.	08 Nov 2017	Judgement	—
CC/195/2014	K.Vishwaprasad vs Telugu Manjula	08 Nov 2017	Judgement	—
PRC/3/2017	Smt. Telugu Yashoda vs A1. Neela Shiva @ Gudise Shiva	08 Nov 2017	Order	—
STC/148/2017	The SHO, Atmakur vs Palle Naveen	08 Nov 2017	Judgement	—
STC/149/2017	The SHO, Atmakur vs Boya Hussain	08 Nov 2017	Judgement	—
STC/150/2017	The SHO, Atmakur vs Boya Y.Ramulu	08 Nov 2017	Judgement	—
STC/151/2017	The SHO, Atmakur vs V.Anjaneyulu	08 Nov 2017	Judgement	—
STC/152/2017	The SHO, Atmakur vs Boya Ravi Kumar @ Raghu	08 Nov 2017	Judgement	—
CC/89/2011	M.Rajeshwar Babu vs A2. Venna Linga Rddy	07 Nov 2017	Judgement	—
CC/196/2013	Golla dasu vs Yerukali venkatesh	07 Nov 2017	Judgement	—
OS/43/2004	Marati Balram vs Nellikondi Nalla Reddy.	06 Nov 2017	Judgement	—
CC/10/2015	Kadumuru Bagavanth Reddy vs Madamoni Chandraiah	06 Nov 2017	Judgement	—
CC/208/2013	PeddaHussain Babu. vs Nunsavath Venkat Naik.	03 Nov 2017	Judgement	—
STC/147/2017	The SHO, Atmakur P.S. vs Boya Masanna	03 Nov 2017	Judgement	—
CC/75/2014	Kaspe Pedda Mallesh vs Shaik Ali	02 Nov 2017	Judgement	—
OS/27/2011	Hussain Saab vs Lambadi Babu.	01 Nov 2017	Order	—
OS/61/2017	Mankali Gangaram vs Mankali Prabhaker	01 Nov 2017	Order	—
CC/168/2014	Allipuram Krishnaiah vs Avula Parwathalu	01 Nov 2017	Judgement	—
CC/235/2014	P.Vijayalaxman vs Dasaripally Laxman	31 Oct 2017	Judgement	—
CC/233/2014	Bandiramulu vs Saddala Anjaneyulu	30 Oct 2017	Judgement	—
EP/1/2011	D.Buchanna. vs K.Arunamma.	20 Oct 2017	Order	—
OP/3/2013	K.Srinivasulu. vs Shekar	20 Oct 2017	Order	—
OS/3/2014	Vemula Venkat Reddy vs Vs1.N.Narsimha Reddy	20 Oct 2017	Judgement	—
OS/12/2014	Chennamma vs Chennaiah	20 Oct 2017	Judgement	—
OS/37/2014	Chelimilla Vasantha vs Gopi Balaraju and Sathish Kumar	20 Oct 2017	Judgement	—
OS/38/2013	Kurva Lankala Linganna. vs Kurva Thirupathaiah	13 Oct 2017	Judgement	—
CC/7/2016	Konda Krishnaiah vs Y.Vijay kumar	13 Oct 2017	Judgement	—
CC/27/2013	N.Prathap Reddy vs Mula Malla Satya Reddy	13 Oct 2017	Judgement	—
MC/5/2016	Pujari Sarika vs Raju	13 Oct 2017	Judgement	—
OS/54/2017	Gadugu Ramulu vs Smt. B. Padmamma	12 Oct 2017	Judgement	—
CC/215/2016	Konda Krishnaiah Shetty vs Y.Vijay kumar	12 Oct 2017	Judgement	—
CC/251/2014	Bandari Manyam vs Nandimalla Mohan Reddy	12 Oct 2017	Judgement	—
CC/55/2013	Putta Ravikumar vs Appayala Naresh	11 Oct 2017	Judgement	—
CC/134/2012	The State Pro., and Excise, Atmakur vs Shivamma	11 Oct 2017	Judgement	—
CC/139/2014	Patnam Chennappa vs K.Jagan	11 Oct 2017	Judgement	—
CC/160/2014	Salguti Rameshwar Reddy vs Veeran Goud	10 Oct 2017	Judgement	—
CC/188/2013	Smt.Etavuthali Arvaindamma vs Khaja Goud	10 Oct 2017	Judgement	—
CC/11/2012	Gurumani Narayana. vs Pyatla Narsimulu.	09 Oct 2017	Judgement	—
CC/23/2012	Kanduri Muralidhar Reddy vs Pyatla Narsimulu	09 Oct 2017	Judgement	—
CC/225/2016	Smt. Pothula Suvarna vs A1. Katta kindi Boya Ramesh	09 Oct 2017	Judgement	—
OS/42/2012	Smt.V.K.Neeraja vs V.K.Madhusudhan	06 Oct 2017	Judgement	—
OS/60/2017	B.Ajay Kumar Reddy vs Lambadi Govindu	05 Oct 2017	Judgement	—
CC/54/2013	Galennaggari Ramesh Reddy vs Narsapopa	05 Oct 2017	Judgement	—
CC/88/2013	Smt. Somireddy shyamalamma vs Pebbeti Buchi Reddy	05 Oct 2017	Judgement	—
PRC/21/2014	Merva Raju vs G.S.Gopi and 8 others	05 Oct 2017	Order	—
STC/144/2017	The SHO, Atmakur vs Boya Narendra	05 Oct 2017	Judgement	—
STC/145/2017	The SHO, Atmakur vs Kodi Naresh	05 Oct 2017	Judgement	—
STC/146/2017	The SHO, Atmakur vs Vadde Shivanna	05 Oct 2017	Judgement	—
OS/15/2005	S.Narasaiah vs K.Savaranna.	04 Oct 2017	Judgement	—

