Haneesha Pothumanchi

II Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram

II AJFCM Court, Bhimavaram · West Godavari · Andhra Pradesh

Haneesha Pothumanchi, II Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, is posted at II AJFCM Court, Bhimavaram, West Godavari, Andhra Pradesh, India. 98 court orders on record since 2025. 4 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, STC, MC cases.

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

MC/65/2019

Kankipati Renuka vs Kankipati Syam

16 Dec 2025

Page 1 M.C.No.65/2019, dt. 26.11.2025

II AJFCM,BVRM

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR

DIVISION) : : BHIMAVARAM.

PRESENT : Smt. N. Jyothi

II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), BHIMAVARAM.

Tuesday, this the 16th day of December,2025.

MAINTENANCE CASE No.65/2019

Between :

1. Kankipati Renuka, W/o. Syam, aged 19 years, R/o. Dr.No.4-2, Dumpagadapa Village, Akividu Mandal, West Godavari District.

2. Kankipati Hemanth Satya Sai, S/o.Syam, aged 4 years, R/o. Dr.No.4-2, Dumpagadapa Village, Akividu Mandal, West Godavari District.

3. Kankipati Jashwin, S/o. Syam, aged One (01) year, R/o. Dr.No.4-2, Dumpagadapa Village, Akividu Mandal, West Godavari District.

(2nd and 3rd petitioners are being minor, rep. by the 1st petitioner being their mother and natural guardian).

... Petitioners

And

Kankipati Syam, S/o. Durga Rao, aged 27 years, R/o. Church Road, Kalivari Thota, Bhimavaram, Bhimavaram Mandal, West Godavari District.

… Respondent

2 II Addl. Judl.Magistrate of I Class Bhimavaram. MC.65/2019 dt.16.12.2025

This petition is coming on 15.10.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.V.Ramesh, Advocate for the petitioners, and of Sri

P.Ravi Kumar, Advocate for the respondent, and upon hearing the arguments of both sides, and the matter is having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

1. This petition filed by the 1st petitioner, who is the wife of the respondent under Section 125 Cr.P.C. praying to grant a monthly maintenance for an amount of Rs.15,000/- to her and Rs. 10,000/- to the 2nd Petitioner and 3rd Petitioner each, per month total for an amount of Rs.35,000/- towards their maintenance from the respondent.

2. The brief facts of the petition are as follows:

The marriage of the 1st petitioner was performed with the respondent on 03.04.2015 as per the Hindu rites, customs. At the time of marriage, the father of the 1st petitioner gave an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as dowry,

Rs.25,000/- as adapadachu lanchanam and also observed all the customary formalities and performed the marriage in a grand manner.

Immediately after marriage the 1st petitioner joined with the respondent.

Two months of her joining the sisters of the respondent by name Gouth

Madhavi, Korukionda Swetha, mother of the respondent by name Dhana

Lakshmi started harassment. The mother-in-law and sister-in-laws of the 1st petitioner instigated the respondent, and due to their influence the respondent addicted to alcohol and used to bet the 1st petitioner at night time, without considering that she was pregnant, by caught holding her tuft of hair and dragged her on the steps with a demand to bring 3 II Addl. Judl.Magistrate of I Class Bhimavaram. MC.65/2019 dt.16.12.2025

additional dowry of Rs.4,00,000/- and necked her out from the

matrimonial home. Thereupon the matter was placed before the elders and upon their advise, the 1st petitioner joined with the respondent again.

3. The 1st petitioner further submit that, while things going on the 1st petitioner gave birth to a male child on 24.01.2016 and the respondent came to her parents house on the occasion of cradle ceremony, in a drunken stage and bet her. Thereafter, the 1st petitioner went to matrimonial home, again the respondents and his family members started harassment by saying that no gold was presented to the son of the respondent and demanded her to bring some amount for purchaseing of site, demanded additional dowry and abused her in filthy language and also beat her, and sent her to her parent’s house.

4. While things stood thus the respondents and his family members took the 1st petitioner to to Indian Hospital, Bhimavaram in the month of

April, 2017 and terminated her pregnancy when she was two months and fifteen days. Having came to know said fact, the parents of the petitioner, took her to their house.Thereafter, they hurriedly making efforts to leave

India and also tried to obtain passport to fulfill his intention. Then the 1st petitioner presented a report before I Town Police Station, Bhimavaram upon which the Station House Officer I Town P.S. advised them to settle the matter before elders. On 19.08.2017 the 1st petitioner presented a typed report before Superintendent of Police, Eluru and the same is registered as a Cr.No.129/2017 under Sec. 498-A, 313 IPC r/w 34 of IPC and Secs. 3 & 4 of D.P.Act. 1st petitioner gave birth to a male child on 02.06.2018 who is the 3rd petitioner herein. During her pregnancy the respondent and his family members not provided proper food to her.

4 II Addl. Judl.Magistrate of I Class Bhimavaram. MC.65/2019 dt.16.12.2025

Since their marriage, the respondent and his family members harassed the 1st petitioner both physically and mentally to bring additional Dowry and necked her out. After birth of 3rd petitioner the respondent intentionally deserted and got filed divorce petition. Since then the 1st petitioner is residing at her parents along with children.

5. She is unable to work as the 3rd petitioner is months of baby and not having any employment either to maintain herself or children. So also the 1st petitioner not having any properties in her name. The respondent is having financial capacity to maintain the Petitioners. Hence, she prays the Hon’ble Court to grant a monthly maintenance for an amount of

Rs.15,000/- to the 1st petitioner and Rs. 10,000/- each to the 2nd

Petitioner and 3rd Petitioner per month in total for an amount of

Rs.35,000/- towards their maintenance from the respondent.

