Kum.M.Prasanna Lakshmi

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS CUM I

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: AT KAKINADA.

Present: Kum. M.PRASANNA LAKSHMI II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class–cum- II.Addl. Junior Civil Judge, FAC/I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class–cum- I.Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada.

Monday, this the 15 th day of May, 2023

C.C.2252/2021

Between:- State: Sub-Inspector of police,

Disha Women Police Station, Kakinada..Complainant.

And

1. Vithanala Srinivas s/o Satyanarayana, A/ 38 years, C/Settibalija, D.No.,9-7, Kesavapuram, Tallarevu Mandal. R/o D.No.10-249/A, Sarapaka, Badhradri Kothagudem District. Telangana State.

2. Vithanala Satyanarayana, s/o Adhinarayana A/65 years, C/Settibalija, D.No.9-7, Kesavapuram, Tallarevu Mandal.

3. Vithanala Naga Mani W/o Satyanarayana, A/60 years, C/Settibalija, D.No.,97, Kesavapuram, Tallarevu Mandal.

4) Kalla Anantha Lakshmi w/o Suri Babu, A/45 years, C/Settibalija, D.No:5-41, B.C Peta, Patavala, Tallarevu Mandal

5) Chappidi Krishnaveni w/o Lakshmana Rao, A/40 years, D.No:2-101/B, Chappidivaaripalem, Mummidivaram mandal

6) Seelam Lakshmi Devi w/o Naga Raju, A/38 years, C/Settibalija, D.No:5-2-029 Seetaramanagar, Yanam, Pondicherry.

7) Kaja Durga Lakshmi w/o Srinivas, A/37 years, C/Settibalija, D.No:4-40, Peddapeta, Seela village, Kajuluru MandalNow at Akkayapalem, Visakhapatnam.

.. Accused 1 to 7

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 12.05.2023 in the presence of learned A.P.P for the State and upon perusing the evidence and material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of police, Disha Women police station, Kakinada filed charge sheet in Cr.No.56/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 498-

A, 506 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as I.P.C) and Sec.3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (hereinafter referred as D.P.Act) against the accused 1 to 7.

2.Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

On 26.08.2016 the marriage of L.W.1 was performed with A1 at Arya Vysya Kalyanamandapam Tallarevu mandal in the presence of both side elders and relative according to Hindu customs and traditions and her parents gave Rs.12 lakhs towards dowry. Half acre cultivation land, Rs.2,00,000/- towards adapaduchu lanchanams, 20 sovereigns of gold and 6 sovereigns of gold to A1 on their demand and cheated her as A1 has getting huge salary and having lot of property and later she joined with A1 with saree samans of Rs.2,00,000/-. During her wedlock, she blessed with one male child and later A1 of you started harassing her both mentally and physically and beat with hands and with the active support of her in laws by demanding her to bring additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and later shifted to Bhadrachalam due to her husband dooing job. There A1 had illicit intimacy with another woman and continuously harassing her to sell the cultivation land and also threatened her with dire consequences and having no other go, L.W1 approached to Women PS and after conducting family conselling, A1 agreed to look after but did not change his attitude and on that she approached to Disha PS. Basing on the strength of the report given by L.W.1, this case was registered by the Women

P.S, Kakinada as Cr.No.56/2021 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 506 r/w.34 IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P.Act. L.W.15 took up investigation in this case and after completion of the investigation, filed charge sheet under Sec.498-A, 506 r/w.34 IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P.Act.

3)The case was taken on file for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 506 r/w.34 IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P.Act against the accused.

4)On appearance of the accused, case copies were furnished as contemplated in section 207 Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C).

5)Further the accused were examined under section 239Cr.P.C and they denied the committing of the offence. Hence, charges under Section 498-A, 506 r/w.34 IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P.Act was framed and the substance of accusation was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which they denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6) During the course of trial, prosecution examined P.W.1 and Ex.P-1 &

Ex.P2 were marked. The evidence of L.W.2 to L.W.15 has been given up by the learned APP as L.W1 herself turned hostile, it would not improve the case of the prosecution by examining the remaining witnesses.

7)Prosecution side evidence is closed. Perused the evidence of P.W.1.

There is no incriminating material against the accused. Hence, the examination u/sec.313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with and proceeded further.

8) Heard arguments on both sides and considered the evidence of P.W1 and Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 and other material evidence in the record.

