Smt. G.sabitha

III Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal

Warangal, PDJ Court Complex · Warangal · Telangana

SMT. G.SABITHA, III Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal, is posted at Warangal, PDJ Court Complex, Warangal, Telangana, India. 207 court orders on record since 2021. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, PRC cases.

207

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

CC/1669/2022 Acquitted

P.S. Rayaparthy vs Md. Akbar

11 Aug 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE III-ADDL. JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE ::

WARANGAL.

Thursday, the 11 th day of August, 2022

Present:- G. Sabitha III-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Warangal.

C.C.No. 1669 of 2022

Between :

The State, Police, through S.I of Police, Rayaparthy.

...Complainant.

AND

Md. Akbar, S/o. Rajak, Aged: 26 years, Occ: Auto Driver, R/o. Katrapally village of Rayaparthy,

Warangal. .... Accused

This case has come up before me for final hearing in the presence of

Learned A.P.P for the State and Sri Vallapu Iloni, Counsel for the accused; upon hearing both the sides and as the matter stood over for consideration, till this date, this court delivered the following:

: : J U D G M E N T : :

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Rayaparthy, Warangal District laid charge sheet against the Accused for the offences punishable under Sec. 354, 354-A of IPC.

2. The brief averments of the prosecution case are as follows:-

PW-2 Mandala Mamatha is the victim and she works as a maid servant and cook at the house of one Errabelli Raghumohan Rao/LW-4. Everyday, she proceeds from Katrapally village to Gannaram to attend her work. On dt.

16-01-2014, during evening hours, at about 1900 hrs., PW-2 did not turn back to home. PW-1/mother of PW-2 called LW-4 Raghumohan Rao over phone and enquired about PW-2. But, PW-1 learnt that PW-2 has left the home of

LW-4/RaghuMohan Rao after completion of her work, at about 18.45 p.m.

3.PW-2 boarded the auto of Mohd. Yakub and proceeded towards

Wardhannapet. At where, she boarded anotyher auto of Md. Akbar/Accused to reach Katrapally village. PW-1 tried to call PW-2, but, the said cell phone was switched off. PW-1 along with her co-sister-in-law/Mandala Somakka searched for her daughter and again tried to contact PW-2. Then, PW-2 lifted the cell phone and informed that she is at Burhanpally and the auto was got punctured.

4.Immediately, PW-1 and LW-4Raghumohan Rao rushed to

Burhanpally village and found PW-2 in tears. On enquiry, PW-2 informed them that the auto driver/Accused stopped the auto at Rayaparthy village to purchase beer bottle. He has taken the auto towards Wardhannapet and stopped the auto at the rack shed, located in the agricultural fields at Konduru

Bridge, Rayaparthy village. Then, the accused forced PW-2 to have beer.

When PW-2 refused the same, accused consumed the beer and caught hold the hands of PW-2, dragged her inside the rack shed and tried to outrage her modesty. He further demanded PW-2 to satisfy his sexual desires. PW-2 resisted his act, escaped from the clutches of accused and approached the main road.

5.On dt. 17-01-2014, at about 9.00 hrs., PW-1 lodged report before PS

Rayaparthy. Basing on which, LW-12 A. Raghavender, SI of Police registered a case against the accused vide Cr. No. 8 of 2014 for the offence under Sec. 354, 354-A of IPC and investigated into. During investigation, LW-12 recorded the statement of PW-1. On his directions, LW-11 WPC recorded the statement of

PW-2 and the said proceedings were captured through video by LW-8.

Thereafter, LW-12 examined and recorded the statements of LW-3 to LW-10. On

dt. 22-01-2014, accused was arrested by LW-12 and was produced before the

court for judicial remand. Later, LW-13 Sri. B. Suman, SI of Police assumed charge as SI of Police, PS Rayaparthy and verified the investigation done by

LW-12. After completion of investigation, LW-13 laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sec. 354, 354-A of IPC.

6 . The Hon'ble JCJ Court, Thorrur has taken Cognizance of the matter against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 354 of IPC and issued summons to the accused.

7.On appearance of Accused before the Hon'ble JCJ Court, Thorrur, copies of all relevant documents were supplied to the accused as contemplated

U/s. 207 Cr.P.C.

8.The accused was examined U/s. 239 Cr.P.C. by the Hon'ble JCJ

Court, Thorrur. The charges framed under Sec. 354 of IPC were read over and explained to the accused in his vernacular language, for which, after understanding the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Later, this case file was transferred to this court as per the order’s of Hon’ble

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Hanamkonda vide circular in

Dis.No.3055/2022, dated 04.06.2022 9 . To substantiate the case, the prosecution examined PW-1, PW-2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. As the defacto complainant and victim totally turned hostile, learned App has given-up the evidence of LW-3 to LW-13.

. 10After completion of prosecution evidence, as there was no incriminating evidence available against the accused, examination as contemplated under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with.

. 11Heard both the counsel and perused the record. Counsel for accused prayed the court to dispose of the matter on merits.

. 12Now the point that arises for determination is :

“Whether prosecution has brought home the guilt of the

accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 354 of IPC, beyond

reasonable doubt ?

13. POINT : To substantiate the case, as already noted, prosecution examined PW-1, PW-2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. PW-1 is the defacto complainant and mother of victim women/PW-2.

The gist of prosecution case is that the victim/PW-2 boarded the auto of accused to go to Katrapally village. The accused who was the auto driver had taken the auto to Konduru Bridge. At the outskirts of Rayaparthy village, accused stopped the auto at the Rack Shed, in the agricultural fields of

Konduru Bridge and forced PW-2 to consume beer. When she refused, accused consumed beer and caught hold her hands, dragged her inside of the rack shed in demand of sexual favours. PW-2 escaped from the clutches of accused and ran towards the main road.

14.But, to the utter surprise of this Court, the crucial witnesses, i.e.,

PW-1 and PW-2 totally turned hostile and deposed before the court about diverting of the auto by the driver/unknown person. According to PW1 , PW2 after her working hours, boarded an auto of an unknown person, when the driver diverted the auto a quarrel took place. After learning about the quarrel over phone, PW-1 reached the spot.

PW-1 pleaded ignorance as to the contents of Ex.P1 report. The learned

APP sought permission of this Court and cross-examined PW-1. Even after cross-examination, PW-1 stood intact and denied to have mentioned the name of accused in Ex.P1 report. PW-1 further denied her statement to the police marked as Ex.P2.

15.PW-2 is the victim and she totally turned hostile. PW-2 has shown her inability to identify the accused who misbehaved with her. With the permission of this Court, learned APP cross-examined PW-2, but nothing could be elicited in support of the prosecution. In order to establish her contradictory statement, Ex.P3 Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement was marked on behalf of prosecution.

16.With the above discussion, it is apparent that no evidence is available against the accused to connect him with the charge framed against him. As the crucial witnesses, i.e., the victim and her mother totally turned hostile and did not depose anything either with regard to the identity of accused or his overt act/misbehavior with PW-2, this Court is forced to travel towards benefit of doubt to the accused.

IN THE RESULT, Accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s.

354 of IPC. Accordingly, Accused is acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months from today as prescribed under Sec. 437-A of Cr.P.C.

