Sri G.Sreenivasa Reddy

C.C.No.19/2022IV Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate Court, Page 1 of 10 Judgment, dt.17.03.2025Rajamahendravaram

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS:

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT: G.SREENIVASA REDDY

V ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

(FAC) IV ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

MONDAY, THIS THE 17 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

C.C.No.19/2022

Between:

The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Disha Women Police Station, Rajamahendravaram.

….. Complainant

AND

1) Surisetti Srinivasa Rao, S/o Dalaraju, Age 48 years, D.No.10-3-17, Veera Raghavapuram, Samalkota, E.G.District. (Abated as died)

2) Surisetti Venkata Lakshmi, W/o Dalaraju, Age 65 years, D.No.10-3-17, Veera Raghavapuram, Samalkota, E.G.District.

3) Surisetti Prasada Rao, S/o Dalaraju, Age 41 years, Veera Raghavapuram, Samalkota Mandal, E.G.District. …Accused Nos.1 to 3 This calendar case is coming on 11.03.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for Complainant/State and of Sri S.Kumar,Advocate for A2 and A3, case against A1 is abated as he died and upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the entire material on record and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Disha Women Police Station,

Rajamahendravaram laid charge sheet against the accused in Crime

No.148/2021 for the offences which are punishable U/Sec.498-A r/w 34 Indian

Penal Code and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short ‘IPC’).

2.The case of the prosecution in brief as follows:

The accused are residents of Veera Raghavapuram Village,

Samalkota Mandal, A1 is the son of A2, A3 is the brother of A1 and younger

C.C.No.19/2022IV Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate Court, Page 2 of 10 Judgment, dt.17.03.2025Rajamahendravaram son of A2, A2 carries business, all the accused are avaricious characters hav- ing no respect for law and order, PW1 is the defacto complainant and victim of this case, she is legally wedded wife of A1, she speaks about the harassment of A1 to A3 towards her for dowry and corroborates the contents of FIR etc facts, the scene of offence is situated at Aryapuram, Rajamahendravaram and subsequently at Veera Raghavapuram Village, Samalkota Mandal which lies within the territorial jurisdiction of this court and within the limits of Disha

Women P.S., Rajamahendravaram, PW1 is now residing in D.no.12-22-46, at

Aryapuram, near Andhra Bank, Rajamahendravaram, they are three children to her parents PW2 and LW4/Sarala, PW1, her elder brother and younger sis- ter are the off spring to her parents, the accused No.1 is the resident of Veer- araghavapuram village, Samlkota Mandal, he runs a company that makes yarn to stitch clothes, the marriage of PW1 was performed with A1 who is the son of

Surisetti Dala Raju and the accused No.2 of Samalkota, at Medical Association

Kalyana Mandapam, Krishna Nagar, Rajamahendravaram on 15.06.2006 in the presence of near and dear as per the Hindu communal rites, at the time of marriage, her father gifted two house sites situated at Diwancheruvu and

Katheru villages jointly in the name of PW1 and her husband A1 as a matter of dowry as demanded by A1, besides the above, her father paid Rs.1,00,000/- towards marriage expenses and Rs.1,00,000/- towards adapadachu lan- chanam and also gave a gold ring of one tula and chain weighing about two tu- las to her husband, after consummation marriage, PW1 was sent to her in- laws house to lead conjugal life with her husband, PW1 led marital life with her husband in the joint family of her in-laws house for about three years, where she along with her husband, parents-in-law and brother-in-law Prasada Rao have resided together, her father-in-law died in June, 2021, when PW1 was liv- ing together with her in-laws, her husband and mother-in-law (A1 and A2) used to harass PW1 with their pointy words stating that PW1 was a barren woman and as such, no issues were born out to her so far, her brother-in-law A3 used

C.C.No.19/2022IV Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate Court, Page 3 of 10 Judgment, dt.17.03.2025Rajamahendravaram to harass PW1 and suspected her to be responsible for missing of his articles and money in the house, her brother-in-law and mother-in-law (A2 and A3) used to harass PW1 by attributing thefts on her stating that she is sending money to her maternal house secretly, when PW1 informed their harassment to her husband, he paid deaf ear stating that the circumstances will be like that in his house and they will repeat the same to her and she will not suppose to question them even if they do anything harm to her, so saying, her husband used to beat PW1 after consuming liquor, her mother-in-law used to throw plates against her face on the plea that the food prepared by PW1 is not tasty, her husband used to beat PW1 without assigning any reason, as PW1 did not beget any children even after 3 years from her marriage and this is being asked by all the relatives in the village and due to disputes among spouses, her father-in-law set up separate kapuram of PW1 with her husband in a rented house situated in the next street to her in-laws house, after setting out separate kapuram, her husband treated her well for few days, later, PW1 got pregnancy, she lost her menstruation and she informed the same to her hus- band but he did not take her to hospital for medical checkup except giving some tablets to her for strength, her husband refused to have children and asked her to get aborted her pregnancy, PW1 questioned her husband that all the people looked down her as she did not beget any children and now, she got pregnancy at last, but now he opposed to carry that pregnancy and what is the reason for it, her husband asked her to get her pregnancy aborted and that they can adopt a child, PW1 did not agree for abortion, on that her husband brought her mother-in-law to house and they both beat PW1, she got bleeding from ear, though they observed bleeding, either her husband or her mother-in- law did not take her to hospital for treatment, by that time, PW1 was 5th month pregnant, when she informed the matter to her parents, they came and took her to hospital in Rajahmundry and provided treatment, her parents took her to

