Ms. M. Mahathi

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) :: VINUKONDA

Present : Ms.M.Mahathi,

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vinukonda

Thursday, this the 14 th day of May, 2026

O.S.No.10/2023

Between:- Yannabattini Yalamanda, S/o.Chinna Kotaiah, Hindu, Aged about 62 Years, Cultivation, R/o.Door No.2-67, Main Road, Burripalem Village, Nuzendla Mandal, Guntur District.. . . Plaintiff

AND

Burri Venkata Koteswara Rao, S/o.Venkata Subbaiah, Hindu, Aged about 35 Years, Cultivation, R/o.Door No.4-186, Patha Reddy Palem Village, Nuzendla Mandal, Guntur District.. . . Defendant

This suit is coming on 12-05-2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri C.Veeranjaneya Chowdary, Sri S.M.Khasim, Advocates for Plaintiff and Sri Ch.Brahmam, Advocate for Defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

01.This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of sum of

Rs.74,791/- with subsequent interest at 24% p.a., basing on promissory note dated 16-01-2020 for an amount of Rs.43,500/- .

02.The brief averments of plaint are as follows:-

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.43,500/- on 16-01-2020 from the plaintiff for his family expenses and on the same day at the same time the defendant executed suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the said amount together with interest at 24% p.a either to the plaintiff or his order on demand. Subsequently the defendant failed to discharge the said debt.

03.This Court registered the said suit and issued summons to the defendant.

The defendant appeared through his counsel and filed his written statement.

04.The brief averments of the written statement:- The defendant denies all the allegations made in the plaint as false, incorrect, and not binding upon him. It is specifically submitted that in fact, on 24-10-2022, the plaintiff came to the house of the defendant and on the same day the defendant paid the entire suit pronote amount along with interest to the plaintiff. The plaintiff received the said amount from the defendant, but failed to return the suit pronote. At that time, the plaintiff stated that he had not brought the suit pronote with him and asked the defendant 1 to come to the plaintiff’s house later. Accordingly, the defendant went to the house of the plaintiff. After some time, the plaintiff informed the defendant that the suit pronote was misplaced and asked the defendant to come again on the next day.

Believing the words of the plaintiff, the defendant returned home. On the next day, the defendant again went to the house of the plaintiff and demanded return of the suit pronote. However, the plaintiff stated that the suit pronote was misplaced.

Thereafter, the defendant and his mediators repeatedly demanded the plaintiff to return the suit pronote, but the plaintiff did not care for the requests of the defendant. It is submitted that there are political disputes between the plaintiff and the defendant in their village. The plaintiff bears personal grudge against the defendant. In fact, the defendant does not owe any amount to the plaintiff. With an intention to make wrongful gain and to harass the defendant, the plaintiff filed the present false suit. The plaintiff also filed I.A. No. 29/2023 seeking conditional attachment in respect of Petition Schedule Property Item Nos. 1 and 2. The said properties do not belong to the defendant. The documents filed by the plaintiff do not disclose the name of the defendant in respect of the said petition schedule properties. The defendant had already discharged the entire suit pronote amount along with interest to the plaintiff. Despite knowing the same, the plaintiff, with mala fide intention and without following due process of law, filed the above suit and petition only to harass and blackmail the defendant. The defendant does not possess any landed property or house property. The defendant is an agriculturist and is also doing coolie and daily labour work for livelihood. The defendant has no sufficient source of income and has already discharged the alleged suit debt.

Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff is false, vexatious, and liable to be dismissed with costs.

05.After filing of the written statement, the matter was posted for hearing on the possibility of settlement under Sec.89 of C.P.C. and since there is no elements of settlement through any of the modes contemplated under the said section, this matter is posted for issues.

06.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial;

1. Whether the defendant discharged the debt amount to plaintiff, as contended by the defendant in his written statement?

2

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant?

3. To what relief?

07.During the course of trail, the defendant himself was examined as D.W.1 and no documents were marked on his behalf. On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A.1-Suit Promissory note, dt.16-01-2020 and reported no further evidence.

08.Heard both sides and perused the material available on record.

09.Since the Issue Nos.1 and 2 are interconnected with each other and there will be repetition if they were answered separately this Court feels it appropriate to answer the both Issue Nos.1 and 2 together.

Issue No.1: Whether the defendant discharged the debt amount to plaintiff,

as contended by the defendant in his written statement?

Issue No.2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from

the defendant? ISSUES Nos.1 and 2 :

10.The plaintiff himself got examined before this Court as P.W.1, duly filing his chief-examination affidavit reiterating the averments made in the plaint, defendant borrowed an amount of .43,000/- ₹from him on 16-01-2020 for his family expenses and executed Ex.A.1 / promissory note, agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at 24% per annum, either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand, , and the plaintiff approached the Defendant requested to repay the same the defendant failed to repay the same, as such, having no other go he filed the suit.