(Typed by me on the desktop available on bench, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11th day of August, 2022)

III-Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

PW-1: Shyamala YakanthaNONE

PW-2: Mandala Mamatha

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P-1: Report

Ex.P-2: 161 Statement of PW-1

Ex.P-3: 161 Statement of PW-2

FOR DEFENCE:

-Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS

- NIL -

III-Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal

CALENDER EXTRACT

IN THE COURT OF THE III-ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE :: WARANGAL

CALENDER CASE NO: 1699 OF 2022

1. Name of the Police Station.: PS. Rayaparthy

2. Crime Number: 08/2014

3. Offences: U/S. 354 IPC

4. Name of the Accused : Md. Akbar

5. Date of:

a. Occurrence : Prior to 17.01.2014 b. Complaint : 17.01.2014 c. Apprehension : 22.01.2014 d. Released on bail : 06.02.2014 e. Commencement of trial : 08.08.2022 f. Closure of trial :08.08.2022 g. Judgment :11-08-2022

R E S U L T:- In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s.

Explanation for Delay : No delay

III-Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Warangal. Dis.No. Date:

Copy Submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Warangal.

C.C.No. 1570/2019 8 Dt: 18.09.2019

CALENDER EXTRACT

IN THE COURT OF THE V-ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE ::

WARANGAL

CALENDER CASE NO: 1570 OF 2019

1. Name of the Police Station.: WPS, Warangal District

2. Crime Number: 53/2019

3. Offences: U/s. 498 (A) IPC, Sec 3 & 4 of DP Act

4. Name of the Accused :

A-1: Gyajangi Sridhar, S/o. Sathyanarayana, Age: 34 years, Caste: Padmashali, Occ: Private Bank Employee at Hyderabad A-2: Gyajangi Sarala, W/o. Sathyanarayana, Age: 54 years, Caste: Padmashali, Occ: Housewife, A-3: Gyajangi Sathyanarayana, S/o. Hanumaiah, Age: 63 years, Caste: Padmashali, Occ: Retd. Singareni Employee, A-4: Gyajangi Srikanth, S/o. Sathyanarayana, Age: 31 years, Caste: Padmashali, Occ: Private Employee, A-5: Gyajangi Srinath, S/o. Sathyanarayana, Age: 294 years, Caste: Padmashali, Occ: Private Employee, All R/o. H.No.5-2-68, Post Office basthi, Bellampalli, Mancherial district now at H.No.8-5-94/2, Laxminagar, Karimnagar,

5. Date of:

a. Occurrence : 12.04.2019 b. Complaint : 12.04.2019 c. Apprehension : 29.06.2019 d. Released on bail : 29.06.2019 e. Commencement of trial : 04.10.2019 f. Close of trial :04.10.2019 g. Judgment :14.10.2019

R E S U L T:- In the result, A-1 to A-5 are found not guilty for the offence U/ s. 498 (A) IPC, Sec 3 & 4 of DP Act. Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused persons and their sureties if any shall stands canceled after expiry of Appeal period. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

C.C.No. 1570/2019 9 Dt: 18.09.2019

Explanation for Delay : No delay

FAC V-Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal

Dis.No. Date:

Copy Submitted to:

The Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Warangal.

CC/1673/2022 Acquitted

SHO,WPS WARANGAL-R SUBEDARI vs BARIGELA PRAKASH

30 Jun 2022

C.C.No.1673 of 2022 1 Dt: 30.06.2022

IN THE COURT OF THE III-ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDL. FIRST

CLASS MAGISTRATE :: WARANGAL.

Thursday, the 30 th day of June, 2022

Present:- Smt G. Sabitha, III-Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Warangal.

C.C.No. 1673 OF 2022

Between : The State, Police, through S.I of Police,

P.S. WPS Rural...Complainant

AND

A-1:Barigela Prakash, S/o. Venkataiah, Age: 42 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No.3-73, Dharmapuram village of Dharmasagar mandal, A-2:Barigela Susheela, W/o. Venkataiah, Age: 70 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No.3-73, Dharmapuram village of Dharmasagar mandal, A-3:Barigela Prasad, S/o. Venkataiah, Age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No.3-73, Dharmapuram village of Dharmasagar mandal, A-4:Barigela Praveen Kumar, S/o. Venkataiah, Age: 30 years, Occ: Private Job, R/o. H.No.3-73, Dharmapuram village of Dharmasagar mandal, A-5:Rapolu Prabhavati, W/o. R. Ramesh, Age: 38 years, Occ: ANM at Ghanpur (W), R/o. Karunapuram village of Dharmasagar mandal.

.... Accused

This case came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Learned A.P.P for the State and Sri N. Prasad, Advocate for Accused; upon hearing on both sides, stood over for consideration, till this date, this court delivered the following:

: : J U D G M E N T : :

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, WPS Police Station filed this case vide

Crime No. 19 of 2017 of his station alleging that A-1 to A-5 have committed the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 417, 420 IPC, Sec. 3 & 4 of D.P

Act.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

PW-1 is the defacto complainant and victim. The marriage of PW-1/victim was performed with A-1, on dt. 10-09-2015, as per the customs prevailing in Christian Community in the presence of Pastor Immadi

C.C.No.1673 of 2022 2 Dt: 30.06.2022

Clinton, at M.G.P.Function Hall, at Waddepally, Hanamkonda. Prior to the marriage, A-1 has got believed the parents of PW-1 that he was highly educated and doing a job. At the time of engagement, parents of PW-1 gave net cash of Rs.5 lakhs and at the time of marriage, net cash of Rs.5 lakhs, total Rs.10 lakhs were handed over to accused, towards dowry, on his demand. Adding to it, ½ tula gold ring, 1 tula gold chain and one bike was also given to A-1, at the time of marriage, as dowry.

After marriage, PW-1 went to the matrimonial house and lead conjugal life, for a period of one year. Out of wedlock, PW-1 was not blessed with any children. A-2 to A-5 who are none other than the mother-in-law, brothers-in-law and sister-in-law of PW-1 had instigated A-1 and harassed

PW.1, both physically and psychological demanding her to bring an additional dowry of Rs.5 lakhs. All the accused had confined PW-1 in one room and treated her as a maid-servant. Even after taking the entire household works from PW-1, accused did not used to provide food on time to her. They used to beat PW-1 with a broom stick. On the instigation of A-2 to A-5, husband of

PW-1 used to come to home in drunken condition and used to beat PW-1 with an iron rod by threatening her with dire consequences to kill her. On dt.

15.3.2016, a panchayath was held in the presence of elders, wherein, A-1 admitted his guilt and promised that he will never harass PW-1 for want of

additional dowry. After the said panchayath, A-1 to A-5 looked after PW-1 well

for some days and again started harassing her both physically and psychologically, for want of additional dowry. A-1 suspected that PW-1 is having an illegal intimacy with her brother-in-law. A-1 to A-5 has confined

PW.1 in the house and did not allow her to come outside of the home. A-1 used to utter infront of PW-1 that he is an Ex-Naxalite and harassed PW-1 by connecting her sexual intimacy with others. Finally, on dt. 20-2-2017, A-1 to

A-5 had necked out PW-1, from the matrimonial house by beating her

C.C.No.1673 of 2022 3 Dt: 30.06.2022 indiscriminately. On dt. 29-3-2017, PW-1 called A-1 over phone, but, he demanded her to bring an additional dowry of Rs.5 lakhs otherwise he will give divorce to her. On dt. 30-3-2017, at about 13.00 hours, PW-1 lodged report against A-1 to A-5 before WPS, Warangal Rural.