Siri Hospital, Danavaipeta for checkup, the doctor examined PW1 and con-

C.C.No.19/2022IV Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate Court, Page 4 of 10 Judgment, dt.17.03.2025Rajamahendravaram firmed that she is a patient of HIV+, her husband was called upon to the hospi- tal to enquire as to how the disease was transmitted to PW1, but her husband refused to come to hospital, upon repeated requests, her husband finally vis- ited the hospital, the doctor questioned her husband about HIV disease, at last, her husband admitted that he is having HIV disease very prior to his mar- riage and he uses medicines for it, then she questioned her husband about his misdeed and her husband asked her to leave that topic and threatened that he will die if she disclosed the matter to her parents, later PW1 made a call to A3 her brother-in-law and asked him to come down to Rajahmundry, her brother in law came over to Rajahmundry, she informed the matter to him, he said that past is over and if this matter is revealed, their family reputation in the village will be damaged and asked her to keep quiet and he ensured that hereinafter they will not abuse or assault her and he will talk to his family members and went away, thereafter, her husband came to PW1 and took her to kapuram,

PW1 got delivery and begot twin babies, her husband came to see her only af- ter delivery, later, he did not come to see her or her children, he not even made cells to her, when PW1 rang up to him, he did not answer her calls, when her infant babies were in 5 months old, her parents dropped her with kids at her husband since then, there were frequent disputes and her husband not even brought milk to feed her children, her husband did not provide her proper food, daily her husband used to come home after consuming liquor heavily and pass urine in the house itself in drunken state, when PW1 ques- tioned him as to why he was doing like that, he replied that as she delivered twin girls, she did not like it, her mother in law used to abuse her as to why she got birth control operation and she would have to deliver a boy children, PW1 informed to her brother-in-law about the behavior of her husband and ques- tioned him about the deviation of terms in the assurance given by him earlier, her brother-in-law said that on what way he is concerned for her conjugal lie, then PW1 informed the behavior of her husband to her parents who in turn

C.C.No.19/2022IV Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate Court, Page 5 of 10 Judgment, dt.17.03.2025Rajamahendravaram questioned her husband about his atrocious behavior, her husband replied that he will do as per the tunes of his mother and if they have any objections, they have to ask his mother, her parents called upon the mother in law of PW1 and asked her about the intolerable behavior of her husband, she too replied as to what was wrong in it and she already knew that her husband is a HIV patient prior to her marriage and challenged them to do whatsoever they liked and her son will drink and enjoy.

In the ilk of above disputes, PW1 used to come back to her maternal house and later her husband used to take her back to kapuram, while this was happened repeatedly, her husband and mother-in-law demanded PW1 to bring money from her maternal house or else, sell away her two house sites and bring that sale proceeds as a matter of additional dowry, as she gave birth to twin girls, her husband and mother in law abused PW1 in unpalatable lan- guage and beat her, LW9 Nukulla Narasimha Murthy junior paternal uncle of

PW1 went to accused and questioned them about their behavior towards

PW1, but the accused did not heed his words and asked him to take PW1 to her maternal home, as pW1 did not attend their domestic works properly.

Again PW came back to her maternal house along with her children be- tween November and December, later, the elders i.e., her junior and senior pa- ternal uncles Sappa Adinarayana and Alji Venkata Raju, her parents and elder brother Prasad went to her matrimonial house to negotiate with accused, brother-in-laws told that they are providing de-addiction treatment of A1 and they would take PW1 back to their house after 3 months, even after lapse of promising time, they did not take PW1 back to Kapuram and not even replied, as there was no other go, PW1 filed a DVC case against her husband and in laws in 2016 and MC case in 2017, when her husband and mother in law at- tended the court, they both abused PW1 so atrociously causing mental agony to her, they not even communicated a message about the death of her father in law, however, PW1 could know the demise of her father in law and went to

C.C.No.19/2022IV Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate Court, Page 6 of 10 Judgment, dt.17.03.2025Rajamahendravaram her matrimonial house on the 3rd day to express her condolence, but her hus- band and mother in law abused PW1 as to why PW1 visited their house and asked her to get out of their house.

Later, her brother-in-law visited PW1 to attend 19th day ceremony of her father in law, then PW1 along with her elder brother went to her matrimonial house, PW1 requested her mother in law to allow her to stay in their house at least for two days, but her mother in law did not agree and asked her to go out stating that she would perform another marriage to her son, her brother ques- tioned A2 as to why she said like that, then A3 her brother in law also shouted at PW1 and beat her stating that if she stayed in their house, her disease will spread over to all of them, PW1 fallen down, her mother in law abused PW1 in filthy language and slapped her attributing that her husband died due to her ill fate, later, her elder brother brought PW1 back to her maternal home from her in laws house.

On the next day, her brother in law made a call to PW1 and requested

PW1 to ignore that what had happened earlier and promised that they will rec- oncile the disputes in the presence of elders, but A3 failed to keep up his promise and there was no response from him, she waited for their response till today, but of no use, as such, PW1 complained the matter at Disha Women

Police Station for taking necessary lawful action against her husband, mother- in-law and brother-in-law.

On 25.08.2021 from 10:00 A.M to 11:00 A.M, LW10 M.V.Revathi, Sub-In- spector of Police, Disha Women P.S., Rajamahendravaram has recorded the statement of PW1 regarding the occurrence of offence, basing on her state- ment, LW10 has registered the same as FIR in Cr.No.148/2021 for the offence under Sec.498-A r/w 34 IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 of Disha Women PS., Rajamahendravaram on 25.08.2021 at 11:00 A.M and too up investigation, before registration of this case, necessary counseling was arranged to PW1 and A1 to reconcile their disputes and to reunite them keep-

C.C.No.19/2022IV Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate Court, Page 7 of 10 Judgment, dt.17.03.2025Rajamahendravaram ing in view of their future matrimonial life, but the efforts made to reunite the couple have become futile, during the course of investigation, LW10 examined

PW1 and recorded her detailed statement, at the time of examination, LW10 collected the copies of necessary documents from PW1 for the purpose of evi- dence to prove the marriage between PW1 and A1 i.e., Aadhaar of com- plainant, wedding invitation card, marriage photos of PW1 and A1, marriage

CD, LW13 visited the scenes of offence, observed the same and prepared rough sketches of the scenes of offence, LW13 further examined LWs.2 to 9 and recorded their detailed statements, during the course of further investiga- tion, on 30.08.2021, A1 was served with notice under Sec.41-A Cr.P.C and ob- tained undertaking from him on 01.09.2021, on 07.09.2021, A2 and A3 were served with a notice under Sec.41-A Cr.P.C and obtained undertakings from them on 09.09.2021 and after completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence under Sec.498-A r/w 34 IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Hence the charge sheet.