11.Even though, the Defendant admitted the execution of the suit promissory note he the plea that paid the suit pro note debt along with interest to the plaintiff and same was received by the plaintiff but the plaintiff did not returned suit pronote to him. He further deposed that plaintiff filed present suit for wrongful gain. Defendant did not take any steps to prove his contention, and even he cross examined P.W.1 at some length, he did not elicit anything through the cross examination of P.W.1 to disprove the execution of Ex.A.1/ promissory note. Though, the Defendant examined as D.W.1 he only reiterated his written statement contents during his chief examination. As defendant 3 admitted Ex.A1, It is well settled Law that once, the execution of

Ex.A.1/Promissory note is proved by the plaintiff, presumption under Sec.118 of

Negotiable Instruments Act comes into play, regarding passage of consideration. The said presumption is a rebuttable presumption. The burden lies on the defendant to rebut the presumption under Sec.118 of Negotiable

Instruments Act. Though D.W.1 deposed that he approached plaintiff along with mediators and made repeated demands plaintiff did not return the promissory note. D.W.1 failed to examine mediators on his behalf to prove his contention and he did not file any single piece of paper to rebut the evidence of plaintiff, as such, an adverse inference shall be taken against defendant under

Sec.114 (g) of Indian Evidence Act. Hence, the defendant failed to rebut the said presumption. The plaintiff by way of oral and documentary evidence proved the execution of Ex.A.1 and discharged his initial burden, as such, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief prayed for in the suit.

12.As Ex.A.1 was admitted by the Defendant, there is a presumption under

Sec.118 of Negotiable instrument Act, 1882 regarding passing of consideration and the same is not rebutted by the defendant, hence, without much hesitation thereby, the plaintiff is entitled to realize the suit decree. Though, the recitals of

Ex.A.1/promissory note proves the agreed rate of interest as 24% per annum, this Court opines that it is not just and proper to award the same interest towards pendente lite interest, hence, this Court opines it proper to grant 12% only. Thus, the Issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered in favour of plaintiff.

Issue No.3: To What relief?

In view of the discussion in Issue Nos.1 and 2, the order passed as follows :

13.In the result, the suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff with costs for a sum of

Rs.74,791/- and subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of presentation of the suit i.e., 18-01-2023 till the date of decree and thereafter interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.43,500/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer-III, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 14th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Ms.M.Mahathi,

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

VINUKONDA.

4

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff :

P.W.1 : Yannabattini Yalamanda

For Defendant:

D.W.1 : Burri Venkata Koteswara Rao

Documents marked

For Plaintiff :-

Ex.A.1 : Suit promissory note, dt.16-01-2020

For Defendant: NIL

Sd/- Ms.M.Mahathi,

CJ (Jr., Div), VKD.

5

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) :: VINUKONDA

Present : Ms.M.Mahathi,

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vinukonda

Thursday, this the 14 th day of May, 2026

O.S.No.10/2023

Between:- Yannabattini Yalamanda, S/o.Chinna Kotaiah, Hindu, Aged about 62 Years, Cultivation, R/o.Door No.2-67, Main Road, Burripalem Village, Nuzendla Mandal, Guntur District.. . . Plaintiff

AND

Burri Venkata Koteswara Rao, S/o.Venkata Subbaiah, Hindu, Aged about 35

Years, Cultivation, R/o.Door No.4-186, Patha Reddy Palem Village, Nuzendla

Mandal, Guntur District.. . . Defendant

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of sum of Rs.74,791/- with subsequent interest at 24% p.a., basing on promissory note

dated 16-01-2020 for an amount of Rs.43,500/- .

Plaint presented on:18-01-2023

Plaint Filed on : 18-01-2023

Cause of action for the suit arose on 16-01-2020 when the defendant approached the plaintiff and borrowed an amount of Rs.43,500/- and executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with an interest @24% p.a., either to him or at his order on demand; subsequently in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff personally, the defendant did not choose to repay the same and dragged on the matter till the date of limitation and failed to discharge the debt due under the suit promissory note at Burripalem

Village, Nuzendla Mandal, where the suit transaction was took place, which is within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

PARTICULARS OF SUIT CLAIM:

Principal amount of promissory noteRs.43,500-00

Interest thereon at 24% P.A., from 16-01-2020 to Rs.31,291-00 15-01-2023 Total: Rs.74,791-00

On which a court fee of Rs.2,946/- is paid under Sec.20 of APCF and SV Act.

This suit is coming up for final hearing before me on 12-05-2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri C.Veeranjaneya Chowdary, Sri S.M.Khasim, Advocates for Plaintiff and Sri Ch.Brahmam, Advocate for Defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree as follows:- that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.74,791/- with subsequent interest @12% p.a., from the date of presentation suit i.e., 1. 18-01-2023 till the date of decree and thereafter interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.43,500/-.; and that defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.6,961/- towards 2. costs of the suit and do bear his own costs of Rs.Nil.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this the 14th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Ms.M.Mahathi,

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

VINUKONDA.

T A B L E OF C O S T S

For Plaintiff For Defendant

Stamp on Vakalat2-00

Stamp on Plaint2,926-00

Process40-00CM &FC not filed

Advocate Fee3,943-00

Writing Charges50-00 Rs.Nil Total:Rs.6,961-00

Sd/- Ms.M.Mahathi,

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

VINUKONDA.

N.B: The parties should apply as soon as possible for return of all the exhibits which they may wish to preserve, as the record will be destroyed after three years from the date of decree or judgment.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS-CUM- CIVIL

JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION):: VINUKONDA.

Present:- Ms.M.Mahathi,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class-cum-Civil Judge (Junior Division) :: Vinukonda

Monday, this the 18th day of May, 2026

D.V.C.No.12/2025

Between:- Mannem Sravani, W/o.Mahesh, D/o.Chida Nageswara Rao, Hindu, Aged about 23 Years, Housewife, R/o.Door No.2-90, Bommarajupalli Village, Ipur Mandal, Palnadu . . . Petitioner District.