9) Now the point which stood up for determination is: Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sec. 498-A, 506 r/w.34 IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P.Act beyond reasonable doubt?

10) POINT ANSWERED:-

In this case prosecution examined the victim/defacto complainant as

P.W.1 and she deposed before this court that on 26.08.2016 her marriage was performed with A1 at Arya Vysya Kalyanamandapam at Tallarevu as per

Hindu rites and customs. In the year 2017 there are some altercations in between her and A1 and placed the same before the village elders. On that they both are decided to dissolution of marriage on mutual consent with a permanent alimony of Rs.18,00,000/-. She does not know the contents of the papers, she signed before the village elders on their influence except that she does not know anything about the case facts. She was not examined by the police. Ex.P1 is the signature on police report.

12. On careful perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, it shows that she did not depose any incriminating evidence against the accused for the offences under which the accused is prosecuted and she turned hostile. The learned

APP sought permission of this court to treat the evidence of P.W.1 as hostile.

Permission granted after perusal of the record and evidence of the witness.

Further the learned A.P.P was permitted to put the questions in nature of cross-examination to P.W.1. In such cross-examination the learned APP failed to elicit any incriminating evidence against the accused except giving suggestion and marking of the 161 Criminal Procedure Code statement of

P.W-1 as Ex.P-2. On careful perusal of the above nature of evidence it appears that P.W.1 deposed her chief examination contents contradicting her examination under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code for the reasons best known to her. Further in view of the above nature of evidence the learned

A.P.P given up the other witnesses on record as it would not improve the case of the prosecution as L.W.1 herself turned hostile. Further the prosecution did not come up with any petition to reopen the evidence of prosecution witnesses to adduce any further evidence. Therefore on perusal of the evidence on record, the same is not sufficient to convict the accused for which offence the accused is prosecuted. Hence, this Court holds that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused for the offence under which the accused is prosecuted and he is entitled for acquittal in this case.

13. In the result, the accused 1 to 7 are not found guilty for offences punishable under Section 498-A, 506 r/w.34 IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P.Act and they are acquitted Under Section 248 (1) Criminal Procedure Code. The

Accused are set at liberty forthwith in the present case. The bail bonds and sureties of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months under

Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code.

Typed to my dictation by my Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 15thday of May, 2023.

Sd/- M.Prasanna Lakshmi

II ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

CUM II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

I ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

CUM I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

KAKINADA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:- For Defence:-

PW1: Vittanala Srilakshmi None

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution

Ex.P1/--: Signature of P.W.1

Ex.P2/--: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1.

For defence :- NIL

M.Os Marked -Nil-

Sd/- M.Prasanna Lakshmi

II AJFCM CUM II AJCJ

FAC/IAJFCM CUM IAJCJ

KAKINADA

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS CUM I

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: AT KAKINADA.

CALENDER CASE NO.2252/2021 Date of offence:Prior 04.05.2021 Date of complaint:04.05.2021 Date of taken on file:18.01.2022 Date of apprehension of accused:18.11.2021 Date of commencement of trial:12.05.2023 Date of close of trial:12.05.2023 Date of sentence of order:15.05.2023 Complainant:State: State: Sub-Inspector of police, Disha Women Police Station, Kakinada in Crime No.56/2021

Particulars of the accused:-

1. Vithanala Srinivas s/o Satyanarayana, A/ 38 years, C/Settibalija, D.No.,9-7, Kesavapuram, Tallarevu Mandal. R/o D.No.10-249/A, Sarapaka, Badhradri Kothagudem District. Telangana State.

2. Vithanala Satyanarayana, s/o Adhinarayana A/65 years, C/Settibalija, D.No.9-7, Kesavapuram, Tallarevu Mandal.

3. Vithanala Naga Mani W/o Satyanarayana, A/60 years, C/Settibalija, D.No.,97, Kesavapuram, Tallarevu Mandal.

4) Kalla Anantha Lakshmi w/o Suri Babu, A/45 years, C/Settibalija, D.No:5-41, B.C Peta, Patavala, Tallarevu Mandal

5) Chappidi Krishnaveni w/o Lakshmana Rao, A/40 years, D.No:2-101/B, Chappidivaaripalem, Mummidivaram mandal

6) Seelam Lakshmi Devi w/o Naga Raju, A/38 years, C/Settibalija, D.No:5-2-029 Seetaramanagar, Yanam, Pondicherry.