3.On the basis of the charge sheet allegations and on perusal of other material which is available on record, this Court has taken cognizance of the offence under Sec.498-A r/w 34 IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibi- tion Act, 1961 against accused Nos.1 to 3.

4.On appearance of accused Nos.1 to 3, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C, accused Nos.1 to 3 were examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C and they denied the commission of offence. The charges for the offence punishable U/Sec.498-A IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act were framed, read over and explained to the accused Nos.1 to 3 in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

C.C.No.19/2022IV Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate Court, Page 8 of 10 Judgment, dt.17.03.2025Rajamahendravaram

5.During the pendency of the case, the case against accused No.1 abated on 05.03.2025 as he died. Hence the case remained against accused

Nos.2 and 3 only.

6.During trial, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P3 on behalf of prosecution. Since there was no incriminating evidence against the accused and both PW1 and PW2 did not stand by the version of the prosecution, the examination of the accused Nos.2 and 3 under Sec.313

Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

6.Heard the arguments of learned APP and learned counsel appearing for accused Nos.2 and 3. Perused the material on record.

7. The point for determination are:- “Whether the prosecution is successful in bringing home the guilt of accused Nos.2 and 3 for the offences punishable under Sec.498-A IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt or not?”

8.POINT :

PW1 is first informant and victim according to the version of prosecution. PW1 did not support the version of the prosecution against the accused Nos.2 and 3. PW2 who is father of PW1 did not support the case of prosecution from the witness box. PWs.1 and 2 turned hostile and during cross-examination, nothing was elicited from the mouth of PW1 and PW2 in support of the version of the prosecution. There is no other evidence on behalf of the prosecution to establish the case of the prosecution. When there is no evidence which substantiates the version of the prosecution, there is no other option except to disbelieve the version of the prosecution against the accused.

As such, the Court is of the view that the guilt of the accused is not established by prosecution, the accused is inevitably entitled for clear acquittal in this case and therefore, the point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

C.C.No.19/2022IV Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate Court, Page 9 of 10 Judgment, dt.17.03.2025Rajamahendravaram

9.IN THE RESULT, the accused Nos.2 and 3 are found not guilty for the offences which are punishable U/Sec.498-A IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly, accused Nos.2 and 3 are acquitted

U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C for the offence punishable U/Sec.498-A IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The bail bonds of the accused Nos.2 and 3, if any, shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as contemplated under Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. Case against A1 is abated on 05-03-2025 as he died.

Typed to my dictation Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 17th day of March, 2025. f Sd/- G. SREENIVASA RAO SA REDDY.

V ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

(FAC) IV ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1Dt.11.03.2025:Suryasetti Veera Venkata Nooka Durga Siva Jalavathi. PW2Dt.11.03.2025:Sappa Veerabhadra Rao. FOR DEFENCE: NONE

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1:Dt.25.08.2021:Signature of PW1 on the statement. Ex.P2:Dt.25.08.2021:Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1. Ex.P3:Dt.25.08.2021:Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE:NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: NIL

Sd Sd/- G. SREENIVASA RAO S-G.SREREDDY.

V ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

(FAC) IV ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

C.C.No.19/2022IV Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate Court, Page 10 of 10 Judgment, dt.17.03.2025Rajamahendravaram

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS:

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

C.C.No.19/2022

01. Date of offence: Prior to 25.08.2021

02. Date of Complaint : 25.08.2021

03. Date of Apprehension of accused: 30.08.2021(A1) 41-A Cr.P.C) 07.09.2021 A2 and A3 (41-Cr.P.C)

04. Release on bail: 01.09.2021-A1,09.09.2021-A2, A3

05. Commencement of trial: 11.03.2025

06. Closure of trial: 11.03.2025

07. Date of Judgment : 17.03.2025

08. Name of the complainant: The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Disha Women Police Station, Rajamahendravaram.

9.Name of the accused :

1) Surisetti Srinivasa Rao, S/o Dalaraju, Age 48 years, D.No.10-3-17, Veera Raghavapuram, Samalkota, E.G.District. (Abated as died)

2) Surisetti Venkata Lakshmi, W/o Dalaraju, Age 65 years, D.No.10-3-17, Veera Raghavapuram, Samalkota, E.G.District.

3) Surisetti Prasada Rao, S/o Dalaraju, Age 41 years, Veera Raghavapuram, Samalkota Mandal, E.G.District.

10. Offence: U/Sec.498-A IPC, 3 and 4 of DP Act.

11. Plea of the accused: Not guilty

12. Finding: Not Guilty

13. Sentence: The accused Nos.2 and 3 are found not guilty for the offences which are punishable U/Sec.498-A IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly, accused Nos.2 and 3 are acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C for the offence punishable U/Sec.498-A IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The bail bonds of the accused Nos.2 and 3, if any, shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as contemplated under Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. Case against A1 is abated on 05-03-2025 as he died.

14. Reasons for delay :NIL

Sd/- G. SREENIVASA RAO S/-G.SREENIDDY

V ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

(FAC) IV ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Copy submitted to: The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

C.C.No.1622/2021IV Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate Court, Page 1 of 8 Judgment, dt.11.03.2025Rajamahendravaram

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS:

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT: G.SREENIVASA REDDY

V ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

(FAC) IV ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

TUESDAY, THIS THE 11 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

C.C.No.1622/2021

Between:

The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Disha Women Police Station, Rajamahendravaram.