And

1. Mannem Mahesh, S/o.Kondalu, Hindu, Aged about 30 Years, Travels, R/o.Door No.4-59, Near Vinayaka Temple, Peta Sannegandla Village, Karempudi Mandal, Palnadu District.

2. Mannem Naga Malleswari, W/o.Kondalu, Hindu, 47 Years, Housewife, R/o.Door No.4-59, Near Vinayaka Temple, Peta Sannegandla Village, Karempudi Mandal, Palnadu District.

3. Mannem Kondalu, S/o.Bala Koti, Hindu, Aged about 50 Years, Auto Driver, R/o.Door No.4-59, Near Vinayaka Temple, Peta Sannegandla Village, Karempudi Mandal, Palnadu District.

4. Marabathula Vara Lakshmi, W/o.late Venkateswarlu, Hindu, 69 Years, Housewife, R/o.Door No.4-59, Near Vinayaka Temple, Peta Sannegandla Village, Karempudi Mandal, Palnadu District.

5. Marabathula Swathi, W/o.Venkata Siva, Hindu, Aged about 27 Year, Housewife, R/o.Near Brahmamgari Temple, Adigoppula Village, Durgi Mandal, Palnadu District. . . . Respondents

This Petition is coming before me on 11-05-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri C.Veeranjaneya Chowdary, Sri S.M.Khasim, Advocates for Petitioner and the Respondents having remained ex-parte, this matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

(a).This petition is filed by the Petitioner against the Respondents under

Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking the following reliefs: (a). To grant a Residence Order directing the

Respondent No.1 to provide the Petitioner with alternative accommodation or, in the alternative, to pay monthly rent of 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand₹ 2 only) in terms of Section 19(f) of the Domestic Violence Act; (b). To grant maintenance of 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) per month to the₹

Petitioner under Section 20(b) and 20(d) of the Domestic Violence Act from

Respondent No.1; (c). To grant compensation and damages of 10,00,000/-₹ (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) under Section 22 of the Domestic Violence Act for the mental and physical harassment, cruelty, and torture suffered by the Petitioner on account of demand for additional dowry and acts of domestic violence committed by the Respondents; (d). To grant litigation expenses of 25,000/-₹ (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) towards the cost of prosecuting the present petition.

02.Brief facts set out in the petition are as follows:-

(a).The Petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the 1st Respondent. The

Respondents No.2 and 3 are the parents of the 1st Respondent, and the

Respondent No.4 is the mother of the 2nd Respondent. The marriage between the Petitioner and the 1st Respondent was solemnized on 01.07.2021 as per

Hindu rites and customs at Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple, near Sri Chakra

Cement Factory, Peta Sannegandla Village, Karampudi Mandal. At the time of marriage, the parents of the Petitioner gave a sum of 3,00,000/- (Rupees₹

Three Lakhs only) in cash and 4 sovereigns of gold ornaments towards dowry as demanded by the Respondents.

(b).After the marriage, the Petitioner joined the matrimonial home at Peta

Sannegandla Village, Karampudi Mandal, and the marriage was consummated.

Initially, the Petitioner lived with the 1st Respondent for about one year peacefully. Thereafter, the Petitioner gave birth to a female child on 13.10.2022.

Subsequently, Respondents No.2 to 5 began instigating the 1st Respondent against the Petitioner and started creating unnecessary disputes without any fault on her part. Believing their words, the 1st Respondent started harassing the Petitioner both physically and mentally, abusing her in filthy language, and assaulting her indiscriminately. He also taunted her for giving birth to a female child and demanded additional dowry, including a demand to register house site property in his name.

3

(c).The 1st Respondent, in collusion with the other Respondents, also made attempts endangering the life of the minor female child. The Petitioner informed the same to her parents, who, along with village elders, tried to resolve the issue on several occasions, but there was no change in the attitude of the

Respondents. The Respondent No.5 also, in collusion with Respondents No.2 to 4, instigated the 1st Respondent to demand an additional sum of 4,00,000/-₹ as dowry. When the Petitioner expressed her inability due to her parents’ poor financial condition, all the Respondents together started treating the Petitioner and her minor child cruelly by denying basic necessities such as food and clothing, and made them sleep on the floor. The 1st Respondent developed illicit intimacy with one Shaik Saidabi of Karampudi and failed to discharge his marital obligations. Despite such cruelty, the Petitioner continued to live with hope that the 1st Respondent would reform himself for the sake of family and their minor child.

(d).However, on 31.03.2024, the 1st Respondent is alleged to have caused the death of the minor child, in respect of which a case in Crime No.26/2024 has been registered by Karampudi Police and is pending investigation/trial.

Thereafter, all the Respondents colluded together and threatened the Petitioner to withdraw the said criminal case and further intensified their harassment, subjecting her to continuous mental and physical cruelty. Ultimately, the

Petitioner was forcibly driven out from the matrimonial home without any support, compelling her to return to her parental house.

(e).Thus, the 1st Respondent has deserted the Petitioner without any reasonable cause or fault on her part and has failed to maintain her. The

Petitioner’s parents, who are daily wage labourers, are unable to maintain her due to their meager and uncertain income. The Petitioner is unable to maintain herself and is presently suffering from thyroid-related health issues and requires regular medication. The 1st Respondent is well-established and financially sound. He is running a travel business and owns a Toyota Etios car bearing

No.AP07-BU-1188, three auto-rickshaws, and two motor cycles. He also owns a multi-storied RCC building and an asbestos roof house. Further, he is running a flour mill and earning approximately 70,000/- per month, apart from money₹ lending business yielding an additional income of about 30,000/- per month.₹ 4

(f).The 1st Respondent has sufficient means and substantial income but has neglected to maintain the Petitioner and has subjected her to continuous physical and mental cruelty, causing serious damage to her health and mental well being, which cannot be adequately compensated in monetary terms.