Basing on the report of PW-1, LW-10/Inspector of police registered a case vide Cr.No.19/2019, for the offences U/S. 498-A, 417, 420 IPC, Sec. 3 & 4 of D.P Act. On the directions of LW-10/Inspector of police, investigation was conducted by LW-9/ASI. During investigation, LW-9 examined and recorded the statements of PW-1 to PW-3, LW-4 to LW-8. Subsequently, LW-10 verified the investigation done by LW-9 and laid charge sheet against A-1 to A-5 by issuing Sec. 41 Cr.P.C. notices on all the accused.

3.The Hon’ble IV-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Warangal has taken cognizance of the offence U/S. 498-A, 417, 420 IPC, Sec. 3 & 4 of D.P

Act against A-1 to A-5. On appearance of A-1 to A-5, copies of documents as contemplated under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were furnished on them.

4.The Hon’ble IV-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Warangal has examined A-1 to A-5 under Section 239 of Cr.P.C explaining the charges framed against them for the offence punishable U/s. 498-A, 417, 420 IPC,

Sec. 3 & 4 of D.P Act, in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.Before the Hon’ble IV-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Warangal, in order to establish its case, prosecution has examined PW-1 to

PW-3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P-4.

As per the directions of Hon’ble District Court, Warangal vide

Circular Dis.No.3055/2022, dt. 4.6.2022, this case file was transferred to this court and renumbered as C.C.No.1673/2022. On dt. 28.6.2022. Learned APP had given-up the evidence of LW-4/G. Swathi, LW-5/P. Shankar, LW.6/J.

C.C.No.1673 of 2022 4 Dt: 30.06.2022

Sharada, LW-7/C. Ravinder, LW-8/B. Bharath, LW-9/K. Appa Rao,

LW-10/S.Vishnu murthy, Inspector of police, W.P.S. Warangal Rural.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, as there was no incriminating evidence appearing against the A-1 to A-5, examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C. was dispensed with.

7.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record.

8.Now the point that arises for determination is:

Whether prosecution has brought home the guilt of A-1 to

A-5 for the offences punishable U/s. 498-A, 417, 420 IPC,

Sec. 3 & 4 of D.P Act Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

9. Point: As already noted, prosecution has examined PW-1 to PW.3 and got marked Ex.P-1 to P-4. PW-1 is the defacto complainant and victim.

PW-2 and PW-3 are parents of PW-1. Coming to the documentary evidence,

Ex.P-1 is the signature of PW-1 on report, Ex.P-2 to P-4 are 161 Cr.P.C statements of PW-1 to PW-3 recorded by police.

10.The law was set into motion basing on the report of PW-1, but, the defacto complainant/victim has totally turned hostile and deposed before the court about petty marital disputes in between herself and A-1. According to Pw-1, she did not lodge any report before police, but signed on some written papers, at the request of panchayath elders. Ex.P-1 signature of PW-1 was marked on behalf of prosecution.

11.PW-2 and PW-3 are none other than the parents of victim, but they also turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. Even after cross examination by the learned APP, PW-1 to PW-3 denied to have stated to the police as in Ex.P-2 to P-4 Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statements. As the vital witnesses, i.e., defacto complainant and her parents did not support the case, the learned APP had given-up the evidence of LW-3 to LW-10. With the above discussion, as there is no incriminating evidence available against A-1 to A-5,

C.C.No.1673 of 2022 5 Dt: 30.06.2022 this court holds that it is a fit case to grant benefit of doubt to all the accused.

IN THE RESULT, A-1 to A-5 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 417, 420 IPC, Sec. 3 & 4 of D.P Act.

Accordingly, A-1 to A-5 are acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A-1 to A-5 shall be in force for a period of 6 months from today, as prescribed under section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30th day of June, 2022)

III-Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Warangal

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

PW-1: B. Annapurna- Complainant/Victim, - None -

PW-2: G. Jaya-Mother of victim

PW-3:G. Saraiah-Father of victim

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P-1:Signature of PW-1 on complaint,

Ex.P-2:Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PW-1,

Ex.P-3:Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PW-2,

Ex.P-4:Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PW-3.

FOR DEFENCE:

- Nil-

:MATERIAL OBJECTS:

- Nil -

III-Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Warangal

C.C.No.1673 of 2022 6 Dt: 30.06.2022

CALENDER EXTRACT

IN THE COURT OF THE III-ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE ::

WARANGAL

CALENDER CASE NO: 1673 OF 2022

1. Name of the Police Station.: P.S. WPS

2. Crime Number: 19/2017

3. Offences: U/S. 498-A, 417, 420 IPC, Sec. 3 & 4 of D.P Act.

4. Name of the Accused :

5. Date of:

a. Occurrence : 29.03.2017 b. Complaint : 30.03.2017 c. Apprehension : - d. Released on bail : - e. Commencement of trial : 25.04.2022 f. Closure of trial :29.06.2022 g. Judgment :30.06.2022

R E S U L T:- In the result, A-1 to A-5 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 417, 420 IPC, Sec. 3 & 4 of D.P Act.

Explanation for Delay : No delay

III-Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Warangal Dis.No. Date: Copy Submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Warangal.

CC/1671/2022 Acquitted

State of Telangana vs Banothu Ramesh

30 Jun 2022

C.C.No.1671 of 2022 1 Dt: 30.06.2022

IN THE COURT OF THE III-ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDL. FIRST

CLASS MAGISTRATE :: WARANGAL.

Thursday, the 30 th day of June, 2022

Present:- Smt G. Sabitha, III-Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Warangal.

C.C.No. 1671 OF 2022

Between :

The State, Police, through S.I of Police,

P.S. Rayaparthy...Complainant

AND

A-1:Banoth Ramesh, S/o. Lakya, Age: 33 years, Occ: Agriculture, A-2:Eslavath Devender, S/o. Srinu, Age: 21 years, Occ: Student, A-3:Banoth Manjula, W/o. Ramesh, Age: 26 years, Occ: Agriculture, A-4:Islavath Venkatesh, S/o. Yakub, Age: 19 years, A-5:Eslavath Rangamma, S/o. Yakub, Age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture, A-6:Eslavath Mounika, D/o. Yakub, Age: 22 years, Occ: Agriculture, All R/o. T.K.Thanda, H/o. Thirumalayapally village, Rayaparthy mandal.

.... Accused

This case came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Learned A.P.P for the State and Smt N. Nayasri, Advocate for Accused; upon hearing on both sides, stood over for consideration, till this date, this court delivered the following:

: : J U D G M E N T : :

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, PS Rayapathy filed this case vide

Crime No. 15 of 2020 of his station alleging that A-1 to A-6 have committed the offence punishable under Sections 448, 452, 323, 324, 506 r/w 149 IPC.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

PW-1 is the defacto complainant and victim. On dt. 20-02-2020, at about 11.30 hours, PW-1 lodged report before P.S.Rayaparthy stating that his daughter refused the love proposal of one Islavath Varam Singh who is son of his uncle/Babai. As such, the said Islavath Varam Singh had committed suicide, on dt. 9-1-2020, by consuming pesticide poison, at Bhongir.

C.C.No.1671 of 2022 2 Dt: 30.06.2022

A criminal case was registered in this regard at P.S.Bhongir. By keeping the same in mind, the family members of Islavath Varam Singh had developed grudge against PW-1 and his family members. Accused Nos. 1 to 6 were not allowing PW-1 and his family members into the Thanda blaming that they are responsible for death of Islavath Varam Singh.