….. Complainant

AND

1) Palacherla Chaitanya Tej, S/o Srikrishna Bhaskara Rao, Age 30 years, D.No.72-14-9/8, Flat No.303, Chandrika Manikya Apartments, Baba Nagar, A.V. Apparao Road, Rajamahendravaram.

2) Palacherla Aruna Devi, W/o Srikrishna Bhaskara Rao, Age 49 years, D.No.72-14-9/8, Flat No.303, Chandrika Manikya Apartments, Baba Nagar, A.V. Apparao Road, Rajamahendravaram. (DIED) (Case against accused no.2 was abated on 12.12.2024) …Accused Nos.1 and 2 This calendar case is coming on 05.03.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for Complainant/State and of Sri S.Kumar,Advocate for accused, upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the entire material on record and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Disha Women Police Station,

Rajamahendravaram laid charge sheet against the accused in Crime

No.9/2021 for the offences which are punishable U/Sec.498-A r/w 34 Indian

Penal Code and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short ‘IPC’).

2.The case of the prosecution in brief as follows:

The accused Nos.1 and 2 are the residents of D.No.72-14-9/8,

Flat No.303, Chandrika Manikya Apartments, Baba Nagar, A.V. Apparao Road,

C.C.No.1622/2021IV Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate Court, Page 2 of 8 Judgment, dt.11.03.2025Rajamahendravaram

Rajamahendravaram, the accused No.2 is the mother of accused No.1, PW1 is the defacto complainant and victim in this case and she is the resident of

D.No.4-7/9, near Coca Cola Factory, Devi Janardhan Nagar, Vemagiri Village,

Kadiyam Mandal, the offence took place at Devi Janardhan Nagar, Vemagiri

Village, Kadiyam Mandal and at Flat No.303, Chandrika Manikya Heights,

Baba Nagar, A.G. Apparao Road, Rajamahendravaram which is the maternal house, which lies within the jurisdiction of the court and within the limits of

Disha Women Police Station, Rajamahendravaram, PW1 is only one daughter of PW2, now she is studying CA final year at Master Minds, Rajamahen- dravaram, LW6/Pasala Srinivasa Rao brought the marriage alliance of ac- cused No.1 to PW1, after completion of marriage sights, talks and other for- malities, the marriage of PW1 was performed with the accused No.1 at B.R.K

Function Hall, Rajamahendravaram as per Hindu Customs and rites grandly on 27.02.2020, during the time of marriage talks, on the demand of accused

No.1,2, PW2 gave Rs.15,00,000/- dowry including Rs.5,00,000/- adapadachu lanchanams, PW2 gave Rs.10,00,000/- dowry at the house of accused Nos.1 and 2 in the presence of elder Rimmalapudi Sri Rama Krishna towards ada- padachu lanchanams, during the time of engagement of PW2 gave the re- maining amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, further presented gold ornaments to A1, af- ter the marriage, PW1 went to the house of A1 to lead marital life, where PW1,

A1 and A2 are resided in the common flat where they looked after PW1 well for some days, later A2 used to start harass that PW1 did not know any work , neatness, has no manners and also harassed with their fallacious words on every small issues.

PW2 invited PW1 and A1 to his house for Ugadi Festival, A2 asked PW1 to bring her gold ornaments when she returning to there, after completion of

Ugadi Festival, PW1 brought her gold ornaments, A1 kept the gold ornaments of PW1 at their bank locker, after some days, PW1 was suffering from skin in- fection, on the advice of the doctors, PW1 used ointment, infection was sub-

C.C.No.1622/2021IV Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate Court, Page 3 of 8 Judgment, dt.11.03.2025Rajamahendravaram sided within 2 weeks, when PW1 was suffering from skin infection, A2 not to allow PW1 for touching anything not provided sufficient food and not to allow her clothes in the washing machine, further A2 harassed PW1 to register 4 acres of land which was promised to give by pW2 in the name of PW1, PW1 came to the house of PW2 in view of Aashada masam, after arrival to the house of PW2, PW2 phoned to A1, but he did not lift it so many times, further

PW1 attended an interview and selected accountant post at MCV Bajaj Com- pany, tried to inform the same to A1 over phone, but he did not lift it, after two days he lifted the phone, PW1 informed that she attended an interview and se- lected, A1 disputed with PW1 for not taking his permission, phoned to PW2 and admonished, after arrival of Sravana Maasam, so many times, PWs.1 and 2 tried to contact A1 and A2 over phone, but they did not lift the phone.

Then, PWs.1 and 2 informed the same to their marriage elder LW7 Rim- malapudi Sri Rama Krishna over phone, the elder talked with A1 and A2, then he arranged a meeting at Velagathodu village, Mandapet Mandal, on 27.07.2020 A1 and A2 and also PWs.1 an 2 attended the meeting at Velagath- odu Village in the presence of LW7 Rimmalapudi Sri Rama Krishna and an- other elder LW8 Edala Veera Swamy, by that time both parties exchanged their problems, the elders advised both the parties, further the elders advised A1 to put separate family, but A1 denied the same and he has no interest on PW1,

A2 also told that there is no enjoyment of A1 with PW1, finally A2 demanded to write four acres of land in the name of PW1, then they will allow PW1 to lead family life, on 15th August, A1 talked with PW1 over phone informed that he would put separate family with a condition that her parents should not come to there, by that time PW1 to put the matter before both sides of parents and el- ders then to lead family life, PW1 informed the same to their marriage elder

LW7 Rimmalapudi Sri Rama Krishna over phone.