6.The respondent has filed his counter and contended that, he denied all other allegations in the petition except his relation with the petitioner contending as follows:-

(i) The mother of the respondent is a coolie worker and she is having two daughters and a son i.e., the respondent and the father of the respondent died during his childhood and the marriage of the Petitioner and respondent is a void marriage as the parents of the Petitioner suppressed her age and performed her marriage with the petitioner.

(ii) The 1st petitioner used to act as psychic behavior and she used to act and behave with the respondent as “Ammavaru Poonaru” by saying 5 II Addl. Judl.Magistrate of I Class Bhimavaram. MC.65/2019 dt.16.12.2025 those words she raise sudden and loud cries during the day and nights also. The 1st petitioner blackmail the respondent and his mother that she would commit suicide in the kitchen by removing gas in the cylinder.

she harassed the respondent and his mother to put up a separate family in Akividu or Dumpagadapa Village and to fulfill her demand she used to threaten the respondent that she would commit suicide by different methods.

(iii) while the matter stood thus, they have blessed with a male child on 01.01.2016 and the delivery expenses born by the respondent, however her family members created some nuisance in the hospital with an intention to harass the respondent and his family members. While so the 1st petitioner and her family members called the respondent to their house and 1st petitioner and her parents restrained him in the house and removed his clothes and bet him indiscriminately, but the respondent escaped from the house of the 1st petitioner with the help of the neighbors, with great difficulty. Then the respondent placed the matter

before the elders and the 1st petitioner bore grudge against the

respondent and his family members by lodging a dowry harassment case

U/sec.498-A IPC and the same is pending before the Court.

(iv). While the matter stood thus, they have blessed with a 2nd male child on 02.06.2018 and the entire delivery expenses were borne by the respondent. Thereafter, the 1st petitioner and her family members along with some other persons came to the shop, where the respondent is working attacked the respondent and bet him. On that the respondent went to the police station but they did not take action. Hence, with the help of higher officials a case was registered in Cr.No.208/2018 in

Bhimavaram I Town Police Station, Bhimavaram on 11.06.2018. Since 6 II Addl. Judl.Magistrate of I Class Bhimavaram. MC.65/2019 dt.16.12.2025 then the 1st petitioner and her family members warned the respondent and his family members, the only reason is to come as illatam son-in-law or put up separate family at their village and leave his mother alone at

Bhimavaram.

(v). The respondent further submitted that, the respondent is working in the shop of his sister and earning of Rs.5,000/- per month as salary and except the salary he is not getting any income from any source. On the other hand 1st petitioner deserted the respondent intentionally and she is an adamant woman. She is a Tailor and she is having a good Art of stitching of model jackets. She is earning an amount of Rs.800/- to

Rs.1,500/- per day she nearly stitches 3 to 4 jackets in a day. Thus she is earning of Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,000/- per day and hence she got

Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/- per month. Hence, she is having capacity to maintain herself. Whereas the respondent is not having any properties either movable or immovable properties and eking out his livelihood with great difficulty and the respondent is not in a position to maintain himself and prays the Hon’ble court to dismiss the petition.

7. To substantiate their case, the 1st petitioner is examined herself as

PW.1/Kankipati Renuka and no documents were marked on her behalf.

Respondent is examined himself as R.W.1/Kankipati Syam and no documents were marked on behalf of the Respondent.

8. After having heard the rival contentions of the learned counsel for both the parties, the points arises for determination is follows :

Whether the petitioners 1 to 3 are entitled to claim maintenance against the respondent, if so, what is quantum of maintenance ?

7 II Addl. Judl.Magistrate of I Class Bhimavaram. MC.65/2019 dt.16.12.2025

9. POINT :

At the outset, it is the case of the 1st petitioner that the respondent and his family members used to harass her both physically and mentally.

The respondent neglected the petitioners 1 to 3. As there other go, the 1st petitioner reached to her parents house along with children. But the respondent even though got sufficient means, failed to maintain the petitioners 1 to 3 and now they are leading miserable life by depending upon the parents of the 1st petitioner.

10. It is the case of the respondent that the 1st petitioner herself deserted him and 1st petitioner always used to demand the respondent to come and join as illatam son-in-law at her parent’s house or else put up separate family. The petitioner used to threaten the respondent and his family members saying that she would commit suicide by leaking, the gas in the kitchen, by closing the bed room door and bath room door so as to threaten them and made the respondent into her terms. The 1st petitioner also pretends day and night that she got poonakam. Infact, the 1st petitioner harassed the respondent.

11. The PW.1 reiterated the contents of the petition in her chief examination by filing the chief affidavit. The PW.1 admitted that, her marriage was performed with the respondent at her tender age and respondent is her relative; she is one and only daughter to her parents and as such they pampered her, but she denied that due to home sick and love and effection towards her parents, she visits her parents house frequenlty. Admittedly, she gave report before the Bhimavaram I Town

Police station and a counseling was held between parties and that no medical report in respect of abortion is filed but it is elicited, in the 8 II Addl. Judl.Magistrate of I Class Bhimavaram. MC.65/2019 dt.16.12.2025 evidence that it was happened at her 17 years age. She denied the suggestion that due to pregnancy and abortions and also due to home sick she stayed at her parents house for considerable period. The learned counsel for respondent contended that the petitioner did not file any medical record to prove her abortion and it was happened at the instance of her parents since she got pregnancy at the age of 17 years but by virtue of above said suggestion, it can be safely said that the 1st petitioner pregnancy was aborted. Admittedly respondent filed divorce

OP there after, this petition is filed, however it is not a bar to grant maintenance to the petitioners..

12. The chief examination affidavit filed by the respondent as R.W.1 stated that he reiterated the contents of counter in his chief examination.