On dt. 19-2-2020, PW-1 and PW-2 went to their house at

J.K.Thanda, as their agriculture was damaged. On the same night, at about 20.00 hours, when PW-1 and PW-2 were at their house, situated at

T.K.Thanda, H/o. Thirumalayapally village, Rayaparthy mandal, A-1 and A-2 criminally trespassed into their house and beat PW-1 and PW-2 with stick on their head and other parts of the body. A-3 and A-4 had beat PW-1 and PW-2 with stick while A-5 and A-6 beat them with stones and threatened them with dire consequences. Meanwhile, neighbours reached the scene, rescued PW-1 & PW-2 and sent them to MGM Hospital, Warangal, through 108 Ambulance.

Basing on the report of PW-1, a case vide Cr.No.15/2020 for the offences U/S. 448, 452, 323, 324, 506 r/w 149 IPC was registered against A-1 to A-6. During investigation, LW-9/I.O has examined and recorded the statements of PW-1 to PW-4 and LW-3. LW-9 also visited the scene, of offence and drafted crime detail form, by drawing rough sketch of the scene in the presence of LW-6/I. Naveen and LW-7/I. Ravinder. On dt. 21-02-2020, at about 12.00 hours, A-1 to A-6 were surrendered before LW-9 and voluntarily confessed their guilt. As accused had thrown the sticks and stones at unknown place, the Investigating officer could not seize the weapons used in the commission of offence. LW-9/I.O issued Sec. 41 Cr.P.C. notices on all the accused, directing them to appear before the court on receipt of summons.

LW-8/Dr. S.K.Sariya Sulthana, Civil Asst. Sureon, MGM Hospital examined, treated PW-1, PW-2 and issued wound certificate opining that the injuries sustained by PW-1 and PW-2 are “simple in nature”. On completion of

C.C.No.1671 of 2022 3 Dt: 30.06.2022 investigation, LW-9/N. Venkatesharlu, Inspector of police has filed charge sheet against A-1 to A-6 for the offences punishable U/S. 448, 452, 323, 324, 506 r/w 149 IPC.

3.The Hon’ble IV-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Warangal has taken cognizance of the offences U/S. 448, 452, 323, 324, 506 r/w 149 IPC against A-1 to A-6. On appearance of A-1 to A-6, copies of documents as contemplated under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were furnished on them. As per the directions of Hon’ble Principal District

Court, Warangal, vide Circular Dis.No.3055/2022, dt. 4.6.2022, this case file was transferred to this court and renumbered as C.C.No.1671/2022.

4.This court has examined A-1 to A-6 under Section 239 of Cr.P.C explaining the charges framed against them for the offences punishable U/s.

448, 452, 323, 324, 506 r/w 149 IPC, in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to establish its case, prosecution has examined PW-1 to

PW-4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P-6. On dt. 28.6.2022, Learned APP had given-up the evidence of LW-3/Islavath Santhosh, LW-6/I. Naveen,

LW.7/I.Ravinder, LW-8/Dr. S.K.Sariya Sulthana, LW-9/N. Venkateshwarlu, SI of police, P.S.Rayaparthy.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, as there was no incriminating evidence appearing against the A-1 to A-6, examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C. was dispensed with.

7.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record.

8.Now the point that arises for determination is:

Whether prosecution has brought home the guilt of A-1 to

A-6 for the offences punishable U/s. 448, 452, 323, 324,

506 r/w 149 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

9. Point: As already noted, prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-4 and got marked Ex.P-1 to P-6. PW-1 is the defacto complainant. PW-2 i.e. wife

C.C.No.1671 of 2022 4 Dt: 30.06.2022 of PW-1 is also an injured, PW-3 and PW-4 are eye witnesses to the alleged incident. Coming to the documentary evidence, Ex.P-1 is the signature of

PW.1 on Ex.P-2 report, Ex.P-3 to Ex.P-6 are Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statements of PW-1 to PW-4, respectively.

10.The very case of the prosecution is that A-1 to A-6 have trespassed into the house of PW-1 and PW-2, situated at T.K.Thanda, H/o.

Thirumalayapally village, Rayaparthy mandal and beat them with sticks and stones. In the result, PW-1 and PW-2 sustained simple injuries on their bodies.

But, to utter surprise of this court, both the injured, i.e. PW-1 and PW-2 totally turned hostile and deposed before the court that unknown persons, during night hours knocked their house and attacked them. Due to dark night, both of them could not see the faces of persons who attacked on them. According to both the injured, they filed report before police on suspicion.

Except admitting his signature marked as Ex.P-2 on Ex.P-2 report,

PW-1 did not say anything against any of the accused. Even after cross examination, PW-1 pleaded ignorance as to the contents of Ex.P-2 report.

Both the injuried denied to have stated to police as in Ex.P-3 and P-4. Sec.161

Cr.P.C. statements. PW-3 and PW-4 were cited as ocular witnesses but they pleaded total ignorance as to the facts of the case. Even after cross examination by the learned APP, they denied Ex.P-5 and P-6 Sec. 161 Cr.P.C.

statements.

11.As none of the prosecution witnesses supported the case, this court holds that prosecution utterly failed to establish either the identity of accused or their involvement in the instant case. Hence, this court holds that

A-1 to A-6 are entitled for benefit of doubt.

IN THE RESULT, A-1 to A-6 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 448, 452, 323, 324, 506 r/w 149 IPC. Accordingly,

A-1 to A-6 are acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A-1 to

C.C.No.1671 of 2022 5 Dt: 30.06.2022

A-6 shall be in force for a period of 6 months from today, as prescribed under section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30th day of June, 2022)

III-Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Warangal

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

PW-1: I. Rajaram - Complainant/Injured, - None -

PW-2 : I. Chavali - Injured

PW-3 : I. Mamatha – Eye witness

PW-4 : I. Anasuya - Eye witness.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P-1:Signature of PW-1 on report,

Ex.P-2:Report lodged by PW-1,

Ex.P-3:Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PW-1,

Ex.P-4:Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PW-2,

Ex.P-5:Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PW-3,

Ex.P-6:Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PW-4,

FOR DEFENCE:

- Nil-:MATERIAL OBJECTS:

- Nil -

III-Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Warangal

C.C.No.1671 of 2022 6 Dt: 30.06.2022

CALENDER EXTRACT

IN THE COURT OF THE III-ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE ::

WARANGAL

CALENDER CASE NO: 1671 OF 2022

1. Name of the Police Station.: P.S. Rayaparthy

2. Crime Number: 15/2020

3. Offences: U/S. 448, 452, 323, 324, 506 r/w 149 IPC

4. Name of the Accused :

5. Date of:

a. Occurrence : 19.02.2020 b. Complaint : 20.02.2020 c. Apprehension : - d. Released on bail : - e. Commencement of trial : 28.06.2022 f. Closure of trial :28.06.2022 g. Judgment :30.06.2022

R E S U L T:- In the result, A-1 to A-6 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 452, 323, 324, 506 r/w 149 IPC. Accordingly,

A-1 to A-6 are acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A-1 to

A-6 shall be in force for a period of 6 months from today, as prescribed under section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Explanation for Delay : No delay

III-Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Warangal Dis.No. Date: Copy Submitted to:

C.C.No.1671 of 2022 7 Dt: 30.06.2022

The Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Warangal.

CC/3104/2022 Acquitted

SHO WPS Subedari vs Jakkam Deep Kumar

11 Jul 2022

C.C.No.3104 of 2022 1 Dt: 11.07.2022

IN THE COURT OF THE III-ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDL. FIRST

CLASS MAGISTRATE :: WARANGAL.