The elder told PW1 to ask A1 to tell when and where the meeting, in- formed to A1 he told the meeting will be held in the month of September, 2020,

C.C.No.1622/2021IV Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate Court, Page 4 of 8 Judgment, dt.11.03.2025Rajamahendravaram but A1 sent divorce notice to PW1, when the discussions were going on,

PW1’s cousin brother LW9 Chundru Harinarayana of Bangalore phoned to

PW1 and asked her skin infection, later PW1 came to know that A1 informed her skin infection to him, on the request of PW1, the elder LW7 Sri Rama

Krishna phoned to A2 to know the facts, A2 told with him that they have not ad- juse with her and A1 is fed up with PW1, on 08.10.2020 PW1 gave reply to A1 on divorce notice since there is no reply from him, as there is no other go,

PW1 gave a complaint against the accused Nos.1 and 2 at Disha Women P.S,

Rajamahendravaram for taking necessary action.

On 30.01.2021 at 06:00 P.M, LW10/MV Revathi, SI of police, Disha

Women PS registered the complaint of PW1 as a case in Cr.No.9/2021 for the offence under Sec.498-A r/w 34 IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibi- tion Act, 1961 of Disha Women P.S., Rajamahendravaram and investigated into, during the course of investigation, LW10 has visited the scene of offence at Devi Janardhan Nagar, Vemagiri Village, Kadiyam Mandal and at Flat

No.303, Chandrika Manikya Heights, Baba Nagar, A.V. Apparao Road, Ra- jamahendravaram, examined the same and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence and also examined as many as 9 witnesses, including, PW1, her father, neighbours and other independent witnesses under Sec.161 Cr.P.C and recorded their detailed statements in Part-II of case diary, during the course of investigation, LW10 has obtained marriage photos with CD, wedding invitation of PW1 and A1, gold purchasing bills, divorce notice and reply to di- vorce notice, copy of Aadhaar card from PW1 for the purpose of investigation, during the course of investigation, LW10 served the notice under Sec.41-A

Cr.P.C to A1 on 04.02.2021 and obtained undertaking from him on 06.02.2021,

LW10 obtained permission to file charge sheet against A2 including A1 from the Superintendent of Police, Urban Police District, Rajamahendravaram vide proceedings in C No.346/DCRB-SI/2021, dated 22.05.2021, later LW10 served the notice under Sec.41-A Cr.P.C to A2 on 25.05.2021 and obtained undertak-

C.C.No.1622/2021IV Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate Court, Page 5 of 8 Judgment, dt.11.03.2025Rajamahendravaram ing from them on 27.05.2021, after completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence under

Sec.498-A r/w 34 IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,1961. Hence the charge sheet.

3.On the basis of the charge sheet allegations and on perusal of other material which is available on record, this Court has taken cognizance of the offence under Sec.498-A r/w 34 IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibi- tion Act, 1961 against accused Nos.1 and 2.

4.On appearance of accused Nos.1 and 2, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C, accused

Nos.1 and 2 were examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C and they denied the commission of offence. The charges for the offence punishable U/Sec.498-A

IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act were framed, read over and explained to the accused Nos.1 and 2 in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the pendency of the case, the case against accused No.2 was abated on 12.12.2024. Hence the case remained against accused No.1 only.

6.During trial, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P3 on behalf of prosecution. Since there was no incriminating evidence against the accused and both PW1 and PW2 did not stand by the version of the prosecution, the examination of the accused No.2 under Sec.313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

6.Heard the arguments of learned APP and learned counsel appearing for accused No.2. Perused the material on record.

7.The point for determination are:- “Whether the prosecution is successful in bringing home the guilt of accused No.2 for the offences punishable under Sec.498- A IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt or not?”

C.C.No.1622/2021IV Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate Court, Page 6 of 8 Judgment, dt.11.03.2025Rajamahendravaram

8.POINT :

PW1 is first informant and victim according to the version of prosecution. PW1 did not support the version of the prosecution against the accused Nos.1 and 2. PW. 2 who is father of PW1 did not support the case of prosecution from the witness box. PWs.1 and 2 turned hostile and during cross-examination, nothing was elicited from the mouth of PW1 and PW2 in support of the version of the prosecution. There is no other evidence on behalf of the prosecution to establish the case of the prosecution. When there is no evidence which substantiates the version of the prosecution, there is no other option except to disbelieve the version of the prosecution against the accused.

As such, the Court is of the view that the guilt of the accused is not established by prosecution, the accused is inevitably entitled for clear acquittal in this case and therefore, the point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

9.IN THE RESULT, the accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offences which are punishable U/Sec.498-A IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act. Accordingly, accused No.1 is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C for the offence punishable U/Sec.498-A IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act. The bail bonds of the accused No.1, if any, shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as contemplated under

Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 11th day of March, 2025.

Sd/-G.SREENIVASA REDDY.

V ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

(FAC) IV ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

C.C.No.1622/2021IV Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate Court, Page 7 of 8 Judgment, dt.11.03.2025Rajamahendravaram

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1Dt.05.03.2025:Palacherla Anvesha PW2Dt.05.03.2025:Maddipati Venkata Rao. FOR DEFENCE: NONE

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1:Dt.30.01.2021:Signature of PW1 on the report. Ex.P2:Dt.30.01.2021:Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1. Ex.P3:Dt.30.01.2021:Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE:NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: NIL

Sd/-G.SREENIVASA REDDY.

V ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

(FAC) IV ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

C.C.No.1622/2021IV Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate Court, Page 8 of 8 Judgment, dt.11.03.2025Rajamahendravaram

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS:

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

C.C.No.1622/2021

01. Date of offence: Prior to 30.01.2021

02. Date of Complaint : 30.01.2021

03. Date of Apprehension of accused: 04.02.2021(A1 - 41-A Cr.P.C)

04. Release on bail:41-A Cr.P.C

05. Commencement of trial: 05.03.2025

06. Closure of trial: 05.03.2025

07. Date of Judgment : 11.03.2025

08. Name of the complainant:

The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Disha Women Police Station, Rajamahendravaram.