During cross of RW1 it is elicited that 1st petitioner is his wife, 2nd and 3rd petitioners are their children; and that their marriage is arranged marriage; and that parents of the 1st petitioner gave adapaduchu lanchanam to his sister after made discussions about dowry and other lanchanams ;and that the 1st petitioner is the 3rd issue to her parents; and that the 1st petitioner is joined with respondent for kapuram with saresaman. He admitted that barasala function was performed by the parents of 1st petitioner and an altercation took place during said function; and that 1st petitioner came to the house of respondent when their child get 3rd month but her parents did not present any gold ; and that they placed the matter before elders for five times ; and that 1st petitioner’s pregnancy was aborted due to her ill health.

13. The contention of the respondent is that the parents of the 1st petitioner themselves got her pregnancy aborted as she is below 18 9 II Addl. Judl.Magistrate of I Class Bhimavaram. MC.65/2019 dt.16.12.2025 years whereas RW1 said that due to her ill health pregnancy was aborted. When 1st petitioner filed criminal case, the respondent assured to take care her properly as such she joined with him and later they have blessed with 3rd petitioner herein on 02-06-2018. He denied that he filed the HMOP on the ground that 1st petitioner is a minor and marriage is void. But he admitted that said HMOP is dismissed for default. He

categorically admitted that the 1 st petitioner along with her children

are residing at her parents house from 2019.

14. On careful observation of facts and the circumstances of the case and the evidence available on record. The 1st petitioner did not filed any documents to show the income capacity of the respondent and the assets of the Respondent. But, the 1st Petitioner and her sons living at her parent’s house separately. Further the respondent also not filed any documents to show that 1st Petitioner is working as a Tailor and she is getting income of Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,000/- per day and in total she is earning Rs. 40,000/- to 50,000/- per month as mentioned in his counter.

15. As seen from the material evidence available on record there is no dispute with regard to the relationship among the Petitioners 1 to 3 and respondent. It is the admitted fact by both parties the 1st petitioner and her sons are living under care of her parents. The respondent also stated as the 1st petitioner and her sons are residing at her parents’ house since 2019, but he denied the 1st petitioner was necked out from the matrimonial society. It is not the case of respondent that he is paying maintenance to them. Though the respondent contended that the 1st 10 II Addl. Judl.Magistrate of I Class Bhimavaram. MC.65/2019 dt.16.12.2025 petitioner herself deserted his company he failed to adduce the evidence in respect of said fact.

16. Further the 1st petitioner herself deserted him and went to her parent's house. But as per the counter of the Respondent he has not taken any steps to reunion with the 1st petitioner and he is not contended that he has provided anything to the petitioners 1 to 3. It shows that the respondent completely neglecting them (petitioners 1 to 3). Moreover the respondent himself mentioned in his counter that he is earning Rs.5000/- per month and he did not mention in his chief affidavit that he is not doing any job. The contention of the petitioners is that the respondent is the owner of Mamatha fashions but the respondent denied that he is a owner of said shop. No piece of document is filed by the 1st petitioner to prove that the respondent is the owner of Mamatha fashions.

17. A point is to be noted that, it is the moral as well as legal obligation of husband to maintain his wife and children by earning in any means even by pulling rickshaw. Evidently, the respondent is able bodied person and he is earning Rs. 5000/- per month as admitted by him. However he is neglecting the petitions 1 to 3. Hence, this Court opined that this case is a fit case to grant monthly maintenance to the petitioners 1 to 3.

Accordingly point is answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent.

18. Having considering the discussion made interalia, this Court is inclined to allow this petition by granting maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the 11 II Addl. Judl.Magistrate of I Class Bhimavaram. MC.65/2019 dt.16.12.2025 1st petitioner and of Rs.3,000/- each to the 2nd and 3rd petitioners till attaining their majority by considering the present cost of living.

19.In the result,

(i) the petition is partly allowed directing the respondent to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the 1st petitioner (Five Thousand only) and of Rs.3,000/- (three Thousand only) each to the 2nd and 3rd petitioners till attaining their majority in total of Rs.11,000/- (Rupees

Eleven Thousand only) payable on or before 10th day of every succeeding month from the date of this Order.

(ii) The 1st petitioner who represents the 2nd and 3rd petitioners is directed to furnish the savings bank account number of 2nd and 3rd petitioners to the respondent and the respondent is directed to deposit the arrears of maintenance amount (i.e., from the date of the petition till the date of the orders) in her bank account. There shall be no order as to costs.

(iii) The office is directed to, forthwith to furnish the true copy of the order to the petitioners and respondent on free of costs, if parties present, by taking the acknowledgment from them to that effect and keep it in the record. If parties do not present furnish copies to their respective counsels and obtain acknowledgment accordingly.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this 16 th day of December, 2025.

Sd/-Smt.N.Jyothi

II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE,

(JUNIOR DIVISION), BHIMAVARAM.

12 II Addl. Judl.Magistrate of I Class Bhimavaram. MC.65/2019 dt.16.12.2025

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS: FOR RESPONDENT:

PW1:Kankipati Renuka RW1: Kankipati Syam.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS: FOR RESPONDENT:-

- Nil - - Nil -

Sd/-Smt. N.Jyothi

II A.C.J., BVRM.

// True copy

II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE,

(JUNIOR DIVISION), BHIMAVARAM

CC/184/2023 Acquitted

Bhimavaram I Town Police Station vs CHALLA RAM PRASAD

16 Dec 2025

CC No. 184/2023 Dt.16-12-2025

II AJFCM, BVRM

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR

DIVISION) CUM II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I

CLASS: BHIMAVARAM

PRESENT:- Smt. N. Jyothi II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Bhimavaram.