Monday, the 11 th day of July, 2022

Present:- Smt G. Sabitha, III-Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Warangal.

C.C.No. 3104 OF 2022

Between : The State, Police, through S.I of Police,

P.S. WPS Rural...Complainant

AND

1.Jakkam Deep Kumar, S/o. Prabhakar, Age : 28 years, Caste : Gandla, Occu : Private employee, R/o. H.No.5-191, Ambedkar Chowk Pothakapally Village in Odela Mandal of Peddapalli District.

2.Jakkam Sridevi, W/o. Prabhakar, Age : 50 years, Caste : Gandla, Occu : Housewife, R/o. H.No.5-191, Ambedkar Chowk Pothakapally Village in Odela Mandal of Peddapalli District.

3.Jakkam Prabhakar, S/o. Mallaiah, Age : 56 years, Caste : Gandla, Occu : Business, R/o. H.No.5-191, Ambedkar Chowk Pothakapally Village in Odela Mandal of Peddapalli District.

.... A1 to A3

This case came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Learned A.P.P for the State and Sri Ch.Suresh Reddy, Advocate for the A1 to A3; upon hearing on both sides, stood over for consideration, till this date, this court delivered the following:

: : J U D G M E N T : :

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, WPS Police Station filed this case vide

Crime No. 57 of 2021 of his station alleging that A1 to A3 has committed the offence punishable under Sections 498-A IPC, Sec. 3 & 4 of DP Act.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

The marriage of PW1/ defacto complainant was performed with A1, on 14-08-2020, as per the customs prevailing in their community, by their parents. At the time of marriage, on demand, the parents of PW1 gave net cash of Rs.13,00,000/-, gold ornaments weighing one tula, in addition to the

C.C.No.3104 of 2022 2 Dt: 11.07.2022 household articles to A1, as dowry. After marriage, A1 and PW1 lead their marital life amicably for a period of one month. Thereafter, A1 to A3 started harassing PW1 both physically and psychologically demanding to bring

additional dowry of Rs.50 lakhs. A panchayath was also held in the presence

of elders, at where, A1 to A3 made it clear that they will not allow PW1 to enter their house unless and until her parents provide an additional dowry of

Rs.50,00,000/-. Without agreeing the words of elders, A1 to A3 left the panchayath. Having left with no other option, on dt.4-12-2021, at 1.25 p.m.,

PW1 lodged report before WPS Warangal.

Basing on the report of PW-1, LW-8/Y.Satheesh, Inspector of Police has registered a case vide Cr.No.57/2021, for the offences U/S.498A IPC, Sec.

3 & 4 of DP Act. During investigation, PW1 examined and recorded the statements of PW1, PW2, LW3/Md.Gayaas, LW4/Macharla Markandeya,

LW5/Bochu Bhadra, LW6/Kukkamudi Mogili, LW7/Sarwa Vijaya, elders of the panchayath. On dt.5-12-2021, A1 to A3 surrendered themselves before WPS,

Warangal. LW8 issued sec. 41(a)(1) Cr.P.C. notice on the accused directing them to appear before the court on receipt of summons. On completion of investigation, LW8 laid charge sheet against A1 to A3 for the offences punishable U/s. 498-A IPC, Sec. 3 & 4 of DP Act.

3. This Hon’ble IV-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Warangal has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 498-A IPC, Sec. 3 & 4 of DP Act against A1 to A3. Later, in view of directions of Hon’ble District Court,

Warangal vide Circular Dis.No.3055/2022, dt. 4.6.2022, this case file was transferred and renumbered as C.C.No.3104/2022, on the file of this court. On appearance of A1 to A3, this court has served the copies of documents as

C.C.No.3104 of 2022 3 Dt: 11.07.2022 contemplated under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on

A1 to A3.

4.Accused No.1 to 3 were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C explaining the charges framed against them for the offences punishable U/s.

498-A IPC, Sec. 3 & 4 of DP Act, in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to establish its case, prosecution has examined/PW-1, PW2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P-3. On dt. 08-07-2022, learned APP had given-up the evidence of LW3/Md.Gayaas, LW4/Macharla Markandeya, LW5/Bochu Bhadra,

LW6/Kukkamudi Mogili, LW7/Sarwa Vijaya and LW-8/Y.Satheesh, Inspector of police, W.P.S. Warangal Rural.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, as there was no incriminating evidence appearing against A1 to A3, examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C. was dispensed with.

7.Heard both the counsel and perused record.

8.Now the point that arise for determination is:

Whether prosecution has brought home the guilt of A1 to A3 for the offences punishable U/s. 498-A IPC,

Sec. 3 & 4 of DP Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

9. Point: As already noted, prosecution examined PW-1, PW-2 and got marked Ex.P-1 to P-3. PW-1 is the defacto complainant and victim. PW-2 is the mother of PW1. Coming to the documentary evidence, Ex.P-1 is the signature of PW-1 on report, Ex.P-2 and P-3 are 161 Cr.P.C statements of PW-1 and PW-2.

C.C.No.3104 of 2022 4 Dt: 11.07.2022

The gist of the prosecution case is that the marriage of PW1 was performed with A1. After one month of their marriage, A1 to A3 being the husband and in-laws started harassing PW1 both physically and psychologically in demand of additional dowry of Rs.50 lakhs. PW1 and PW2 placed the matter before the village elders, but all the accused did not change their attitude. Hence, Ex.P1 report was lodged against A1 to A3.

To the surprise of this court, the victim / PW1 totally turned hostile and deposed before the court that she lodged Ex.P1 / report due to petty marital disputes. PW1 denied to have said to the police as in Ex.P2/161 CrPC

Statement. Adding to it, the mother of the victim, i.e., PW2 also did not support to the prosecution case and resiled from her earlier statement to police marked as Ex.P3.

As crucial witnesses i.e., PW1 and PW2 did not support the prosecution case, learned APP has given-up the evidence of LW3 to LW8.

On perusal of the prosecution evidence as already noted, no evidence is available against A1 to A3 to connect them with the charges framed against them. Hence, this court holds that it is a fit case to grant benefit of doubt to A1 to A3.

IN THE RESULT, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 of DP Act. Accordingly, A1 to A3 are acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to A3 shall be in force for a period of 6 months from today, as prescribed under section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11th day of July, 2022)

III-Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Warangal

C.C.No.3104 of 2022 5 Dt: 11.07.2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

PW-1: Bhavana Jakkam - Complainant/Victim - None -

PW-2: Sarwa Shantha - Mother of victim

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P-1:Signature of PW-1 on complaintNIL

Ex.P-2:Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PW-1

Ex.P-3:Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PW-2 :MATERIAL OBJECTS:- Nil -

III-Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Warangal

C.C.No.3104 of 2022 6 Dt: 11.07.2022

CALENDER EXTRACT

IN THE COURT OF THE III-ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE ::

WARANGAL

CALENDER CASE NO: 3104 OF 2022

1. Name of the Police Station.: W.P.S. Warangal

2. Crime Number: 57/2021

3. Offences: U/S. 498-A IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 of DP Act

4. Name of the Accused : 1. Jakkam Deep Kumar

2. Jakkam Sridevi

3. Jakkam Prabhakar

5. Date of:

a. Occurrence : Prior to 04-12-2021 b. Complaint : 04-12-2021 c. Apprehension : -- d. Released on bail : -- e. Commencement of trial : 08-07-2022 f. Closure of trial :08-07-2022 g. Judgment :11-07-2022

R E S U L T:- In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 of DP Act. Accordingly, A1 to A3 are acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to A3 shall be in force for a period of 6 months from today, as prescribed under section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Explanation for Delay : No delay

III-Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Warangal. Dis.No. Date:

Copy Submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Warangal.