9.Name of the accused :

1. Palacherla Chaitanya Tej, S/o Srikrishna Bhaskara Rao, Age 30 years, D.No.72-14-9/8, Flat No.303, Chandrika Manikya Apartments, Baba Nagar, A.V. Apparao Road, Rajamahendravaram.

2. Palacherla Aruna Devi, W/o Srikrishna Bhaskara Rao, Age 49 years, D.No.72-14-9/8, Flat No.303, Chandrika Manikya Apartments, Baba Nagar, A.V. Apparao Road, Rajamahendravaram. (DIED)

10. Offence: U/Sec.498-A IPC, 3 and 4 of DP Act.

11. Plea of the accused: Not guilty

12. Finding: Not Guilty

13. Sentence: The accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offences which are punishable U/Sec.498-A IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly, accused No.1 is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C for the offence punishable U/Sec.498-A IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as contemplated under Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

14. Reasons for delay :NIL

Sd/-G.SREENIVASA REDDY

V ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

(FAC) IV ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Copy submitted to: The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

IV Addl.Junior Civil Judge’s

O.S.No.819/2021

Page 1Court, Judgment, dt.23.10.2024 Rajamahendravaram

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

PRESENT: SRI G. SREENIVASA REDDY,

V ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

(FAC)IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 23 RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

ORIGINAL SUIT No.819 OF 2021

Between:

Nallamilli Nageswararao S/o Sarveswararao Hindu, Age:50 years, Business, Karra Bommala Street, Mangalavarupeta, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District. …Plaintiff

and

1) Arepu Karuna Priya, W/o late Rajendra Prasad, Aged 50 years, House Wife, D.No.8-23-9, Putchalavari Street, Vullithota vari street, Rajamahendravaram

2) Arepu Sunil Datta, S/o late Rajendra Prasad, Aged 25 years, D.No.8-23-9, Putchalavari Street, Vullithota vari street, Rajamahendravaram.

3) Arepu Phani Datta, S/o late Rajendra Prasad, Aged 23 years,D.No.8-23-9,Puchalavari street, Vullithota Veedhi, Rajamahendravaram.…Defendants 1 to 3

This suit having come on 3.10.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.S.S.Murali Mohan, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 3 remained ex-parte, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

: J U D G M E N T :

1.This is the suit by the plaintiff and against the defendants 1 to 3 and against the estate of late Arepu Rajendra Prasad in the hands of defendant

Nos.1 to 3 for recovery of an amount of Rs.13,60,000/- being the principal and interest due under promissory note dated 15-12-2018 together with subsequent interest and costs of the suit.

IV Addl.Junior Civil Judge’s

O.S.No.819/2021

Page 2Court, Judgment, dt.23.10.2024 Rajamahendravaram

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

One Arepu Rajendra Prasad is husband of 1st defendant and father of defendants 2 and 3, the said Rajendra Prasad borrowed an amount of

Rs.8,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 15.12.2018 and executed eight promissory notes for Rs.1,00,000/- each on the same day in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the plaintiff or his order the said amount together with interest @ 24% per annum, the said Rajendra Prasad borrowed the amounts for his joint family expenses as well as the business needs executing promissory notes to repay the debts within one year from the date of borrowing of debts, the plaintiff and the said Rajendra Prasad are friends, the said Rajendra Prasad failed to pay any amount to the plaintiff inspite of repeated demands of the plaintiff, all the times the said Rajendra Prasad made promises for discharging the amount borrowed together with interest, but he never kept up the promises, at the request of

Rajendra Prasad, the plaintiff’s son by name N.Aruna Revanth also lent an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- under seven promissory notes for Rs.1,00,000/- each with the same terms and conditions regarding interest and etc., the plaintiff’s son is taking legal steps for his amount due from the defendants, the said Rajendra

Prasad died in 2020 due to covid pandemic without discharging the amount due to the plaintiff and also to the son of the plaintiff leaving behind the defendants as his legal heirs, the estate of late Rajendra Prasad devolved upon the defendants, the plaintiff approached the 1st defendant for repayment of debt many times after the death of Rajendra Prasad, the plaintiff issued legal notice on 24.06.2021 to all the defendants for discharge of the amount due but the defendants got the notices returned with false endorsements as “no such address”, the plaintiff has also come to know that the defendant is making efforts to sell away the property with dishonoest intention to defeat the plaintiff’s claim, the defendant are not agriculturist and are not entitled for the benefits of debt relief Acts and hence the suit.

3.The suit docket reveals that the defendant was set ex-parte on 08.04.2024 as the defendants failed to appear the court inspite of substituted service of summons through paper publication.

IV Addl.Junior Civil Judge’s

O.S.No.819/2021

Page 3Court, Judgment, dt.23.10.2024 Rajamahendravaram

4.To substantiate the claim of plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and another witness as PW2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A10 on his behalf.

5.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount as

prayed for?”

6.POINT :

PW1 in his evidence affidavit deposed supporting the averments in the plaint. Exs.A1 to A8 establishes that the husband of the defendant No.1 and the father of the defendant nos.2 and 3 during his life time borrowed an amount of

Rs.8,00,000/- on 15.12.2018 from the plaintiff undertaking to repay with interest @ 24% per annum. Exs.A1 to A8 are properly stamped as per Article 49 of the schedule of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. PW2 deposed that the transactions under Exs.A1 to A8 took place in the presence of PW2. The recitals of Exs.A1 to

A8 support the averments of the plaint and the oral evidence of PW1. The evidence of PW2 substantiates the case of plaintiff. Ex.A3 speaks that legal notice was issued by the plaintiff to the defendants through registered post and bonafide efforts were made by the plaintiff to communicate the demand in writing to the defendants. The evidence of PW1 remains unchallenged and there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the plaintiff on the strength of evidence of

PW1. It is borne by record that the suit is within three years from the date of

Ex.A1.