However, the Petitioner moderately values the compensation for such suffering at ₹5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only). The Petitioner further seeks a

Residence Order providing accommodation commensurate with the status of the 1st Respondent in the shared household, or in the alternative, 3,000/- per₹ month towards rent for separate accommodation, and also seeks monthly maintenance of 20,000/- from the 1st Respondent.₹

03.The respondents after receipt of notice in the above said DVS, appeared

before this Court and when the matter is posted for counter, the respondents

did not choose to appear and failed to file their counter to contest the DVC and that the respondents were set ex-parte and then the matter is posted to the petitioner side evidence.

04.During the course of trial, the petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 and P.2 on her behalf i.e., Ex.P.1 is Wedding card of the petitioner and 1st respondent, Ex.P.2 is Marriage photo of the petitioner and 1st respondent (2 in number) and the petitioner reported no further evidence.

05.Heard the counsel for petitioner and perused the record.

06.Now the short point for determination is:-

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?

Point:-

07.The petitioner filed the present petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 seeking protection orders, residence order, maintenance and compensation against the respondents.

08.It is the case of the petitioner is that she is the legally wedded wife of the 1st respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 01.07.2021 as per Hindu rites and customs. It is her contention that at the time of marriage, her parents paid cash of 3,00,000/- and gold ornaments towards dowry as demanded by₹ the respondents. After marriage, initially the petitioner was treated properly, but 5 subsequently the respondents started harassing her physically and mentally by demanding additional dowry and by taunting her for giving birth to a female child. It is further alleged that the respondents denied her basic necessities and subjected her to cruelty, ultimately driving her out of the matrimonial house. The petitioner further contended that the 1st respondent neglected to maintain her despite having sufficient means and income through travel business, auto- rickshaws, flour mill and other properties. According to the petitioner, she is unable to maintain herself and is depending upon her parents for survival.

09.In support of her case, the petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 and reiterated the averments made in the petition. She also relied upon Ex.P.1-

Wedding Card and Ex.P.2-Marriage Photos to establish the marital relationship between herself and the 1st respondent.

10.Though notices were served on the respondents and they initially appeared before the Court, subsequently they failed to contest the matter and remained absent. Hence, they were set ex-parte. The oral testimony of P.W.1 therefore remained unchallenged and unrebutted. There is no material on record to disbelieve the version of the petitioner.

11.On careful appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner has established that she was subjected to domestic violence within the meaning of Section 3 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The petitioner is legally entitled to claim maintenance and residence order from the 1st respondent.

12.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the status of the parties, the needs of the petitioner, and the earning capacity of the 1st respondent as pleaded by the petitioner, this Court deems it reasonable to award monthly maintenance of 6,000/- to the petitioner from the date of₹ petition. Further, the petitioner is also entitled to residence relief by way of awarding an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month towards rental expenses.

13.However, with regard to the claim of compensation of 10,00,000/-, this₹

Court is of the opinion that the same appears excessive. Considering the mental agony and harassment suffered by the petitioner, a compensation of ₹50,000/- would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, point is answered.

6

14.In the result, the petition is partly allowed with litigation costs of

Rs.10,000/-. The 1st respondent is directed to pay monthly maintenance of ₹6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand only) to the petitioner from the date of petition and continue to pay the same on or before 10th day of every succeeding month.

The 1st respondent shall either provide suitable alternative accommodation to the petitioner of the same status as enjoyed by her in the shared household or pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month towards rent for such accommodation, from the date of order. The respondents shall pay compensation of 50,000/-₹ (Rupees fifty thousand only) to the petitioner towards mental agony and harassment caused to her.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 18th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Ms.M.Mahathi,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS-CUM-

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION):: VINUKONDA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Petitioner :

P.W.1: Mannem Sravani

For Respondents : None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Petitioner :

Ex.P.1 is Wedding card of the petitioner and 1st respondent

Ex.P.2 is Marriage photo of the petitioner and 1st respondent (2 in number)

For Respondents : Nil

Sd/- Ms.M.Mahathi,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS-CUM-

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION):: VINUKONDA.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS-CUM- CIVIL

JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION):: VINUKONDA.

PRESENT: M S .M.M AHATHI ,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS-CUM- CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION):: VINUKONDA

Monday, this the 18th day of May, 2026

P.R.C.No.07/2026

Between:- State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Savalyapuram Police. . . Complainant Station

And

1. Chundu Esuratnam @ Yesu Ratnam, S/o.Chinna Rattayya, 25 Years, R/o.Potluru Village, Savalyapuram Mandal, Palnadu District.

2. Chundu Gangamma, W/o.Chinna Rattayya, 39 Years, R/o.Potluru Village, Savalyapuram Mandal, Palnadu District.

3. Chundu Chinna Rattayya, S/o.Chinna Subbaiah, 44 Years, R/o.Potluru Village, Savalyapuram Mandal, Palnadu District.

4. Chundu Rattamma @ Rathamma, W/o.Subbaiah, 39 Years, R/o.Potluru Village, Savalyapuram Mandal, Palnadu District.

5. Chimaladinne Nagendramma, W/o.Venkateswarlu, 39 Years, R/o.SC Colony, Potluru Village, Savalyapuram Mandal, Palnadu District.. . . Accused This case has come before me on this day for committal in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri D.Madhav Mohan, Ch.Kote Naik, Advocate for Accused Nos.1 to 5 and upon consideration, this court delivered the following:

COMMITTAL ORDER

01.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Savalyapuram Police Station filed charge sheet in Crime No.59/2025 under Secs.115(2), 79, 109 r/w.3(5) of BNS.