Tuesday, this the 16th day of December,2025

C.C.No.184/2023

Between:

The State Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Bhimavaram I Town Police Station. …… Complainant

And

1.Challa Ramprasad, S/o. Syamala Rao, age. 38 years, R/o. VSS towers, Lal Bahdur Sastry street, Sivaraopet, Bhimavaram-2.

2.Challa Syamala Rao, s/o. Rama swamy, age. 59 years, R/o. VSS towers, Lal Bahdur sastry street, Sivaraopet, Bhimavaram-2.

3.Smt. Challa Venkata Ramana W/o. Syamala Rao, age. 58 years, Housewife, R/o. VSS towers, Lal Bahdur Sastry street, Sivaropet, Bhimavaram-2.

4.Smt. Challa Roja Rani @ Smt. Vithala Roja Rani, W/o. Vithala Nageswara Rao, Age. 42 years, Housewife, Srinagar colony, Opp. HMT Nagar, beside Srinagar park, Nacharam, Uppal, Hyderabad.

5.Challa Veera Venkata Satya Nagendra Babu, s/o. Syamala Rao, age. 35 years, R/o. VSS towers, Lal Bahdur Sastry street, Sivaraopeta, Bhimavaram-2.

(Case against Accused No.5 is abated as he died)

…… Accused

This case coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Learned A.P.P. for Complainant, and of Sri P.Narasimham and Sri S.B.Vijaya Kumar Counsels for accused, and after hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

CC No. 184/2023 Dt.16-12-2025

II AJFCM, BVRM

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Bhimavaram I Town Police Station, filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No. 409/2022 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A,417,384,506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal

Code (hereinafter referred as IPC) and sections 3 and 4 of DP Act.

02. The brief facts of the charge-sheet are as follows:- 2.1) This is a case of causing cruelty to married woman /

LW1/defacto complainant/ Ch.Y.Jyothi, who was given in marriage to the accused -1/Challa Ram Prasad and their marriage was performed as per Hindu caste custom on 09-11-2019 at the premises of Sri

Venkateswara Sri Krishna Devaraya Welfare trust Kapu Kalyana

Mandapam at Dwaraka Tirumala. At the time of marriage the parents of

LW1 gave Rs. 10 lakhs and other presentations to the accused 1 to 3 and also Rs. 2 lakhs to A4 towards adapaduchu lanchanam and also gifted gold jewels all wg.about 30 sov and 10sov to Lw1 and A1 respectively and also silver articles all weighing about 2 kgs at the time of marriage and after the marriage the defacto complainant joined with the accused for conjugal life and during their wedlock, they have

CC No. 184/2023 Dt.16-12-2025

II AJFCM, BVRM

3 blessed with two male child. Since, then the accused started harassment towards defacto complainant both mentally and physically and subjected to her cruelty on the pretext that to bring additional dowry of Rs.3 lakhs. On that Lws 2 and 3 gave an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs to

A1 to A4 towards addl.dowry. LW1 noticed some nude photos of one

Swetha with A1 in his laptop received through whatsapp on that Lw1 questioned A1, he scolded her in filthy language and beat her with glass on right side of her forehead stating that why she saw his laptop and phone. On that LW1 raised hue and cry then A3 and A5 came there and they also beat her with hands and legs indiscriminately by abusing her in filthy language.

2.2) A1 and A3 while caught hold LW1, A5 made tie with a nearby chunni around her neck stating that she will be killed. Later the parents of LWs 2 and 3 gave an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs towards further addl. Dowry to Accused 1 to 3 and sent LW1 for her conjugal life with

A1. Later A1 to A3 and A5 demanded LW1 to give divorce to A1 and also by putting her death, obtained signatures of LW1 on 100 rupee NJ

Stamp papers. All the accused tried to end her life by pouring kerosene and obtained her signature forcibly for mutual divorce. Hence the report.

CC No. 184/2023 Dt.16-12-2025

II AJFCM, BVRM

4 2.3) Basing on report of LW1, LW11/S.Satya Sai, SI of police registered a case in Cr.No.409/2022 under sections 498-A,417,384,506 r/w 34 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of DP Act of Bhimavaram I Town

PS. During the course of investigation, the Investigation officer examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused 1 to 5. During the course of trial, Accused No.5 is died, hence the case against Accused No.5 is abated.

03. The case was taken cognizance by this Court for the offences under Sections 498-A,417,384,506 r/w 34 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of DP Act against accused.

04. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.PC. Accused were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C and a charges has been framed against accused for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A,417,384,506 r/w 34 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of DP Act and same has been read over and explained to accused in Telugu, for which they denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

CC No. 184/2023 Dt.16-12-2025

II AJFCM, BVRM

05. In order to substantiate it’s case the prosecution, has examined

Pws.1 to 3 and Exs.P1 to P4 were marked. PW1 : Ch.Yasaswini Jyothi

PW2/S.Srinivasa Rao, PW3/S.Venu Ex.P1: Signature on the Report;

Exs.P2 to P4 are : 161 code of Criminal Procedure Statements of

PWs.1 to 3. Since the material witnesses are turned hostile the learned

App given up the remaining prosecution witnesses i.e., LWs4 to 11 /

Madasu Ranga Babu, Garapati Eswara Kumar, Yerramsetti Sumanth,

Seshadri Hari babu, Kali Naga Venkata Satyanarayana alias KOnda,

Dulla Srinivasa ao alias DS, Gedda Rama Mohana Rao and S.Satya

Sai, SI of police, Bhimavaram I Town PS respectively.

06.Since there is no incriminating material adduced by prosecution against the accused examination of accused under section 313 Cr.PC is dispensed with.

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

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused beyond all

reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Sections 498-

A,417,384,506 r/w 34 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of DP Act ?