7) Kaja Durga Lakshmi w/o Srinivas, A/37 years, C/Settibalija, D.No:4-40, Peddapeta, Seela village, Kajuluru MandalNow at Akkayapalem, Visakhapatnam.

Under Section 498-A. 506 r/w.34 IPC and Sec.3 & 4 Nature of offence of D.P.Act Finding of the courtAccused found not guilty. In the result, the accused 1 to 7 are not found guilty for offences punishable under Section 498-A, 506 r/w.34 IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P.Act and they are acquitted Under Section 248 (1) Criminal Procedure Code. The Accused are set at liberty forthwith in the present case. The bail bonds and sureties of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months under Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code.

Sd/- M.Prasanna Lakshmi

II AJFCM CUM II AJCJ

FAC/IAJFCM CUM IAJCJ

KAKINADA

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS CUM I

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: AT KAKINADA.

Present: Kum. M.PRASANNA LAKSHMI II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class–cum- II.Addl. Junior Civil Judge, FAC/I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class–cum- I.Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada.

Monday, this the 15 th day of May, 2023

C.C.1300/2021

Between:- State: Sub-Inspector of police,

Disha Women Police Station, Kakinada..Complainant.

And

1. Bandi Avinash, S/o.Haribabu, age 24 yrs., C/Relli, R/o.D.No.59-11-118, Relli street, Jagannaickpur, Kkainada.

2. Bandi Haribabu, S/o.Raju, age 47 yrs., C/Relli, R/o.D.No.59-11-118, Relli street, Jagannaickpur, Kakinada.

3. Bandi Devi, W/o.Haribabu, age 42 yrs., C/Relli, R/o.D.No.59-11-118, Relli street, Jagannaickpur, Kakinada.

4. Bandi Ganga, W/o.Raju, age yrs., C/Relli, R/o.D.No.59-11-118, Relli street,

Jagannaickpur, Kakinada... Accused 1 to 4

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 12.05.2023 in the presence of learned A.P.P for the State and upon perusing the evidence and material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of police, Disha Women police station, Kakinada filed charge sheet in Cr.No.39/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 498-

A, 420, 323 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as I.P.C) and

Sec.3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (hereinafter referred as D.P.Act) against the accused 1 to 4.

2.Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

L.W.1 love marriage was performed with A1 on 27.04.2019 at

Subrahmanyeswara Swamy temple, Kakinada. Her parents did not like the marriage. From the marriage his grandmother insulted her physically and mentally and demanded to bring additional dowry. All the accused insulted and beat L.w.1. As there is no other go she filed complaint. Basing on the strength of the report given by L.W.1, this case was registered by the Women

P.S, Kakinada as Cr.No.39/2021 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 420, 323 r/w.34 IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P.Act. L.W.9 took up investigation in this case and after completion of the investigation, filed charge sheet under Sec.498-A, 420, 323 r/w.34 IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P.Act.

3)The case was taken on file for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 420, 323 r/w.34 IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P.Act against the accused.

4)On appearance of the accused, case copies were furnished as contemplated in section 207 Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C).

5)Further the accused were examined under section 239Cr.P.C and they denied the committing of the offence. Hence, charges under Section 498-A, 420, 323 r/w.34 IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P.Act was framed and the substance of accusation was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which they denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6) During the course of trial, prosecution examined P.W.1 and Ex.P-1 &

Ex.P2 were marked. The evidence of L.W.2 to L.W.9 has been given up by the learned APP as L.W1 herself turned hostile, it would not improve the case of the prosecution by examining the remaining witnesses.

7)Prosecution side evidence is closed. Perused the evidence of P.W.1.

There is no incriminating material against the accused. Hence, the examination u/sec.313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with and proceeded further.

8) Heard arguments on both sides and considered the evidence of P.W1 and Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 and other material evidence in the record.

9) Now the point which stood up for determination is: Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sec. 498-A, 420, 323 r/w.34 IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P.Act beyond reasonable doubt?

10) POINT ANSWERED:-

In this case prosecution examined the victim/defacto complainant as

P.W.1 and she deposed before this court that in the year 2019 her marriage was performed with A1 at Sub-regitrar office, Kakinada. In the year 2020 there are small altercations in between her and A1 and placed the same

before the village elders. On that they both are decided to dossolution of

marriage. She does not know the contents of said papers. She signed before the village elders on their influence except that she does not know anything about the case facts. She was not examined by the police. Ex.P1 is the signature on police report.