7.The oral evidence of PW1 and PW2 supported by the documentary evidence proves that late Arepu Rajendra Prasad during his life time borrowed

principal amount of Rs.8,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 15.12.2018 and executed

Exs.A1 to A8 but the debt under Exs.A1 to A8 is not discharged either during the life time of late Arepu Rajendra Prasad or after his life time out of his estate by the defendants. As such, the claim of plaintiff against the estate of Late Arepu

Rajendra Prasad , if any , in the hands of the defendants stands proved and therefore, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant Nos.1 to 3.

IV Addl.Junior Civil Judge’s

O.S.No.819/2021

Page 4Court, Judgment, dt.23.10.2024 Rajamahendravaram

8. IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the estate of late Arepu Rajendra Prasad in the hands of the defendant Nos.1 to 3 for an amount of Rs.13,60,000/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.8,00,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 23 rd day of October,2024.

V ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

(FAC)IV ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

PW1/dt.22-7-2024: Nallamilli Nageswararao/Plaintiff

PW2/dt.5-9-2024:Pragadapati Seetha Ramayya/Scribe of Ex.A1 to Ex.A8.

FOR DEFENDANT: NONE

EXHIBITS MARKED:

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 : Original Promissory Note, dt.15-12-2018 for Rs.1,00,000/- said to have been executed by deceased Arepu Rajendra Prasad in favour of Plaintiff/PW1.

Ex.A2: Original Promissory Note, dt.15-12-2018 for Rs.1,00,000/- said to have been executed by deceased Arepu Rajendra Prasad in favour of Plaintiff/PW1.

Ex.A3 : Original Promissory Note, dt.15-12-2018 for Rs.1,00,000/- said to have been executed by deceased Arepu Rajendra Prasad in favour of Plaintiff/PW1.

IV Addl.Junior Civil Judge’s

O.S.No.819/2021

Page 5Court, Judgment, dt.23.10.2024 Rajamahendravaram

Ex.A4 : Original Promissory Note, dt.15-12-2018 for Rs.1,00,000/- said to have been executed by deceased Arepu Rajendra Prasad in favour of Plaintiff/PW1.

Ex.A5 : Original Promissory Note, dt.15-12-2018 for Rs.1,00,000/- said to have been executed by deceased Arepu Rajendra Prasad in favour of Plaintiff/PW1.

Ex.A6 : Original Promissory Note, dt.15-12-2018 for Rs.1,00,000/- said to have been executed by deceased Arepu Rajendra Prasad in favour of Plaintiff/PW1.

Ex.A7 : Original Promissory Note, dt.15-12-2018 for Rs.1,00,000/- said to have been executed by deceased Arepu Rajendra Prasad in favour of Plaintiff/PW1.

Ex.A8 : Original Promissory Note, dt.15-12-2018 for Rs.1,00,000/- said to have been executed by deceased Arepu Rajendra Prasad in favour of Plaintiff/PW1.

Ex.A9 : Office Copy of the Notice, dt.24-6-2021 issued to defendants 1 to 3 along with postal receipts three in numbers.

Ex.A10: Returned Postal cover from 1st defendant.

Ex.A11: Returned Postal cover from 2nd defendant

Ex.A12: Returned Postal cover from 3rd defendant.

FOR DEFENDANT: NIL

V ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

(FAC)IV ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

O.S.No. 115/2025 II Addl. Civil Judge’s Court,

Page 1 of 4 Judgment, dt.24.03.2025 (Junior Division), Rajamahendravaram

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(JUNIOR DIVISION) RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

PRESENT: SRI G. SREENIVASA REDDY,

V ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC-II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

MONDAY, THIS THE 24 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

O.S.No. 115/2025

Between:

Beri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, S/o Suryanarayana, 46 years, r/o D.No.2-93, Ramalayam Temple Street, Gummuluru (Jagannadhapuram), Korukonda Mandal, E.G.Dt. …Plaintiff

AND

Somu Suryanarayana, S/o Venkata Rao, 41 years, near Ramalayam, Kapulapeta, Venkatanagaram Village, Rajamahendravaram Rural Mandal, E.G.Dt. …Defendant

This suit having come on 17.03.2025 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Ch.V.R.R. Chowdary, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant was set ex-parte and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

: J U D G M E N T :

1.This is the suit by the plaintiff and against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,43,467/- being the principal and interest due under promissory note dated 03.02.2022 together with subsequent interest and costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 03.02.2022 for the purpose of school fee and to discharge his

O.S.No. 115/2025 II Addl. Civil Judge’s Court,

Page 2 of 4 Judgment, dt.24.03.2025 (Junior Division), Rajamahendravaram sundry debts having agreed to repay the same together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand and defendant executed a demand promissory note in favour of plaintiff on even date after receipt of entire consideration at Gummuluru Village (Jagannadhapuram), Korukonda Mandal, East Godavari District in the presence of attestors and scribe, thereafter, inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff personally to the defendant to discharge the above promissory note amount together with interest, the defendant did not pay any amount to the plaintiff till date, the plaintiff got issued legal notice dt.21.01.2025 to the defendant demanding him to repay the entire amount due under the above promissory note together with interest, the defendant having received the notice on 22.01.2024, failed to pay the suit amount or issued any reply, kept quiet, the defendant is not entitled to the benefits of

Act 45 of 1987, Act 4 of1938, Act 7 of 1977 and Act 2 of 1990 and hence the suit.

3. The defendant was set ex-parte on 10.03.2025 as the defendant refused to receive the legal notice.

4.To substantiate the claim of plaintiff, PW1 was examined and

Exs.A1 to A3 were marked.

5.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount as prayed for?”