08. POINT:-

It is the case of the prosecution that the marriage of

LW1/Smt.Ch.Y.Jyothi (hereinafter is called as Complainant) with

CC No. 184/2023 Dt.16-12-2025

II AJFCM, BVRM

Accused and they have blessed with two children. Later husband of

LW1 i.e, accused addicted to bad vices and harassing LW1/B.Suvartha and insulting her by suspecting her fidelity. He harassed her both mentally and physically in drunken state and damaged the household articles. All the accused tried to end her life by pouring kerosene and obtained her signature forcibly for mutual divorce. As she could not withstand his harassment. Thus she gave report/Ex.P1.

09. The defacto-complainant in this case is examined as PW.1.

She deposed that, she does not know anything about this case. Her signature, on empty papers, was obtained by the police when counselling was held between her and accused, but she does not know its contents. Pws.2 and 3, who are her parents are examined. They also deposed on the same lines whatever deposed by Pw.1. The learned prosecution, after permission from the court, has cross examined PWs.1 to 3 but nothing was elicited except their 161 statement are marked as Exs.P.2 to 4. However the prosecution could establish that the PW1 and accused compromised the matter, as they belonged to same family. So, it might be the reason for not deposing any thing against accused.

CC No. 184/2023 Dt.16-12-2025

II AJFCM, BVRM

10. Since the victim has failed to depose anything incriminating against the accused, and there is no direct evidence against the accused has come on record to prove the offences for which the accused have been charged. Keeping in view the fact that victim and her parents themselves have not uttered a single word against the accused about either mental or physical harassment of the accused including the cheating, extortion and also criminal intimidation.

Therefore, it is inevitable to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove its case, for the offences punishable U/sections 498-

A,417,384,506 r/w 34 of IPC and section 3 and 4 of DP Act against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly, the accused are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly point is answered in favor of the accused and against the prosecution.

11. In the result, Accused 1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/sections 498-A,417,384,506 r/w 34 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of DP Act, accordingly, they are acquitted U/sec.248(1) of Cr.PC.

The bail bonds of accused Nos.1 to 4, if any, shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal period as contemplated under section 437-A Cr.PC.

(Note :Case against A5 is abated as he died).

CC No. 184/2023 Dt.16-12-2025

II AJFCM, BVRM

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 16th day of December,

2025.

Sd/-Smt. N. Jyothi

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

CUM II ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

BHIMAVARAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR COMPLAINANT: FOR ACCUSED:

P.W.1 : Ch.Yasaswini Jyothi NIL

P.W.2:S.Srinivasa Rao

P.W.3:S.Venu

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR COMPLAINANT: FOR ACCUSED:

Ex.P1: Signature on the report of PW1 NIL

Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1,

Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2,

Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3,

Sd/-smt. N.Jyothi

II AJFCM,Bhimavaram.

CC No. 184/2023 Dt.16-12-2025

II AJFCM, BVRM

CALENDAR AND JUDGEMENT

DISTRICT OF WEST GODAVARI

Calendar of cases tried by Smt. N.Jyothi, II Additional Judicial

Magistrate of I Class cum II Addl. Civil Judge, (Junior Division),

Bhimavaram.

JUDGMENT IN CALENDER CASE No.`184/2023 ON THE FILE OF II

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF CLASS-CUM-II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE

(Junior Division):: BHIMAVARAM.

Date of offence :Prior to 4-12-2022 Complaint: 04-12-2022 Apprehension of :41(A) Cr.PC notice given accused Remand Period if any : --- Released on bail : --- Commencement of trial : 16-12-2025 Closing of trial :16-12-2025 Sentence or order:16-12-2025

Reasons for delay : Due to non production of witnesses

Name of the complainant:The State Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Bhimavaram I Town

Name of the accused :

1. Challa Ramprasad, S/o. Syamala Rao, age. 38 years, R/o. VSS towers, Lal Bahdur Sastry street, Sivaraopet, Bhimavaram-2.

2. Challa Syamala Rao, s/o. Rama swamy, age. 59 years, R/o. VSS towers, Lal Bahdur sastry street, Sivaraopet, Bhimavaram-2.

CC No. 184/2023 Dt.16-12-2025

II AJFCM, BVRM

3. Smt. Challa Venkata Ramana W/o. Syamala Rao, age. 58 years, Housewife, R/o. VSS towers, Lal Bahdur Sastry street, Sivaropet, Bhimavaram-2.

4. Smt. Challa Roja Rani @ Smt. Vithala Roja Rani, W/o. Vithala Nageswara Rao, Age. 42 years, Housewife, Srinagar colony, Opp. HMT Nagar, beside Srinagar park, Nacharam, Uppal, Hyderabad.

5. Challa Veera Venkata Satya Nagendra Babu, s/o. Syamala Rao, age. 35 years, R/o. VSS towers, Lal Bahdur Sastry street, Sivaraopeta, Bhimavaram-2. (Case against D5 is abated as he died)

Offence:U/Sec. 498-A,417,384,506 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of DP Act. Plea of the Accused :Not Guilty

Finding:Found Not Guilty

Sentence/Order:

In the result, Accused 1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/sections 498-A,417,384,506 r/w 34 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of DP Act, accordingly, they are acquitted U/sec.248(1) of Cr.PC. The bail bonds of accused Nos.1 to 4, if any, shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal period as contemplated under section 437-A Cr.PC. (Case against Accused No.5 is abated as he died)

Sd/-Smt. N. Jyothi

II Addl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bhimavaram. Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, W.G., at Eluru by

way of CD.

CC/134/2024 Acquitted

M/S RAVINDRA COMMERCIAL CORPORATION REP.BY ITS MG. PARTNER VEGESNA RANGA RAJU vs GHANTASALA YEDUKONDALU

16 Dec 2025

Page 1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I

CLASS cum II ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE(JD):: BHIMAVARAM.