02.The contents of the charge sheet in brief is as follows:

(a).L.W.1 is a resident of Potluru Village, Savalyapuram Mandal, and is an agricultural labourer by profession. She is blessed with two daughters and one son.

The deceased was her younger daughter. The elder daughter is married, while her son, L.W.3, is unmarried. The deceased was married about eight years ago to one

Angalakurthi Chinna of Makkenavaripalem Village, Santhamaguluru Mandal,

Bapatla District. After marriage, the deceased joined her husband and led her marital life while also attending agricultural labour work along with him. During their wedlock, the deceased was blessed with two sons, namely Yesu Raju and Rathna

Babu.

(b).About three years ago, disputes and misunderstandings arose between the deceased and her husband. Due to marital discord, the deceased left her matrimonial home along with her two sons and returned to reside with her mother at Potluru Village. Thereafter, she started working as a daily wage agricultural labourer in the village. A1, namely Chundu Yesu Ratnam, is the neighbour of the deceased in Potluru Village and is unmarried. During the course of the deceased attending agricultural labour work and while moving in and around the village, A1 began stalking, harassing, and verbally abusing her on several occasions. Initially, the deceased tolerated his behaviour silently. However, when the harassment continued unabated, she informed her family members about the conduct of A1. On several occasions, the deceased warned and chastised A1 and requested him to mend his behaviour, but A1 paid no heed to her objections.

(c).Despite repeated warnings, A1 continuously stalked and harassed the deceased, causing her severe mental agony and emotional distress. As the harassment and verbal abuse became unbearable, the deceased informed her mother, L.W.1, about the repeated misconduct of A1. Consequently, the deceased and her mother decided to approach the parents of A1 with an intention to request them to restrain their son from further harassment. Accordingly, on 05.08.2025 at about 09:00 AM, the deceased and L.W.1 went to the house of A1 and his parents to discuss the matter. Their visit was solely intended to resolve the issue amicably and to request the parents of A1 to advise and control him. However, instead of resolving the matter, A1 to A3 reacted aggressively.

(d).During the said incident, A2 and A3 abused the deceased in filthy and derogatory language by calling her “Lanja” and other insulting words. They pulled her hair, threw her to the ground, and beat both the deceased and L.W.1 with hands and legs. Subsequently, A4 and A5, who are the aunts of A1, also joined the assault and indiscriminately kicked and beat the deceased and her mother while hurling abuses against them.During the course of the assault, all the accused intentionally uttered words such as, “Die, you shameless woman; if you die, it will be a relief for us,” thereby humiliating and intentionally instigating the deceased to commit suicide. Due to the combined effect of physical assault, verbal humiliation, and continuous harassment, the deceased suffered severe mental trauma and emotional distress. Thereafter, the deceased and her mother returned to their house. Later, when L.W.1 left for work, the deceased remained alone at home.

Unable to bear the humiliation, harassment, and mental agony caused by the accused, the deceased decided to end her life. At about 11:30 AM on the same day, the deceased consumed Paraquat Dichloride herbicide, which was available among the agricultural supplies, in an attempt to commit suicide.

(e).After noticing her condition, L.Ws.2 and 3 along with others shifted the deceased in an auto to Sri Srinivasa Nursing Home, Vinukonda, where she was admitted for treatment. On 07.08.2025 at about 09:30 PM, L.W.12 received hospital intimation from Sri Srinivasa Nursing Home, Vinukonda, and accordingly registered a case in Crime No.59/2025 under Sections 115(2), 79 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, of Savalyapuram Police Station. Copies of the

FIR were submitted to all concerned officers, and investigation was taken up. After registration of the case, L.W.12 visited Sri Srinivasa Nursing Home, Vinukonda, secured the presence of L.Ws.1 to 3, examined them, and recorded their detailed statements under Section 180(3) BNSS in Part-II of the Case Diary. Thereafter,

L.W.12 visited the scene of offence, inspected the scene, and prepared a rough sketch. Subsequently, on 08.08.2025, the deceased was shifted to Government

General Hospital, Guntur, for better treatment. While undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to the poisoning and died on 11.08.2025 at about 04:52 AM.

(f).Based on the death intimation and the statements of witnesses, L.W.12 altered the section of law by adding Section 108 BNS to the existing Sections 115(2), 79 read with 3(5) BNS and filed the necessary memo before the Hon’ble

Court. Thereafter, L.W.12 secured the presence of L.W.11, WPC 8310 K. Durga

Kalyani, along with two mediators and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatdars, relatives, and witnesses from 02:00

PM to 04:00 PM on 11.08.2025. Subsequently, L.W.10, the Medical Officer, conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and preserved the viscera, which was later forwarded to RFSL, Guntur, for chemical analysis vide Ref. No. GNT/TOX/1257/2025 dated 30.08.2025. During the course of investigation, L.W.12 arrested A1 to A5 and remanded them to judicial custody on 20.08.2025. On 12.09.2025, L.W.12 received the RFSL report from RFSL,

Guntur, wherein it was confirmed that Paraquat Dichloride, a poisonous herbicide, was detected in Item Nos.1 to 3. Item No.4, which was common salt sent as preservative sample, tested negative. Thereafter, L.W.12 obtained the final opinion from L.W.10, the Medical Officer who conducted the postmortem examination. As per the final opinion, the deceased died due to consumption of Paraquat Dichloride herbicide poison. After completion of investigation, L.W.12 filed charge sheet against the accused.