12. On careful perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, it shows that she did not depose any incriminating evidence against the accused for the offences under which the accused is prosecuted and she turned hostile. The learned

APP sought permission of this court to treat the evidence of P.W.1 as hostile.

Permission granted after perusal of the record and evidence of the witness.

Further the learned A.P.P was permitted to put the questions in nature of cross-examination to P.W.1. In such cross-examination the learned APP failed to elicit any incriminating evidence against the accused except giving suggestion and marking of the 161 Criminal Procedure Code statement of

P.W-1 as Ex.P-2. On careful perusal of the above nature of evidence it appears that P.W.1 deposed her chief examination contents contradicting her examination under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code for the reasons best known to her. Further in view of the above nature of evidence the learned

A.P.P given up the other witnesses on record as it would not improve the case of the prosecution as L.W.1 herself turned hostile. Further the prosecution did not come up with any petition to reopen the evidence of prosecution witnesses to adduce any further evidence. Therefore on perusal of the evidence on record, the same is not sufficient to convict the accused for which offence the accused is prosecuted. Hence, this Court holds that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused for the offence under which the accused is prosecuted and he is entitled for acquittal in this case.

13. In the result, the accused is not found guilty for offences punishable under Section 498-A, 420, 323 r/w.34 IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P.Act and they are acquitted Under Section 248 (1) Criminal Procedure Code. The Accused is set at liberty forthwith in the present case. The bail bonds and sureties of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months under Section 437-A of

Criminal Procedure Code.

Typed to my dictation by my Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 15thday of May, 2023.

Sd/- M.Prasanna Lakshmi

II ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

CUM II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

I ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

CUM I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

KAKINADA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:- For Defence:-

PW1: Bandi Anusha None

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution

Ex.P1/--: Signature of P.W.1

Ex.P2/--: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1.

For defence :- NIL

M.Os Marked -Nil-

Sd/- M.Prasanna Lakshmi

II AJFCM CUM II AJCJ

FAC/IAJFCM CUM IAJCJ

KAKINADA

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS CUM I

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: AT KAKINADA.

CALENDER CASE NO.1300/2021 Date of offence:Prior 15.03.2021 Date of complaint:15.03.2021 Date of taken on file:26.08.2021 Date of apprehension of accused:21.06.2021 Date of commencement of trial:12.05.2023 Date of close of trial:12.05.2023 Date of sentence of order:15.05.2023 Complainant:State: State: Sub-Inspector of police, Disha Women Police Station, Kakinada in Crime No.39/2021

Particulars of the accused:-

1. Bandi Avinash, S/o.Haribabu, age 24 yrs., C/Relli, R/o.D.No.59-11-118, Relli street, Jagannaickpur, Kkainada.

2. Bandi Haribabu, S/o.Raju, age 47 yrs., C/Relli, R/o.D.No.59-11-118, Relli street, Jagannaickpur, Kakinada.

3. Bandi Devi, W/o.Haribabu, age 42 yrs., C/Relli, R/o.D.No.59-11-118, Relli street, Jagannaickpur, Kakinada.

4. Bandi Ganga, W/o.Raju, age yrs., C/Relli, R/o.D.No.59-11-118, Relli street,

Jagannaickpur, Kakinada... Accused 1 to 4

Under Section 498-A, 420, 323 r/w.34 IPC and Sec.3 Nature of offence & 4 of D.P.Act Finding of the courtAccused found not guilty. In the result, the accused is not found guilty for offences punishable under Section 498-A, 420, 323 r/w.34 IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P.Act and they are acquitted Under Section 248 (1) Criminal Procedure Code. The Accused is set at liberty forthwith in the present case. The bail bonds and sureties of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months under Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code.

Sd/- M.Prasanna Lakshmi

II AJFCM CUM II AJCJ

FAC/IAJFCM CUM IAJCJ

KAKINADA

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: KAKINADA

PRESENT:- Kum. M. PRASANNA LASKHMI

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge (FAC) I Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Wednesday , this the 14th day of December, 2022.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.888/2021

BETWEEN:

Smt Kapaganti mangatayaru .... Plaintiff

AND

Yedida uma Devi .... Defendant

Suit to pass preliminary decree for the suit amount of Rs. 15,22,733/- together with subsequent interest by granting time for redemption directing the defendant to pay the amount together with interest at contract rate and costs to the plaintiff within the stipulated period as fixed by the Honourable court failing which enable for plaintiff to file separate application for passing of final decree by creating charge over the schedule property and in case the sale proceeds does not satisfy the decree enable the plaintiff to file separate application for recovery of amount personally and to award costs.