Present: - Smt. N.Jyothi

II Addl. Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Bhimavaram.

Tuesday, this the 16th day of December, 2025.

(Section 257 of Criminal Procedure Code)

Calendar case No.134/2024

Offence U/sec. 138 N.I.Act.

Name of the Complainant :

M/s.Ravindra Commercial Corporation, rep.by its Mg.Partner Vegesna Ranga Raju, s/o. Srirama Raju, rep.by his General Power of Attorney holder Chintalapati Kishore Raju, s/o. Subba Raju, 36 years, employee, Komatitippa, camp:Bhimavaram.

Name of the accused :

Ghantasala Yedukondalu, S/o. Ranga Rao, cultivation, age. 45 yaers, H.No. 1-15/1, Opp.Nandi Statue, Vaddigudem.

This case coming on for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri N.R.P.Ammiraju Advocate for the complainant, Sri S.Subbarayudu advocate

for accused and having stood over for consideration till to day, this court,

delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Complainant and accused called present. Counsel for Complainant present and filed a petition Under Sec.257 Cr.P.C. His presence was identified by his counsel.

Complainant, his counsel are present. Accused called present.

Complainant filed a petition under section 257 of Cr.PC seeking permission to withdraw the case against accused on the ground that the matter was compromised out of the court.

Heard the party in person and his counsel. Therefore, in view of the circumstances mentioned in the petition permission is accorded to the complainant, to withdraw the case and consequently, the court is dismissed the complaint as withdrawn under section 257 of Cr.PC. Resultantly, accused is acquitted for the offence under section 138 of NI Act.

Pronounced by me in open Court on this the 16th day of December, 2025.

Sd/smt.N.Jyothi

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

BHIMAVARAM.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined

For complainant For accused

PW1 : Ch.Kishore Raju --nil—

Documents Marked

For complainant

1 Ex.P1/19-7-2019 Certified copy of Registered General power of attorney 2 Ex.P2/19-5-2018 to 31-Computerized extract of ledger sheet 3-2019 3 Ex.P3/01-04-2019 to 31-Computerized extract of ledger sheet 3-2020 4 Ex.P4/01-04-2020 to 31-Computerized extract of ledger sheet 3-2021 5 Ex.P5/01-04-2021 ti 31-Computerized extract of ledger sheet 3-2022 6 Ex.P6/01-04-2022 to 31-Computerized extract of ledger sheet 3-2023 7 Ex.P7/01-04-2023 to 3-Computerized extract of ledger sheet 3 7-2023 8 Ex.P8/2018 Computerized copies bunch of credit bills 7 in number 9 Ex.P9 /16-8-2018 Payment/cash receipt 10 Ex.P10/4-2-2023 Payment /cash receipt 11 Ex.P11/24-4-2023 Office copy of legal notice 12 Ex.P12/3-5-2023 Original reply notice 13 Ex.P13/10-5-2023 Original cheque bearing No.856245 14 Ex.P14/11-5-2023 Original counter foil 15 Ex.P15/12-5-2023 Original cheque returned memo 16 Ex.P16/25-5-2023 Office copy of legal notice 17 Ex.P17/01-6-2023 Original reply notice 18 Ex.P18./13-6-2023 Rejoinder notice 19 Ex.P19/19-6-2023 Original rejoinder reply notice

For accused : NIL

Sd/-Smt. N. Jyothi

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

BHIMAVARAM.

STC/101/2023 Compromised

M/s Krishnam Raju Fisheries vs PENMETSA VENKATA SATYA KRISHNAM RAJU

16 Dec 2025

Page 1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I

CLASS cum II ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE(JD):: BHIMAVARAM.

Present: - Smt. N.Jyothi

II Addl. Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Bhimavaram.

Tuesday, this the 16th day of December, 2025.

(Section 257 of Criminal Procedure Code)

STC No.101/2023

Offence U/sec. 138 N.I.Act.

Name of the Complainant :

Krishnam Raju Fisheries rep.by its Managing partner Vegesna

Krishnam Raju, rep.by its agent, Dantuluri Srinivasa Raju, S/o.

Subba Raju, Palakoderu village, Palakoderu Mandal.

And

Name of the accused : Penmetsa Venkata Satya Krishnam Raju, S/o. Satyanarayana Raju,

D.No. 5-142, Srungavruksham village, Palakoderu Mandal.

This case coming on for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.S.V.V.Ravi Kumar Raju Advocate for the complainant, Sri K.G.K.Raju counsel for accused and having stood over for consideration till to day, this court, delivered the following:

ORDER

Complainant and his counsel are present. Accused absent. Petition filed and allowed. Complainant filed a petition Under Sec.257 Cr.P.C. His presence was identified by his counsel.

Complainant and his counsel is present. Accused called absent.

Petition filed and allowed. Complainant filed a petition under section 257 of

Cr.PC seeking permission to withdraw the case against accused on the ground that the matter was compromised out of the court.

Heard the party in person and his counsel. Therefore, in view of the circumstances mentioned in the petition permission is accorded to the complainant, to withdraw the case and consequently, the court is dismissed the complaint as withdrawn under section 257 of Cr.PC. Resultantly, accused is discharged for the offence under section 138 of NI Act.

Pronounced by me in open Court on this the 16th day of December, 2025.

Sd/-Smt. N.Jyothi

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

BHIMAVARAM.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined

NIL

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

BHIMAVARAM.