003. This case was taken on file for the offences under Secs.108, 115(2), 79 r/w.3(5) of BNS against accused.

04.On appearance of accused, they were furnished with copies of documents as stipulated under Sec.230 of B.N.S.S.

05. On careful perusal of the entire material placed on record, a prima facie case is made out against the accused for the offence alleged Sec.108 of BNS against accused. The offence under Sec.108 of BNS, which is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, and hence the case is committed to the Court of Sessions Division,

Guntur Under Section 232(a) B.N.S.S.

06.The Accused Nos.1 to 5 were enlarged on bail as per the Orders of Hon’ble

High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati in Criminal Petition No.10327 of 2025, dt.08-10-2025 and the accused are continued to be on bail during and until the conclusion of trial under Sec.232(b) of B.N.S.S.

07. The entire case record, documents and property if any, shall be forwarded to the Court of Sessions Division Guntur, under Section 232 (c) B.N.S.S.

08. The commitment of this case shall be notified to the Public Prosecutor of the

Court of Sessions Division, Guntur, under Section 232 (d) B.N.S.S.

09.In the result, the case is committed to the Court of Sessions, Guntur under

Sec.232(a) of BNSS. The accused are directed to appear before concerned Court on receipt of summons. The office is directed to submit the entire case record forthwith, duly indexed and property, if any, to the court of Court of Sessions

Division Guntur, as required under Sec.232(c) BNSS. and notify under Sec.232(d)

BNSS to the public prosecutor about the commitment of the case to the court of

sessions.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 18th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-Ms.M.Mahathi,

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vinukonda.

Appendix of Evidence -Nil-

Sd/-Ms.M.Mahathi,

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vinukonda.

// True Copy //

CJ (Jr., Div.,), Vkd

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) :: VINUKONDA

Present : Ms.M.Mahathi,

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vinukonda

Friday, this the 15 th day of May, 2026

O.S.No.81/2026

Between:- Devarasetty Govindarajulu, S/o.Subbarao, 63 Years, Hindu, Business, R/o.Vellatur Village and Post, Bollapalli Mandal, Palnadu District. . . . Plaintiff

AND

Maale Chandrasekhar, S/o.Shaury, Aged about 59 Years, Hindu, Government Employee, R/o.Vinukonda Town, Palnadu District.. . . Defendant

This suit is coming on 11-05-2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri N.Ramanjaneya Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiff and the defendant having remained exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

01.This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of sum of Rs.1,32,560/- (Rs.83,000/- + Rs.49,560/-) with subsequent interest at 24% p.a., basing on two promissory notes dated 15-06-2023 and 28-06-2023 for

Rs.50,000/- and Rs.30,000/- respectively.

02.The brief averments of plaint are as follows:-

The defendant borrowed the amounts of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.30,000/- from the Plaintiff on 15-06-2023 and 28-06-2023 for his family expenses and in evidence therefore, he executed two separate promissory notes, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., Subsequently, in-spite of repeated demands made by the Plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to repay the above said pronotes amount and failed to discharge the debt due under the promissory notes. The defendant is a business man, hence the provisions of Act IV of 1938 and 45 of 1985 are not applicable to this case.

03.After receipt of summons in this suit by the defendant, the defendant did not choose to appear before this Court to contest the suit and thus the defendant was set ex-parte.

2

04.During the course of ex-parte evidence, the plaintiff examined himself as

P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 and A.2 i.e., Ex.A.1 is Promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of Plaintiff, dt.16-03-2023 for Rs.50,000/-, Ex.A.2 is

Promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of Plaintiff, dt.28-06-2023 for Rs.30,000/- and reported no further evidence.

05.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff.

06.Now the point for consideration is:- “Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant ?

07.POINT:- The plaintiff, in his evidence as P.W.1, has reiterated his case that on 15-06-2023 and 28-06-2023, the defendant has borrowed the amounts of

Rs.50,000/- and Rs.30,000/- from the plaintiff for his family expenses and executed Exs.A.1 and A.2 suit promissory notes on the respective dates, in his favour, in the presence of attestors and scribe, promising to repay the principal amounts with the interest @24% per annum to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. Thereafter, the defendant, in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff to repay the said debt, failed to repay the principal amount and interest or part thereof. The defendant was set exparte to defend the case. Therefore, the evidence of the plaintiff as P.W.1 was remained unchallenged, since the defendant remained exparte.

08.From the above unchallenged evidence of the plaintiff, it is evident that on 15-06-2023 and 28-06-2023, the defendant borrowed the amounts of

Rs.50,000/- and Rs.30,000/- from the plaintiff for his family expenses and executed Exs.A.1 and A.2 suit promissory notes on the respective dates, in his favour, in the presence of attestors and scribe, promising to repay the principal amount with the accrued interest @24% per annum to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. Thereafter, in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to repay either the principal amounts and interest or part thereof. Hence, there cannot be any hesitation to hold that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant.