This suit coming before me for final hearing on 14-12-2022 in the presence of Sri. A. Muralidhar, advocate of plaintiff and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

Plaintiff filed memo of full satisfaction and the same is recorded. Hence the suit is dismissed without cost.

Pronounced by me in open court on this the 14th day of December,

2022.

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge (FAC) I Addl. Junior Civil Judge Kakinada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

NIL NIL

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff: NIL For Defendant: NIL.

I.A.J.C.J

Plaint presented on 14.09.2021 Plaint filed on 20.09.2021

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: KAKINADA

PRESENT:- Kum. M. PRASANNA LASKHMI

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge (FAC) I Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Wednesday , this the 14th day of December, 2022.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.888/2021

BETWEEN:

Smt Kapaganti mangatayaru W/o Kondala Rao, A/90 years, House wife, R/o D.No. 2-274/11,

Balaji Nagar, APSP, Kakinada .... Plaintiff

AND

Yedida uma Devi W/o Late Nageswara Rao, C/o Yedida Surendra Kumar, A/53 years, Pay and Accounts office,

Dowleswaram, .... Defendant

Suit to pass preliminary decree for the suit amount of Rs. 15,22,733/- together with subsequent interest by granting time for redemption directing the defendant to pay the amount together with interest at contract rate and costs to the plaintiff within the stipulated period as fixed by the Honourable court failing which enable for plaintiff to file separate application for passing of final decree by creating charge over the schedule property and in case the sale proceeds does not satisfy the decree enable the plaintiff to file separate application for recovery of amount personally and to award costs.

Value of suit:

Principal amount Rs.7,00,000/-

Interest on Rs 7,00,000/- @ 24% From 20.10.2016 to 13..09.2021 Rs 8,22,733/- ============ Total Rs 15,22,733/- ============

On this a court fee of Rs. 17726/- is paid under Sec 20 (c) of APCF and SV Act.

The cause of action for the suit arose on 20.10.2016 when the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs 7,00,000/- from the plaintiff under a registered mortgage deed dated 20.10.2016 vide doct No. 5466/2016 towards her family expenses and to discharge her debts after receipt of consideration when the defendant to secure the debt due to the plaintiff with an intention to create equitable mortgage when the defendant executed a Regd morgage deed in favour of the plaintiff on 20.10.2016 agreeing to repay the same along with interest @ 24% p.a by agreed to discharge the debt within 3 years and on several dates when the plaintiff demanded the defendant to discharge th4e debt and who used to postpone the same on one pretext and on 16.7.2021 when the plaintiff got issued notice through her Advocate and the same was received by the defendant on 19.7.2021 and she did not gave any reply nor discharged the debt and at Thimmapuram where the property situated is within the jurisdiction of this court.

This suit coming before me for final hearing on 14-12-2022 in the presence of Sri. A. Muralidhar, advocate of plaintiff and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:

1)That the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed as full satisfaction is recorded.

2) That there be no order as to costs;

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 14th day of December, 2022.

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge (FAC) I Addl. Junior Civil Judge Kakinada.

Particulars of Costs

For Plaintiff For Defendant Rs. Rs.

No costs memo filed on either side.

I AJCJ

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: KAKINADA

PRESENT:- Kum. M. PRASANNA LASKHMI

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge (FAC) I Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Thursday, this the 22nd day of December, 2022.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.91/2022

BETWEEN:

Kalanadabhattla Kumar .... Plaintiff

AND

1. Kovali Kameswari

2 D.V. Srikanth .... Defendants

Suit to pass a decree for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and their men from ever interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property in any manner, except under due process of law, for award costs of the suit and such other reliefs.

This suit coming before me for final hearing on 22-12-2022 in the presence of Sri. A.V.Ch.S.S. Murthy advocate of plaintiff and Sri R.V. Subrahmanyam, Advocate for defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

Both side parties present and plaintiff filed a memo stating that defendant handed over the possession and prays to dismiss the suit. Memo is recorded. Hence, the suit is dismissed without costs.