Order Record 98 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/134/2024	M/S RAVINDRA COMMERCIAL CORPORATION REP.BY ITS MG. PARTNER VEGESNA RANGA RAJU vs GHANTASALA YEDUKONDALU	16 Dec 2025	Copy of Judgement	Acquitted
CC/184/2023	Bhimavaram I Town Police Station vs CHALLA RAM PRASAD	16 Dec 2025	Copy of Judgement	Acquitted
MC/65/2019	Kankipati Renuka vs Kankipati Syam	16 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
STC/101/2023	M/s Krishnam Raju Fisheries vs PENMETSA VENKATA SATYA KRISHNAM RAJU	16 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	Compromised
OS/46/2024	GM Babu vs GM Joseph	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
OS/322/2025	Vegesna Venkata Satya Sagara Pandu Ranga Raju vs Vegesna Sitharama Raju	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/20/2023	Bhimavaram I Town Police Station vs PILLA VENKATA RAO	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/51/2024	Bhimavaram I Town Police Station vs KATTUMURI SRINU BABU	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/55/2025	Undi Police Station vs SEELAM VENKANNA AND 4 OTHERS	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/64/2023	Bhimavaram I Town Police Station vs SADANALA DURGAPRASAD AND 4 OTHERS	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/71/2023	Bhimavaram I Town Police Station vs VARDHANAPU DURGA VARA PRASAD	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/92/2022	Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police. vs Mamidisetti Srinivasa Rao	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/95/2024	Bhimavaram I Town Police Station vs MUTYLAPALLI PARASU RAMUDU AND ANOTHER	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/102/2022	Represented by the SI of Police. vs Chinthala Ganganna	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/117/2022	Represented by the SI of Police. vs Pydi Chiranjeevi	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/195/2022	Bhimavaram I Town Police Station vs PAKERLA RAMESH BABU	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/216/2020	Ponnapalli Satyanarayana vs Puli Naga Lakshmi	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/221/2022	Bhimavaram I Town Police Station vs YENUGANTI SIVA KUMAR	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/234/2022	Bhimavaram I Town Police Station vs Sarivelli Yesobu	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/245/2019	Joint Sub Registrar, Veeravasaram vs Kalidindi Padmavathi	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/269/2025	Bhimavaram I Town Police Station vs Vatsavai Satya Srinivasa Kumar	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/270/2025	Bhimavaram I Town Police Station vs Karanam Chinni Raj Kumar	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/272/2025	Undi Police Station vs Vaddi Pradeep Kumar	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/283/2023	Undi Police Station vs CHANDRAGIRI DURGA RAO AND 2 OTHERS	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/362/2025	Undi Police Station vs Chitturi Yedukondalu and 2 others	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/391/2025	Akiveedu Police Station vs Majji Venkata Krishna and 3 others	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/399/2022	SHO, BHIMAVARAM I TOWN PS vs GOGULAMANDA RATNA KUMAR AND ANOTHER	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/408/2019	Undi Police Station vs Kagitha Subbalakshmi	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/415/2021	Represented by the Inspector of Police. vs Yatham Veera Raghavulu	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/423/2021	Sub Inspector of Police. vs Gullanki Varjil Kumar	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/427/2021	Sub Inspector of Police. vs Gullanki Sundara Raju	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/435/2022	Bhimavaram I Town Police Station vs SIKKINAM VEERABABU AND 3 OTHERS	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/439/2021	The Sub Inspector of Police. vs Addala Pallala Raju	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/447/2024	Bhimavaram I Town Police Station vs THOTA RAMBABU AND 2 OTHERS	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/448/2024	Bhimavaram I Town Police Station vs SHAIK NASIRUDDIN SHA AND 6 OTHERS	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/453/2020	Palakoderu Police Station vs Pydi Sumalatha	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/465/2023	Bhimavaram I Town Police Station vs MARADANA VENKATA RAMANA@LAZAR	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/474/2022	Undi Police Station vs KUDUPUDI LAXMI VEERA VENKATA RATNAM AND 2 OTHERS	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/506/2021	The Sub Inspector of Police. vs Jillela Nagendra Babu	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/511/2023	Bhimavaram I Town Police Station vs AVULA DEVISRI PRASAD AND 2 OTHERS	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/524/2019	Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd Indukuri Srinivasa Rao vs Chittala V V S S PManikyala Rao	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/534/2020	Kalla Police Station vs Enti Ramesh	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/536/2025	Bhimavaram I Town Police Station vs Nallam Bala Sairam	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/539/2021	Penmetsa Ramabadra Raju vs Kadali Chandra Sekhar	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/543/2025	Bhimavaram II Town Police Station vs Alluri Pranay Rajeev Varma alias Pranay and 4 others	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/551/2021	Inspector of Police. vs Muddadi Venkata Ramana alias Muddasi Ramana	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/551/2023	Bhimavaram I Town Police Station vs ILLA VENKATESULU AND 4 OTHERS	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/567/2025	Bhimavaram I Town Police Station vs Birudugadda Nanda Kumar	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/568/2025	Bhimavaram I Town Police Station vs Seelam Muthyalu	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/569/2025	Bhimavaram I Town Police Station vs Jonnada Sai Kishore alias Kishore	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/570/2025	Bhimavaram I Town Police Station vs Sunkara Manikanta	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/571/2025	Bhimavaram I Town Police Station vs Kottu Kumar	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/572/2025	Bhimavaram I Town Police Station vs Vemula Rajesh and 19 others	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/573/2025	Bhimavaram I Town Police Station vs Kadagala Ravi	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/574/2025	Bhimavaram I Town Police Station vs Yarramsetti Srinivas	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/576/2025	Bhimavaram II Town Police Station vs Sheik Mustafa and 4 others	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/577/2025	Bhimavaram II Town Police Station vs Pitani Venkata Narayana and another	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/578/2025	Bhimavaram II Town Police Station vs Mamidisetti Srilakshmi and 2 others	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/579/2025	Bhimavaram II Town Police Station vs Patta Naga Jyothi and 2 others	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/580/2025	Bhimavaram II Town Police Station vs Meka Sriramulu alias Srinivas and 2 others	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/581/2025	Bhimavaram II Town Police Station vs Borra Durga Rao and 2 others	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/583/2025	Bhimavaram II Town Police Station vs Bonthu Srinu	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/584/2025	Bhimavaram II Town Police Station vs Bonth Srinu	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/585/2025	Bhimavaram II Town Police Station vs Bakuri Vishal	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/586/2025	Bhimavaram I Town Police Station vs Taadi Uday Prakash and another	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/587/2025	Bhimavaram II Town Police Station vs Kanapala Rampandu	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/588/2025	Bhimavaram II Town Police Station vs Matta Chandrasekhar Babu alais Vamsi and 2 others	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/589/2025	Bhimavaram II Town Police Station vs Katta Trinadha Venkata Naga Mallikarjuna Varaprasada Raju and 2 others	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/590/2025	Undi Police Station vs Pamarthi Naga Raju and 3 others	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/591/2025	Bhimavaram I Town Police Station vs Kotni China Ganga Raju alias Chinna	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/592/2025	Bhimavaram I Town Police Station vs Bandela Sunil Kumar and 2 others	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/593/2025	Bhimavaram II Town Police Station vs Muthyala Bhanu Sharan alias Bhanu Prakash	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/594/2025	Bhimavaram II Town Police Station vs Revulagadda Prasanna Raju and another	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/595/2025	Bhimavaram II Town Police Station vs Meripe Gangadhara Rao	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/613/2022	Undi Police Station vs Chellinkula Krishna Veni	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/792/2021	Represented by the SI of Police. vs Pydi Chiranjeevi.	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/997/2018	Gnadham Basava Shankaram vs Murari Samudraiah	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/1118/2019	Undi Police Station vs Sanam Srinivasu	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/1143/2020	Sub Inspector of Police, Veeravasaram P.S vs Valavala Naga Venkata Satyanarayana	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/1153/2020	SHO Bhimavaram Rural PS vs Pydi Sumalatha	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/1245/2019	Shriram Transport finance Company Ltd vs Tungala Srinivasa Rao	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/1246/2019	Shriram Transport Finance company Ltd vs Boorabathula Raju	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/1254/2020	Palakoderu Police Station vs Sirangula Syambabu	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
DVC/4/2024	KAMINAHAL NALLABOTHULA HEPSIBA PAUL vs KAMINAHAL NALLABOTHULA SAMUEL PAUL AND 5 OTHERS	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
DVC/20/2024	GANTA NAGALAKSHMI@POLASSI NAGA LAKSHMI vs POLASI THANDAVA KRISHNA @ KRISHNA RAO AND 3 OTHERS	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
DVC/31/2024	DWARAMPUDI LAKSHMI SUNITHA vs DWARAMPUDI SAISH REDDY AND ANOTHER	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
MC/26/2023	GANTA NAGALAKSHMI vs POLASI THANDAVA KRISHNA	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
MC/27/2025	Kavuru Vijaya Lakshmi vs Kavuru Madhu Babu	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
MC/28/2022	KAMINAHAL NALLABOTHULA HEPZIBA PAUL vs KAMINAHAL NALLBOTHULA SAMUEL PAUL	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
STC/8/2021	State Represented by Inspecto of Police. vs Yarakaraju Hari Krishnam Raju(A-1)	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
STC/20/2023	M/S SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COPNAY LTD. vs PADAMATI GANGA RAJU	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
STC/222/2024	DUNDI SURESH BABU vs PASAM RANGA	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
STC/277/2024	M/S SHRI RAM FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED, vs GMR. AQUA TRADING REP. BY ITS PROP.MR. GUDDATI YEDUKONDALU AND ANOTHER	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
STC/327/2024	SANKURATHRI SRINVAS vs GANESH AQUA REP. BY ITS PROP.KORADA SRINIVAS AND ANOTHER	13 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/575/2025	Bhimavaram I Town Police Station vs Alluri Mahesh Varma and 4 others	12 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/582/2025	Undi Police Station vs Gedala Narasimhulu and 4 others	12 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/425/2025	Bhimavaram I Town Police Station vs Ghandam Krishna and 8 others	11 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—
CC/531/2025	Bhimavaram I Town Police Station vs Chintalapati Lakshmi Narasimha Raju and 10 others	11 Dec 2025	Copy of Order	—