09.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for an amount of Rs.1,32,560/- (Rs.83,000/- +

Rs.49,560/-) with subsequent interest @12% p.a., from the date of suit i.e., 3 16-03-2026 till the date of decree and thereafter interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amounts of Rs.80,000/- (Rs.50,000/- + Rs.30,000/-).

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 15th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Ms.M.Mahathi,

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

VINUKONDA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff : P.W.1 : Devarasetty Govindarajulu For Defendant : None

Documents marked

For Plaintiff :- Ex.A.1 is Promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of Plaintiff, dt.16-03-2023 for Rs.50,000/-

Ex.A.2 is Promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of Plaintiff, dt.28-06-2023 for Rs.30,000/-

For Defendant: NIL

Sd/- Ms.M.Mahathi,

CJ (Jr., Div), VKD.

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) :: VINUKONDA

Present : Ms.M.Mahathi,

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vinukonda

Friday, this the 15 th day of May, 2026

O.S.No.81/2026

Between:- Devarasetty Govindarajulu, S/o.Subbarao, 63 Years, Hindu, Business, R/o.Vellatur Village and Post, Bollapalli Mandal, Palnadu District. . . . Plaintiff

AND

Maale Chandrasekhar, S/o.Shaury, Aged about 59 Years, Hindu, Government Employee, R/o.Vinukonda Town, Palnadu District.. . . Defendant This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of sum of Rs.1,32,560/- (Rs.83,000/- + Rs.49,560/-) with subsequent interest at 24% p.a., basing on two promissory notes dated 15-06-2023 and 28-06-2023 for

Rs.50,000/- and Rs.30,000/- respectively.

Plaint presented on:16-03-2026 Plaint Filed on : 26-03-2026

Cause of action for the suit arose on 16.06.2023 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) from the plaintiff and again on 28.06.2023 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) from the plaintiff for his family expenses and on the even dates the defendant executed the suit promissory notes at vellatur village in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with an interest of @24% p.a. either to the plaintiff or his order on demand. Subsequently when the plaintiff made several repeated demands to the defendant personally and through mediators the defendant is failed to clear off the pronote's debt. Where the suit pronote's were executed and where the parties to the suit reside all are within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble court.

PARTICULARS OF SUIT CLAIM:

Principal amount Rs.50,000-00

Interest thereon at 24% P.A., from 16-06-2023 to Rs.33,000-00 15-03-2026 Total: Rs.83,000-00

Principal amount Rs.30,000-00

Interest thereon at 24% P.A., from 28-06-2023 to Rs.19,560-00 15-03-2026 Total: Rs.49,560-00 Total Amount due is Rs.1,32,560/- (Rs.83,000/- + Rs.49,560/-) On which a court fee of Rs.5,492/- is paid under Sec.20 of APCF and SV Act. This suit is coming up for final hearing before me on 11-05-2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri N.Ramanjaneya Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiff and the Defendant having remained ex-parte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree as follows:- that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,32,560/- (Rs.83,000/- + Rs.49,560/-) with subsequent interest @12% p.a., from the 1. date of suit i.e., 16-03-2026 till the date of decree and thereafter interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amounts of Rs.80,000/- (Rs.50,000/- + Rs.30,000/-).and that defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.8,422/- towards 2. costs of the suit and do bear his own costs of Rs.Nil.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this the 15th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Ms.M.Mahathi,

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

VINUKONDA.

T A B L E OF C O S T S

For Plaintiff For Defendant

Stamp on Vakalat2-00

Stamp on Plaint5,492-00

Process40-00CM &FC not filed

Advocate Fee2,838-00

Writing Charges50-00 Rs.Nil Total:Rs.8,422-00

Sd/- Ms.M.Mahathi,

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

VINUKONDA.

N.B: The parties should apply as soon as possible for return of all the exhibits which they may wish to preserve, as the record will be destroyed after three years from the date of decree or judgment.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS-CUM- CIVIL

JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION):: VINUKONDA.

PRESENT: M S .M.M AHATHI ,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS-CUM- CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION):: VINUKONDA

Friday, this the 15th day of May, 2026

P.R.C.No.09/2026

Between:- State: Inspector of Police, Vinukonda Police Station. . . Complainant

And

Peddabanala Balasundar @ Banala Bala Sundaram, S/o.Nagesu, 24 Years, Adijambavanthula Colony, Konedena Road, Marturu Village and Mandal, Bapatla . . . Accused District. This case has come before me on this day for committal in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri D.Vijay, Advocate for Accused and upon consideration, this court delivered the following:

COMMITTAL ORDER

01.The Inspector of Police, Vinukonda Police Station filed charge sheet in Crime

No.236/2025 under Sec.69 of BNS.

02.The contents of the charge sheet in brief is as follows:

(a).LW.1/Chinakarni Bhulakshmi is a resident of Arundhati Colony, Vinukonda

Mandal, Palnadu District. She is one among three daughters of her parents, who are daily wage labourers earning their livelihood through manual work. It is further revealed that LW.1 was earlier married to one Pedagowravarapu Kotesh, resident of Martur Village, about nine years ago, and due to certain matrimonial disputes and family misunderstandings, she separated from him after one year of marriage and thereafter started residing along with her parents. While she was residing with her parents, LW.1 came into contact with the accused, aged about 26 years, belonging to Dokkala caste, resident of Martur Village. It is further revealed that initially the acquaintance developed into friendship, and subsequently the accused, with dishonest intention, started interacting with LW.1 frequently and falsely represented to her that he loved her deeply and would marry her, and further used to threaten that he would die if she did not accept his proposal. It is also revealed that the accused was previously married and his wife had left him, however, he concealed his marital background and continued to induce LW.1 by false assurances of marriage and future care.