OS/450/2020

The State Bank of India RASMECCC Rep by Branch Manager Warangal vs Nallam Rajitha

17 Aug 2022

O.S.No.450/2020 1 Dt: 17-08-2022

IN THE COURT OF THE III-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, WARANGAL.

Wednesday, this the 17th day of August, 2022

Present: Smt. G. Sabitha, III-Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Warangal.

O.S. No. 450 of 2020

B E T W E E N:

The State Bank of India (RASMECCC), rep., by its Branch Manger, Warangal, rep., by Senior Branch Manager, Nelaturi Showribabu, S/o. Lazor, Age : 44 years, Occu : Chief Manager, State Bank of India (RASMECCC), Warangal Branch.

... Plaintiff

A N D

1. Nallam Rajitha, W/o. Ravi, Age: 33 years, Occ: Agriculture, H.No.2-51, Kothur Vilalge, Parvathagiri Mandal, Warangal District.

2. Nallam Ravi, S/o. Veeraiah, Age: 46 years, Occ: Agriculture, H.No.2-51, Kothur Village, Parvathagiri Mandal, Warangal District. …Defendants

This suit is coming up before me on 11.08.2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Chakilam Upender, Advocate for the Plaintiff and

Defendant nos. 1 and 2 remained exparte, after hearing and on perusing the material on record and having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

: : J U D G M E N T : :

1.This suit is filed seeking recovery of an amount of

Rs.2,39,652/- (Rupees Two lakhs thirty nine thousand, six hundred and fifty two only) against the person and property of the defendants with future interest and for costs of the suit.

2. The brief facts of the plaint filed by the plaintiff are as fol- lows:

2.As per the averments of the plaint the 1st defendant approached

O.S.No.450/2020 2 Dt: 17-08-2022

the plaintiff bank for loan of Rs.7,80,000/- towards purchase of car and

Defendant No.2 stood as guarantor for the said loan under “SBI CAR

LOAN” scheme. In respect of the above loan, Defendant No.1 has executed Guarantee of agreement, dt. 6-7-2018 as required in favour of the Bank, agreeing to repay the loan amount along with interest @ 9.85% P.A. The defendant No.1 also executed Hypothecation Agreement,

Dt. 6-7-2018. Defendant No.2 also executed letter of Guarantee, dt.6-7-

2018 to assure prompt repayment of the loan amount along with interest thereon. Defendant No. 1 has availed the loan amount sanctioned to him through an account opened in the Bank, vide A/c. No. 37797005995, dt.

6-7-2018.

As per the terms of the loan, Defendant No.1 shall repay the loan in 48 monthly installments @ Rs.12,828/- per month along with interest, as agreed above, with monthly rests thereon. But, Defendant No.1 failed to comply the terms of loan and failed to clear the loan amount installments as agreed.

Several demands and reminders were issued by the Paintiff Bank addressing to Defendant Nos. 1 & 2, demanding to repay the loan amount, but, they went on dodging the matter on one or other pretext.

However, the defendant No.1 executed an acknowledgement of liability,

dt. 31-3-2019 in favour of the Plaintiff Bank in respect of the said loan

transaction. But, the defendants did not clear the loan amount. Hence, the present suit for recovery of dues from Defendant No.1 as principal borrower and Defendant No.2 as Guarantor. Hence the plaintiff bank has seized the hypothecated the vehicle FORD FIGO ASPIRE car bearing No.

TS 24 BTR 5025, the plaintiff conducted public auction on 15-7-2019 and disposed the vehicle in public auction for highest bidder of Rs.7,80,000/-.

O.S.No.450/2020 3 Dt: 17-08-2022

The defendant failed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.2,36,225/- to the plaintiff bank, made several requests and demands to the defendant but failed to pay the remaining due amount to the plaintiff bank.

As on the date of filing of the suit, the defendants were in due of

Rs.2,39,652/- including the interest, incidental charges and permissible expenses incurred by the Bank.

3.Even after paper publication, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 failed to appear before the court and were set ex parte, on dt. 08-04-2022.

4.On behalf of the plaintiff, the Senior Branch Manager has filed chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to

Ex.A9.

5.Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the record.

6.Now the point that arises for determination is--

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief

of recovery of money of Rs.2,39,652/- from

Defendants as prayed for?

7. Point:The evidence of PW-1 is nothing but reiteration of contents of plaint. Coming to the documentary evidence, Ex.A-1is the

Original car loan application form dt. 4-7-2018, Ex.A-2 is the Original sanction letter dt. 5-7-2018, Ex.A-3 is the Original arrangement letter dt.

5-7-2018, Ex.A-4 is the Original Loan cum Hypothecation agreement dt.

5-7-2018, Ex.A-5 is the Original vehicle delivery letter dt. 5-7-2018, Ex.A- 6 is the Original seizure of vehicle and sale in public auction dt. 30-7- 2019, Ex.A-7 is the Original certificate of sale dt. 24-7-2019, Ex.A-8 is the

Original Guarantee agreement, dt. 5-7-2018, Ex.A-9 is the Original statement of account from 6-7-2018 to 17-12-2019.

O.S.No.450/2020 4 Dt: 17-08-2022

In the case on hand, as already noted, the defendants were set ex parte and could not contetst the case. Hence, the evidence of plaintiff remained unchallenged. The oral evidence of PW.1 was supported by the documentary evidence marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A9. From the unchallenged evidence adduced by the plaintiff, it is evident that the

Defendant No.1 has borrowed an amount of Rs.7,80,000/- from the plaintiff Bank. From Ex.A6 to A8. It is clear that the plaintiff bank sold the car bearing No. TS 24 BTR 5025 of defendant No.1 in an auction, dt.15-7-2019 for an amount of Rs.7,80,000/-. Specifically, from Ex.A9 statement of account, it is evident that there is an outstanding due amount of Rs.2,36,225/- by the Defendant No.1 towards the loan. With the above discussion, this Court holds that the plaintiff bank has successfully established their claim and is entitled to recover the suit claim from the defendants No.1 & 2.

6.In the result, suit is decreed with costs against the defendants No.1 & 2 for an amount of Rs.2,39,652/-, jointly and severally, with subsequent interest @ 12% P.A., from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @6% P.A., till realization.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 17th day of August, 2022)

III-ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

WARANGAL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW-1: Kalthi Krishna Murthy-None-

O.S.No.450/2020 5 Dt: 17-08-2022

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A-1:Original car loan application form dt. 4-7-2018

Ex.A-2:Original sanction letter dt. 5-7-2018

Ex.A-3:Original arrangement letter dt. 5-7-2018

Ex.A-4:Original Loan cum Hypothecation agreement dt. 5-7-2018

Ex.A-5:Original vehicle delivery letter dt. 5-7-2018

Ex.A-6:Original seizure of vehicle and sale in public auction

dt. 30-7-2019

Ex.A-7:Original certificate of sale dt. 24-7-2019

Ex.A-8:Original Guarantee agreement, dt. 5-7-2018

Ex.A-9:Original statement of account from 6-7-2018 to 17-12-2019

For Defendant:

-NIL-

III-ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

WARANGAL

O.S.No.450/2020 6 Dt: 17-08-2022

Order Record 198 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/450/2020	The State Bank of India RASMECCC Rep by Branch Manager Warangal vs Nallam Rajitha	17 Aug 2022	copy of judgment	—
CC/1669/2022	P.S. Rayaparthy vs Md. Akbar	11 Aug 2022	copy of judgment	Acquitted
PRC/59/2022	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Aerpula Ravi	10 Aug 2022	copy of order	—
OS/434/2022	Ananthula Kanakalaxmi vs The State Of Telangana District Collector Hanamkonda	04 Aug 2022	copy of order	—
CC/3104/2022	SHO WPS Subedari vs Jakkam Deep Kumar	11 Jul 2022	copy of judgment	Acquitted
CC/1671/2022	State of Telangana vs Banothu Ramesh	30 Jun 2022	copy of judgment	Acquitted
CC/1673/2022	SHO,WPS WARANGAL-R SUBEDARI vs BARIGELA PRAKASH	30 Jun 2022	copy of judgment	Acquitted
CC/1674/2022	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Srinivas	29 Jun 2022	copy of judgment	—
CC/1680/2022	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Vsmanthena Shyam Sunder	29 Jun 2022	copy of judgment	—
CC/1623/2022	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Lunavath Kishan	25 Jun 2022	copy of judgment	—
PRC/7/2022	PS HANAMKONDA vs Jannu Chinna	10 May 2022	copy of order	—
PRC/76/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA P.S HANAMKONDA vs Mohd mumtaaz	10 May 2022	copy of order	—
PRC/124/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Rasool Bhee	10 May 2022	copy of order	—
EP/405/2018	KETHIREDDY KARUNA vs MACHERLA KUMARASWAMY And 5 Others	09 May 2022	copy of order	—
EP/406/2018	ANNAM VENKATESHWAR RAO vs MACHERLA KUMARASWAMY and Others	09 May 2022	copy of order	—
EP/700436/2017	Lavanya Chit funds pvt. ltd by N. Gurucharanam vs Srinivas Marati	09 May 2022	copy of order	—
EP/700437/2017	Lavanya Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd. by N. Gurucharanam vs Srinivas Marati	09 May 2022	copy of order	—
OS/418/2020	SURAM CHANDER RAO vs PUPPALA VENKATESHWARLU	09 May 2022	copy of judgment	—
OS/950/2019	KANDULA KAMALAMMA vs TO WHOM SO EVER IT MAY CONCERN	09 May 2022	copy of judgment	—
OS/701334/2012	KUCHARLAPATI SATYANARAYANA VARMA AND 1 OTHER vs PESARU RAJU AND 1 OTHER	09 May 2022	copy of judgment	—
CC/2139/2017	Station House Officer, Hanamkonda vs Seelam Sandeep	09 May 2022	copy of judgment	—
CC/2873/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA P.S HANAMKONDA vs Md Mujahid	09 May 2022	copy of order	—
CC/400193/2016	SHO Ghanpur vs SIngapuram Venkatesh @ Yadagiri	09 May 2022	copy of judgment	—
CC/2523/2017	Station House Officer, Hanamkonda PS vs Suthari Bhanu Prakash	06 May 2022	copy of judgment	—
CC/4189/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA P.S.HANAMKONDA vs Chowdavarapu Raja Hariprasad	06 May 2022	copy of judgment	—
OS/274/2022	Canara Bank Kazipet Branch vs Bhukya Mohan	05 May 2022	copy of judgment	—
OS/700883/2016	G.Sammi Reddy vs K.Babu	05 May 2022	copy of judgment	—
CC/331/2022	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Shivarathri Eeshwar	02 May 2022	copy of order	—
CC/668/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Bandi suman	02 May 2022	copy of order	—
CC/3567/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Sunnam Kranthi Kumar	02 May 2022	copy of order	—
OS/1151/2020	Dobbala Neelima vs Sairam Logistics	29 Apr 2022	copy of judgment	—
CC/163/2022	PS HANAMKONDA vs Avula Prashanth	26 Apr 2022	copy of judgment	—
CC/400470/2016	SHO GHanpur vs Bashetti Mallaiah	26 Apr 2022	copy of judgment	—
PRC/16/2022	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Yamjala Kranthi Kumar	26 Apr 2022	copy of order	—
PRC/29/2022	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Mamatha Maredupaka	26 Apr 2022	copy of order	—
OS/298/2022	Anchuri Kiran vs V Deepak Shodhan	22 Apr 2022	copy of judgment	—
OS/441/2021	Racharla Thirupathi vs Mara Ramaswamy	22 Apr 2022	copy of judgment	—
OS/478/2020	Gundekari Rajeshwar Rao vs V. Prameela Rani	22 Apr 2022	copy of judgment	—
OS/495/2020	SADDI KAVYA REDDY vs KARUPOTHULA SARANGAPANI	22 Apr 2022	copy of judgment	—
OS/764/2015	G.SHANTI MARY, vs G.JEEVAN KUMAR	22 Apr 2022	copy of judgment	—
OS/957/2021	Vadnala Sai Prasanna Kumar vs Popular Industries	22 Apr 2022	copy of judgment	—
OS/1113/2019	KAMBOJU ASHOK vs P MADHU	22 Apr 2022	copy of judgment	—
CC/100/2022	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Jatoth Narsingh	19 Apr 2022	copy of judgment	—
CC/2887/2017	SHO, PS Ghanpur(W) vs Erukalasake Srinivasulu	19 Apr 2022	copy of judgment	—
CC/3886/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA PS HANAMKONDA vs Polasani Ravinder Reddy	19 Apr 2022	copy of judgment	—
OS/500532/2013	Poludasu Rajender vs Gandu Srinivas Goud	18 Apr 2022	copy of judgment	—
CC/973/2018	SHO PS HANAMAKONDA vs SAYYAD YAKUB	18 Apr 2022	copy of judgment	—
PRC/8/2022	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Pasula Kumar	18 Apr 2022	copy of order	—
PRC/17/2022	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Muppidi Naresh	18 Apr 2022	copy of order	—
OS/212/2021	Lingala Vimadesh kumar vs Bollepelli Laxmi	13 Apr 2022	copy of judgment	—
OS/276/2021	Aroori Yellaiah vs Akulapalli Yakaiah	13 Apr 2022	copy of judgment	—
OS/392/2022	Pegallapati Geeta vs Vadluri Cheralu	13 Apr 2022	copy of judgment	—
OS/448/2019	BANK OF INDIA, M.G. ROAD, WARANGAL vs THALLADI VENU	13 Apr 2022	copy of judgment	—
CC/2534/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA P.S HANAMKONDA vs Jannu Kumar	12 Apr 2022	copy of judgment	—
PRC/10/2022	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Garikapati Padma	12 Apr 2022	copy of order	—
PRC/14/2022	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Podishetti Pavan Kumar	12 Apr 2022	copy of order	—
CC/400937/2015	SHO Ghanpur vs Vadakam Anil	11 Apr 2022	copy of judgment	—
CC/400940/2015	SHO Ghanpur vs Kamalla Paramesh	11 Apr 2022	copy of judgment	—
PRC/15/2022	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Bollampally Anil	11 Apr 2022	copy of order	—
OS/1224/2020	Pingili Hemalatha vs Dasari Sumathi	08 Apr 2022	copy of judgment	—
OS/700866/2012	IDULAPURAM @ KAMMARI NARSIMHA CHARY AND 1 OTHER vs IDULAPURAM GANAPATHY AND 2 OTHERS	08 Apr 2022	copy of judgment	—
OS/700043/2017	S.Chandra Mouli vs T.Jeevan	07 Apr 2022	copy of judgment	—
OS/114/2018	BANDI . SANDHYA RANI vs GANGASANI . RAJENDER REDDY	06 Apr 2022	copy of judgment	—
OS/700269/2016	Nookala Ashwin Reddy vs Guduru Amarnath	06 Apr 2022	copy of judgment	—
OS/793/2017	Burra Rajan Babu vs Penukula Srinivas and another	04 Apr 2022	copy of judgment	—
CC/13/2019	STATE OF TELANGANA,SHO HANAMKONDA vs Nakka Rajender	04 Apr 2022	copy of judgment	—
OS/789/2021	ICICI BANK LIMITED vs Madishetty Sarangam	01 Apr 2022	copy of judgment	—
OS/840/2020	Adepu Sathish Kumar vs Merugu Vijaya Kumar	01 Apr 2022	copy of judgment	—
OS/972/2020	Choppari Ravinder vs Choppari @ Soppari Sarojana	01 Apr 2022	copy of judgment	—
OS/39/2019	NUKA SANDEEP KUMAR vs MARDA RAMBABU	30 Mar 2022	copy of judgment	—
OS/567/2019	BANOTHU RAJANI vs NAGISHETTI SNEHA	30 Mar 2022	copy of judgment	—
OS/1754/2021	SHARARADA VENKAT NAGESHWARA RAO JAYANTHY vs PUNJAB AND SIND BANK REP BRANCH MANAGER, HANAMKONDA	30 Mar 2022	copy of judgment	—
CC/2633/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Chibbidi Kiran	29 Mar 2022	copy of judgment	—
CC/2850/2019	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Pothuganti Srikanth	29 Mar 2022	copy of judgment	—
CC/4183/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA P.S.GHANPUR(w) vs Banna Sunil Manohar	29 Mar 2022	copy of judgment	—
PRC/104/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs MD Chandpasha	28 Mar 2022	copy of order	—
CC/400272/2017	SHO, Ghanpur (W) vs Gangarapu Sridhar	25 Mar 2022	copy of judgment	—
OS/596/2021	Bandi Manjula vs Bandela Uppallaiah	23 Mar 2022	copy of judgment	—
OS/175/2020	MAMIDALA UMA DEVI vs MANCHANA RAJANNA	21 Mar 2022	copy of judgment	—
OS/749/2019	KUMBOJU SUDHAKAR vs PITTA SHIVASHANKAR	21 Mar 2022	copy of judgment	—
CC/10/2019	STATE OF TELANGANA, SHO HANAMKONDA vs Bandi Krishna Kishore	21 Mar 2022	copy of judgment	—
CC/12/2019	STATE OF TELANGANA, SHO HANAMKONDA vs Chindurala Rajanna	21 Mar 2022	copy of judgment	—
CC/1096/2018	SHO PS GHANPUR vs GUMMIDELLI ANJANEYULU	21 Mar 2022	copy of judgment	—
CC/2808/2019	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Pallapu Sailu	17 Mar 2022	copy of judgment	—
CC/3879/2019	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Vsjilla akhil	15 Mar 2022	copy of judgment	—
OS/40/2021	Nafij Begum vs The Secretary Land Revenue Government Of Telangana	14 Mar 2022	copy of judgment	—
OS/219/2021	Vallala Ravinder vs Padala Yellaswamy	14 Mar 2022	copy of judgment	—
OS/447/2021	Racharla Thirupathi vs Mara Ramaswamy	14 Mar 2022	copy of judgment	—
OS/701/2019	NADIPELLY DEVENDAR RAO vs AVIRNENI LAXMAN RAO	14 Mar 2022	copy of judgment	—
CC/752/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA, PS Ghanpuur vs Abbasailu Motam	14 Mar 2022	copy of judgment	—
CC/3011/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA, P.S. Hanamkonda vs Nune Murali Krishna	14 Mar 2022	copy of judgment	—
OS/284/2021	Jallampally Rohith vs Baske Thirupathi	04 Mar 2022	copy of judgment	—
OS/700120/2014	KATLA BHANDRAIAH vs KOLA ANAND ALIAS ANANDAM	02 Mar 2022	copy of judgment	—
CC/622/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA, ,Hanamkonda vs Ittaboina Kiran	02 Mar 2022	copy of judgment	—
CC/3340/2019	THAMMISHETTY VINAY KUMAR vs AITHA SHIVARAM	25 Feb 2022	copy of judgment	—
CC/3343/2019	THAMMISHETTY VINAY KUMAR vs BACHU MANIKANTAM @ MANIKANTAM @ MANIKANTA	25 Feb 2022	copy of judgment	—
CC/3344/2019	THAMMISHETTY VINAY KUMAR vs SHAGA VIJAY KUMAR	25 Feb 2022	copy of judgment	—
CC/3401/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Errabothula Sunil	25 Feb 2022	copy of judgment	—
CC/3539/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Errabothula Sunil	25 Feb 2022	copy of judgment	—
STC.NI/128/2021	MOHAMMAD ABDUL KHADAR vs SMT. KASARLA SUDHA RANI	23 Feb 2022	copy of judgment	—