6.POINT:

PW1 in his evidence affidavit deposed supporting the averments in the plaint. Ex.A1 establishes that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 03.02.2022 from the plaintiff undertaking to repay with interest @ 24% per annum. Ex.A1 is properly stamped as per

Article 49 of the schedule of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. There is no part payment endorsement on the reverse of Ex.A1. The recitals of Ex.A1

O.S.No. 115/2025 II Addl. Civil Judge’s Court,

Page 3 of 4 Judgment, dt.24.03.2025 (Junior Division), Rajamahendravaram support the averments of the plaint and the oral evidence of PW1. Ex.A2 support the version of the plaintiff that the plaintiff demanded the defendant by way of notice in writing to repay the debt but it is of no avail. Ex.A3 support the version of the plaintiff that the defendant received the Ex.A2 legal notice. The evidence of PW1 remains unchallenged and there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the plaintiff on the strength of evidence of PW1. It is borne by record that the suit is duly filed within limitation from the date of Ex.A1.

7.The oral evidence of PW1 supported by the documentary evidence proves that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 03.02.2022 and executed Ex.A1 but the defendant failed to repay the outstanding amount with interest on demand of plaintiff.

As such, the claim of plaintiff against the defendant stands proved and therefore, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

8.IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for an amount of Rs.3,43,467/- (Rupees three lakh forty three thousand four hundred and sixty seven only) with subsequent simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of

Rs.2,00,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr-III, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 24 th day of March, 2025.

Sd/-G.SREENIVASA REDDY.

V ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC-II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE,

(JUNIOR DIVISION),

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

O.S.No. 115/2025 II Addl. Civil Judge’s Court,

Page 4 of 4 Judgment, dt.24.03.2025 (Junior Division), Rajamahendravaram

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

PW1: Beri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana/plaintiff, dated 17.03.2025

FOR DEFENDANT: NONE

EXHIBITS MARKED:

F OR PLAINTIFF :

Ex.A1 : Suit promissory note dt.03.02.2022 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.2,00,000/- undertaking to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum.

Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice dt.21.01.2025 issued by the plaintiff to the defendant.

Ex.A3: Downloaded copy from Postal Web site got issued by the Sub Post Master, Fort Gate, Rajamahendravaram which shows that the defendant received the said legal notice.

F OR DEFENDANT: Nil

Sd/-G.SREENIVASA REDDY

V ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC-II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE,

(JUNIOR DIVISION),

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)::

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT: G.SREENIVASA REDDY

V ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

FAC/ IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Monday, the 17th day of March,2025

O.S.No.761/2021

Between:-

Pattapagalu Vijaya Kumar S/o Yesu, Hindu, Age:33 years, D.No.103-7-16,

Rajavolu, Rajamahendravaram. ... Plaintiff

and

Busi Suvarnaveni D/o Veerraju, D.No.1-237, Hindu, Age:43 years, Near Koneru, Church Street, Rajavolu(v)

Rajamahendravaram Rural. ... Defendant

This suit is filed by the Plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of the amount due on the foot of Promissory Note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and for other reliefs.

This case is coming before me on 17-3-2025 for hearing of arguments, in the presence of Smt.Ch.S.N.Lakshmi, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri P.Nanda Kishore, Advocate for the

Defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

JUDGMENT

Suit is advanced to 17.03.2025 on petition by the plaintiff. Plaintiff present. Both parties counsels present, Not press memo filed and recorded. In the result, the suit is dismissed as not pressed. No costs.

Typed to my dictation and pronounced by me in open court on this the 17 th day of March,2025.

V Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division), IV Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajamahendravaram

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: None For Defendant: None

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff: Nil For Defendant: Nil

V Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division), IV Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajamahendravaram

Date of Presentation:1-4-2021 Date of filing:1-4-2021

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR

DIVISION):: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT:G.SREENIVASAREDDY,

V ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

(FAC) IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Monday,17th day of March,2025

O.S.No.761 of 2021

Between:-

Pattapagalu Vijaya Kumar S/o Yesu, Hindu, Age:33 years, D.No.103-7-16,

Rajavolu, Rajamahendravaram. ... Plaintiff

and

Busi Suvarnaveni D/o Veerraju, D.No.1-237, Hindu, Age:43 years, Near Koneru, Church Street, Rajavolu(v)

Rajamahendravaram Rural. ... Defendant

This suit is filed by the Plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of the amount due on the foot of Promissory Note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and for other reliefs.

Cause of action for the suit arose on and from 8-4-2018 when the defendant borrowed the amount and executed the Promissory Note on the same after receiving the consideration from the plaintiff and on all subsequent dates of demand and on 15-3-2021 when the plaintiff got issued the Registered Notice to the defendant and subsequently when the defendant received the same and got issued a reply notice, dt.22-3-2021 with false and untenable allegations and at Rajavolu village at the house of the plaintiff where the suit pronote transaction took place within the jurisdiction of this court.

Value of the suit:-

Principal Amount Rs.5,00,000-00

Add :Interest @ 24%p.a from 8-4-2018 to 1-4-2021 Rs.3,57,666-00 ----------------------

Rs.8,57,666-00 ----------------------

On this a Court fee of Rs.11026/- is paid U/Sec.20 of APCF & SV Act.

This case is coming before me on 17-3-2025 for hearing of arguments, in the presence of

Smt.Ch.S.N.Lakshmi, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri P.Nanda Kishore, Advocate for the

Defendant and the matter having stood over for this court DOTH ORDERAND DECREE as follows:

1) That the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of the court; and

2) That there shall be no costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court on this the 17th day of March,2025.

V ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC/IVADDL.JUNIORCIVILJUDGE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

No costs memo is filed on either side

VVAADDDDLL..JJUUNNIIOORRCCIIVVIILLJJUUDDGGEE,, FFAACC//IIVVAADDDDLL..JJUUNNIIOORRCCIIVVIILLJJUUDDGGEE,, RRAAJJAAMMAAHHEENNDDRRAAVVAARRAAMM..