(b).Believing such false promises and inducements, LW.1 developed emotional attachment towards the accused. It is further revealed that the accused, taking advantage of her trust and vulnerability, repeatedly visited her house in the absence of her parents and had sexual intercourse with LW.1 on several occasions against her initial reluctance and on the false promise of marriage. It is further revealed that the accused continued such physical relationship with LW.1 over a period of time. Subsequently, when LW.1 insisted upon the accused to marry her as promised, the accused is alleged to have refused to marry her and insulted her by stating that he would not marry her and asked her to do whatever she could, thereby clearly revealing his dishonest intention from the beginning. Thereafter,

LW.1 approached community elders LWs.6 to 9 seeking justice; however, no fruitful settlement was arrived at. On 08.11.2025 at about 11.00 hours, LW.1, due to mental depression and distress caused by the conduct of the accused, consumed rat poison mixed with rice at her residence with an intention to end her life.

Immediately thereafter, her relatives LWs.2 to 5 noticed the incident and shifted her to Dr. Chinnappa Reddy Hospital, Vinukonda for emergency treatment.

(c).On receipt of intimation, LW.14 – Sub-Inspector of Police reached the hospital, recorded the statement of LW.1 and based on the said statement, a case in Cr.No.236/2025 under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 was registered on 08.11.2025 at 17.00 hours and forwarded the FIR to the Hon’ble

Court and other concerned authorities. During investigation, LW.15 visited the hospital and examined LW.1 and recorded her detailed statement under Section 180(3) BNSS and incorporated the same in the case diary. LW.15 also visited the scene of offence, examined the scene in the presence of mediators LWs.10 and 11, prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence and seized relevant material objects under a proper observation report. LW.15 further examined and recorded the statements of witnesses LWs.2 to 9 under Section 180(3) BNSS and incorporated their versions in Part-II case diary. On reliable information regarding the whereabouts of the accused, LW.15 secured mediators LWs.10 and 11, issued notices and proceeded to Mundlamuru Bus Stand, Vinukonda Town, where the accused was secured and interrogated in the presence of mediators. During interrogation, the accused voluntarily confessed to his involvement in the offence.

Accordingly, the accused was arrested on 26.11.2025 at about 12.30 hours under the cover of a mediator report duly attested by LWs.10 and 11 and thereafter produced before the Hon’ble Court seeking judicial remand. During investigation,

LW.15 forwarded the biological material objects viz., vaginal swab, vaginal smear, cervical swab, cervical smear, vaginal fluid, pubic hair and nail samples of the victim, which were collected by LW.12 – Medical Officer, Area Hospital,

Narasaraopet, to the RFSL, Guntur through PC No.6116 A. Dasu, along with necessary letter of advice. The same was received by RFSL vide Case File No.

RFSL (GNT)/2629/SER/419/2025 dated 02.12.2025. Subsequently, RFSL report was received and placed before LW.12. LW.12 – Dr. M. Sindhuja, Civil Assistant

Surgeon, Area Hospital, Narasaraopet, issued final opinion stating that as per clinical examination, gynecological examination and RFSL report, there is no recent evidence of sexual intercourse. Further, on requisition of LW.15, the Hon’ble Court ordered potency test of the accused in Crl.M.P.No.3900/2025. Accordingly, the accused was examined by LW.13 – Dr. Pramod Kumar Koyyalamudi, Assistant

Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, Guntur Medical

College, Guntur, who issued a certificate of opinion stating that there is nothing to suggest that the accused is incapable of performing sexual intercourse. Hence,

LW.15 completed the investigation and laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

03. This case was taken on file for the offence under Sec.69 of BNS against accused.

04.On appearance of accused, he was furnished with copies of documents as stipulated under Sec.230 of B.N.S.S.

05. On careful perusal of the entire material placed on record, a prima facie case is made out against the accused for the offence alleged Sec.69 of BNS against accused. The offence under Sec.69 of BNS, which is exclusively triable by Court of

Sessions, and hence the case is committed to the Court of Sessions Division,

Guntur Under Section 232(a) B.N.S.S.

06.The Accused was enlarged on bail as per the Orders of Hon’ble

XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet, vide

Crl.M.P.No.848/2025, dated: 09-01-2026 and the accused is continued to be on

bail during and until the conclusion of trial under Sec.232(b) of B.N.S.S.

07. The entire case record, documents and property if any, shall be forwarded to the Court of Sessions Division Guntur, under Section 232 (c) B.N.S.S.

08. The commitment of this case shall be notified to the Public Prosecutor of the

Court of Sessions Division, Guntur, under Section 232 (d) B.N.S.S.

09.In the result, the case is committed to the Court of Sessions, Guntur under

Sec.232(a) of BNSS. The accused is directed to appear before concerned Court on receipt of summons. The office is directed to submit the entire case record forthwith, duly indexed and property, if any, to the court of Court of Sessions

Division Guntur, as required under Sec.232(c) BNSS. and notify under Sec.232(d)

BNSS to the public prosecutor about the commitment of the case to the court of

sessions.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 15th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Ms.M.Mahathi,

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vinukonda.

Appendix of Evidence -Nil-

Sd/- Ms.M.Mahathi,

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vinukonda.

// True Copy //

CJ (Jr., Div.,), VKD