Showing 100 of 198 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Aug 2022		4
Jul 2022		1
Jun 2022		6
May 2022		20
Apr 2022		39
Mar 2022		25
Feb 2022		18
Jan 2022		42
Dec 2021		30
Nov 2021		21
Oct 2021		1

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has SMT. G.SABITHA handled?

SMT. G.SABITHA has handled 207 court orders since 2021 at Warangal, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 20 orders per month.

What types of cases does SMT. G.SABITHA hear?

Based on available records, SMT. G.SABITHA primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Summary Trial Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Warangal, PDJ Court Complex.

Where is SMT. G.SABITHA currently posted?

SMT. G.SABITHA is posted as III Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal at Warangal, PDJ Court Complex, Warangal, Telangana.

Are judgments by SMT. G.SABITHA available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by SMT. G.SABITHA are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does SMT. G.SABITHA dispose cases?

SMT. G.SABITHA disposes approximately 20 cases per month, based on 207 orders handled over their tenure at Warangal, PDJ Court Complex.

Since when is SMT. G.SABITHA serving?

SMT. G.SABITHA has been serving at Warangal, PDJ Court Complex since 2021.

Case Types

CC 57%

OS 30%

PRC 11%

EP 2%

STC 0%

Posting History

Oct 2021 — Aug 2022

III Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal · 207 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 4

Other Judges at this Court

Smt. V.B. Nirmala Geethamba

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Warangal

405 orders

Smt M.padmaja

II Addl. District and Sessions Judge,Warangal

0 orders

Smt J.Maithreyi

I Addl District and Sessions Judge, Warangal

0 orders

Smt. Kshama Deshpande

Spl. Sessions Judge of FTC for POCSO Cases, Warang...

14 orders

Smt. K. Pooja

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal

161 orders

Ms. Ritika Nandikonda

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- I Addl. Judicial M...

64 orders

Ms. Boyidi Valli Venkata Chandraprasanna

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- II Addl. Judicial...

0 orders

Ms. Elluturi Harika

III Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- III Addl. Judici...

135 orders

Smt. Raj Nidhi

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial...

191 orders

Sri A.Pradeep

Senior Civil Judge-cum- Assistant Sessions Judge,...

331 orders

← View all judges at Warangal, PDJ Court Complex