Smt M Shyam Sri

1 S.C.247 OF 2018

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

SANGAREDDY.

PRESENT: SMT. M.SHYAM SREE,

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

SANGAREDDY.

THURSDAY THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019.

S.C. No. 247 OF 2018

CRIME NO.280 OF 2017

Name of the The State of Telangana through, complainant.Inspector of Police, SHO Sadashivpet.

Description of the 1. Golla Srinivas S/o. Narayana, Age 19 years, accused.2. Golla Narayana S/o. Pochaiah, Age 47 years,

3. Golla Laxmi W/o.Golla Narayana, Age 40 year

Charge.U/S.498-A, 307 and 420 IPC.

Plea of accused.A1 to A3 pleaded not guilty.

Sentence or order.A1 to A3 found not guilty for the offence U/Ss.498-A, 307 and 420 IPC and they acquitted U/S. 232 Cr.PC.

Prosecution conducted Sri D.Rlaghu, byAddl. Public Prosecutor.

Accused defended bySri C.Narsing Raj, Advocate.

This case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri

D.Raghu, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the state and Sri C.Narsing Raj,

Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing the arguments the court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T:

1.The Inspector of Police, Station House Officer, Sadashivpet police station laid charge sheet against A1 to A3 for the offence

U/Ss.498-A, 307 and 420 IPC.

2 S.C.247 OF 2018

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 16-1-2017 the victim

Smt. Sameera used to attend to her father’s petty tea stall oftenly.

The A1 taking advantage of her loneliness while she was proceeding to hotel on foot from her residence, A1 followed her and made a proposal that he is loving her. Subsequently both fell in love, but the parents of the victim and A1 were refused for their marriage stating that the religious are different. About eight months back the A1 and the victim went to Vemulawada, where A1 tied anuptial thread at the neck of the victim/LW1 under consent to this marriage to offer her as the wife. After the marriage they lived at Kukatpally and lived conjugal life. After few days A1 brought her to Sadashivpet and took her in a rented house of Karanam Pentaiah at Siddapur Gowni and changed the name of the victim Smt. Sameera, but both side parents or relatives were not went to their rented house thereafter he started harassing her mentally and physically in purusance of demand of addl. dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-. The parents of the A1 who are A2 and A3 are supported A1 in the commission of offence and denying to allow her into their house. Thereby A1 to A3 have committed the offence punishable U/S.498-A, 307 and 420 IPC.

Basing on the complaint lodged by the complainant police

Sadashivpet registered the case and investigated into. During the course of investigation G.Venkateshwarlu/LW17 examined and recorded the statements of the complainant and her parents and 3 S.C.247 OF 2018 sent Sameera to Govt. Community Health Centre, Sadashivpet for treatment where the Doctor/LW6 examined the injured and furnished her opinion by opining that the injury is simple in nature.

3. The case was taken on file for the offence U/Ss.498-A, 307 and 420 IPC against the accused. On appearance of A1 to A3 the copies of documents were furnished to them as required U/S.207

Cr.P.C. The learned Judl. First Class Magistrate, Spl. Mobile Court,

Sangareddy has committed the case to the Hon’ble Prl. Dist. &

Sessions Court, Medak at Sangareddy, since the offence U/S.307

IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Session. The Hon’ble Prl.

Dist. & Sessions Court made over the case to this court for disposal of the case according to law. On hearing both sides. Charges

U/S.498-A and 420 IPC have been famed against A1, Charges

U/S.498-A and 307 IPC. have been framed against A1 to A3, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution got examined

Pws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. The learned Addl. Public

Prosecutor had given rest of the witnesses, as there is no incriminating evidence found against the accused and nothing was elicited from the evidence of Pws.1 to 5.

4 S.C.247 OF 2018

5. As there is no incriminating evidence found against the accused, the examination of the accused U/S.313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

6.Heard both side. Perused the record.

7. Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A1 to A3

for the offence punishable U/Ss.498-A, 307 and 420 IPC. of IPC

beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:-

8. The accused A-1 to A-3 are charged for the offence punishable U/Ss.498-A, 307 and 420 IPC. The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of A1 to A3 had got examined Pws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6.

9.PW1 who is the complainant deposed that she do not know the accused and also she do not know the facts of the case.