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Dec 2025

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Haneesha Pothumanchi handled?

Haneesha Pothumanchi has handled 98 court orders since 2025 at II AJFCM Court, Bhimavaram. The average disposal rate is 98 orders per month.

What types of cases does Haneesha Pothumanchi hear?

Based on available records, Haneesha Pothumanchi primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Summary Trial Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits) at II AJFCM Court, Bhimavaram.

Where is Haneesha Pothumanchi currently posted?

Haneesha Pothumanchi is posted as II Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram at II AJFCM Court, Bhimavaram, West Godavari, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Haneesha Pothumanchi available online?

Yes. 4 judgments by Haneesha Pothumanchi are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Haneesha Pothumanchi dispose cases?

Haneesha Pothumanchi disposes approximately 98 cases per month, based on 98 orders handled over their tenure at II AJFCM Court, Bhimavaram.

Since when is Haneesha Pothumanchi serving?

Haneesha Pothumanchi has been serving at II AJFCM Court, Bhimavaram since 2025.

Case Types

CC 85%

STC 6%

MC 4%

DVC 3%

OS 2%

Posting History

Dec 2025 — Dec 2025

II Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram · 98 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 2

Compromised 1

Other Judges at this Court

Jyothi Namala

II Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- II Addition...

313 orders

← View all judges at II AJFCM Court, Bhimavaram