Pronounced by me in open court on this the 22nd day of December,

2022.

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge (FAC) I Addl. Junior Civil Judge Kakinada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

NIL NIL

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff: NIL For Defendant: NIL.

I.A.J.C.J

Plaint presented on 16.02.2022 Plaint filed on 16.02.2022

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: KAKINADA

PRESENT:- Kum. M. PRASANNA LASKHMI

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge (FAC) I Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Thursday, this the 22nd day of December, 2022.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.91/2022

BETWEEN:

Kalanadabhattla Kumar S/o Subrahmanyam, A/68 years , Coolie, D.No. 67-11-1, Lalbahudr Nagar,

Opp JNTU, Kakinada .... Plaintiff

AND

1. Kovali Kameswari W/o Late Anantha Rao, A/ 65 years, House wife, Near EEnadu Office, Patamata lanka, Vijayawada 2 D.V. Srikanth, S/o MNohana Rao, A/ 30 years, Employee, Sri Sai Manohara Phase – I, Plot No, 301, Saphire Block ,

Hyderabad .... Defendants

Suit to pass a decree for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and their men from ever interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property in any manner, except under due process of law, for award costs of the suit and such other reliefs.

Value of suit:

Relief of permanent Injunction valued Rs.12,000/-

On this a court fee of Rs. 906/- is paid under Sec 40 Sch-II and Art I of APCF and SV Act

The cause of action for the suit arose about 40 years back, when the plaintiff entered into the plaint schedule property as a tenant under the husband of 1st defendant Kovali Anantharao and constructed a asbestos shed in the property and from time to time rent was enhanced and at present the plaintiff is paying rent of Rs. 1,000/- per month to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant who is claiming look after the affairs of the 1st defendant demanded the plaintiff to enhance the rent and the plaintiff requested to consider the Covid -19 period and since 1st

February 2022 , when the defendants threatened to evict the plaintiff by force from the plaint schedule property and near cancer hospital Opp

JNTU, Road, Kakinada where the plaintiff is residing with his family in the plaint schedule property and the plaint schedule property is situated within the jurisdiction of this court

This suit coming before me for final hearing on 22-12-2022 in the presence of Sri. A.V.Ch.S.S. Murthy advocate of plaintiff and Sri R.V. Subrahmanyam, Advocate for defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:

1)That the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default.

2) That there be no order as to costs;

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 22nd day of December, 2022.

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge (FAC) I Addl. Junior Civil Judge Kakinada.

Particulars of Costs

For Plaintiff For Defendant Rs. Rs.

No costs memo filed on either side.

I AJCJ

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT KAKINADA

Present: - Miss.M.Prasanna Lakshmi, II Addl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-II Addl.Judl. Magistrate of

First Class, Kakinada.

( FAC) I Addl. J.F.c. Magistrate, Kakinada

Saturday, this the 13th day of May, 2023

CC 40/2022

Between:

1) State Sub Inspector of Police, Disha Women PS, Kakinada. Address - State Sub Inspector of Police, Disha Women PS, Kakinada. Advocate- Sri APP

Respondent and Advocate

1) Pippirisetti Surya Krishnama Naidu @ Surya Address - S/o.Apparao, Yadavula Road, Devarapalli village and Mandal, West Godavari District.

2) Pippirisetti Vijay S/o.Apparao, Yadavula Road, Devarapalli village and Mandal, West Godavari District.

3) Mandavalli Parvathi W/o.Srinivas, Venkatapuram village, Badrampalem Mandal, West Godavari District.

This case is coming on this day before me in the presence of A.P.P.,

for Complainant and this Court made the following:

JUDGMENT

Prosecution withdrew the offence U/s 3 and 4 of D.P. Act as per memo due to compromise between the parties. Both parties present before Lok-Adalath and they compromised the matter before Lok-Adalath after completion of 90 days observation period and living amicably. In the result, accused acquitted U/s 320(8) Cr.PC for the offence punishable U/s 498(A ) r/w 34 IPC . Pronounced by me in the open court, this the 13th day of May , 2023.

Sd/- Miss M.Prasanna Lakshmi

II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS, KAKINADA.

(FAC) I Addl. J.F.C. Magistrate, Kakinada

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

Sd/- Miss M.Prasanna Lakshmi

II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS, KAKINADA.

2