Showing 100 of 454 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Jul 2021		1
Mar 2021		2
Feb 2021		5
Nov 2017		62
Oct 2017		43
Sep 2017		61
Aug 2017		74
Jul 2017		153
Jun 2017		78
May 2017		2

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Miss D.B. Sheetal handled?

Miss D.B. Sheetal has handled 481 court orders since 2017 at Wanaparthy, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 9 orders per month.

What types of cases does Miss D.B. Sheetal hear?

Based on available records, Miss D.B. Sheetal primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Summary Trial Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Original Petitions) at Wanaparthy, PDJ Court Complex.

Where is Miss D.B. Sheetal currently posted?

Miss D.B. Sheetal is posted as Senior Civil Judge at Wanaparthy, PDJ Court Complex, Wanaparthy, Telangana.

Are judgments by Miss D.B. Sheetal available online?

Yes. 6 judgments by Miss D.B. Sheetal are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Miss D.B. Sheetal dispose cases?

Miss D.B. Sheetal disposes approximately 9 cases per month, based on 481 orders handled over their tenure at Wanaparthy, PDJ Court Complex.

Since when is Miss D.B. Sheetal serving?

Miss D.B. Sheetal has been serving at Wanaparthy, PDJ Court Complex since 2017.

Case Types

CC 47%

STC 27%

OS 14%

PRC 7%

MC 1%

H 1%

DVC 1%

OP 1%

Posting History

Nov 2020 — Sep 2021

Senior Civil Judge · 8 orders
Jan 2020 — Feb 2020

Senior Civil Judge
May 2017 — Nov 2017

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE · 473 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 3

Other Judges at this Court

D.ramakanth

Principal District and Sessions Judge

4 orders

Karthik Reddy T

Prl JCJ cum JMFC

1,482 orders

Smt.Bandari Srilatha

I Addl JCJ cum JMFC

1,258 orders

Ms. N.Ashwini

II Addl JCJ cum JMFC

130 orders

Smt. G.kalarchana

Principal Senior Civil Judge cum Assistant Session...

215 orders

Smt.K.Kavitha

Additional Senior Civil Judge cum Additional Assi...

196 orders

← View all judges at Wanaparthy, PDJ Court Complex

Miss D.B. Sheetal

ATMAKUR-A

C.C.No. 63 of 2014

could able to prove the offence under section 498-A of I.P.C. beyond

ATMAKUR-A.

ATMAKUR-A.

ATMAKUR-A

C.C.No. 382 of 2016

could able to prove the offence against the accused under section

7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

ATMAKUR-A.

ATMAKUR-A.

ATMAKUR-A

C.C.No. 57 of 2016

could able to prove the offence against the accused under section

7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

ATMAKUR-A.

ATMAKUR-A.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT WANAPARTHY

This the 30 th day of July,2021

Present:- Miss D.B.Sheetal

D O C K E T O R D E R DATED.30-07-2021

IN THE COURT OF

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ATMAKUR ,MAHABOOBNAGAR

OS/41/2016

JUDGMENT

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

ATMAKUR ,MAHABOOBNAGAR