The other witnesses Pws.2 to 5 also deposed in similar lines.

During the course of cross-examination of Pws.1 to 5 by the learned

Addl. Public Prosecutor, nothing could be elicited favouring the case of the prosecution. All the witnesses denied their earlier version of their statements recorded by the police.

5 S.C.247 OF 2018

10. As the material witnesses Pws.1 to 3 did not support the case of the prosecution, the evidence of Lws.5 to 7 and 9 to 18 gains no importance as such the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor had rightly given-up their evidence. The evidence of Pws.1 to 5 do not indicate any incriminating material against the accused. Hence, the examination of accused U/S.313 Cr.P.C. was also dispensed with.

Therefore, the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of A1 to

A3 beyond all reasonable doubt.

11.In the result, A-1 to A-3 are found not guilty for the offence

U/Ss. 498-A, 307 and 420 IPC. and they are acquitted U/S.232

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 8th day of August, 2019.

Asst. Sessions Judge, Sangareddy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION. DEFENCE.

PW1: Sameera.Nil. PW2: Kalpagoori Fakruddin. PW3: Rameena Begum. PW4: Molli Lingaiah. PW5: Ganjogipeta Sathyamma.

EXHIBITS MARKED.

Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on complaint.Nil Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1.

6 S.C.247 OF 2018

Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2. Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3 Ex.P5: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4. Ex.P6: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW5.

MATERIAL OBJECTS.

Nil.

Asst. Sessions Judge, Sangareddy.

7 S.C.247 OF 2018

1 H.M.O.P. 126 OF 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: SANGAREDDY

PRESENT: SMT. M. SHYAM SREE,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SANGAREDDY

THURSDAY THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019

H.M.O.P.No. 126 of 2018.

Between:-

Ausali Guruprasad S/o.Ausali Siddiramulu, Age 36 years, Occ: Govt. Teacher, R/o. 2-21/4, Munipally Village and Mandal.

Petitioner No.1.

And

Smt.Sujatha w/o. Ausali Guruprasad D/o.Sanjukumar, Age 22 years, R/o.2-21/4, Munipalli Village and Mandal. Now at Mohmadapur(v), Aurad Taluq, Bidar Dist.

Petitioner No.2.

This petition is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of

Sri G.Ravinder Goud, Advocate for the Petitioner No.1 and SriG.Mallaiah,

Advocate for petitioner No.2, upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing the arguments, the court delivered the following:-

O R D E R:-

1. This petition is filed U/S.13(B) of Hindu Marriage, Act 1955 by both petitioners seeking for divorce by mutual consent, on the ground of incompatibility and difference of opinion.

2.The averments of the petition are that the petitioner No.1 is the husband of petitioner No.2 and their marriage was solemnized on 24-12-2015 at Patri Swamy Kalyana Mantapa, Jhonnakheri,

Aurad Taluq Bidar Dist as per their rites and customs prevailing in their community. After the marriage the petitioners 1 and 2 lived 2 H.M.O.P. 126 OF 2018 together for a period of six months, thereafter differences arose between them and since two years they are living separately. That the marriage should be dissolved with consent of either party with free will and without any force, fraud or under influence that they have mutually agreed to dissolve their marriage on mutual consent.

The petitioner No.1 agreed to pay Rs.6,50,000/- to the petitioner No.2 towards permanent alimony except the amount, the petitioner No.2 is not entitled for any further maintainance from the first petitioner and his property. The petitioner No.2 has got sufficient means to maintain herself, as such she is receiving Rs.6,50,00/- from the petitioner No.1 towards her permanent alimony. The petitioner No.2 shall have no right whatsoever the person or properties of the petitioner No.1 in further and relationship as wife and husband shall stand reversed after passing the degree of divorce. Hence, the petition.

3.Now the point for consideration is “whether the petitioners

No.1 and 2 are entitled for seeking mutual divorce, as prayed

for”?

4.The petitioners filed the application Under Section 13-B of

Hindu Marriage Act,1955 for grant of divorce by way of mutual consent. Before expiry of stipulated period of six months, this petition has not been withdrawn. Both parties appeared before this 3 H.M.O.P. 126 OF 2018

Court on 7-8-2019 and they were referred to mediation center. The efforts failed. Both parties appeared before this Court on 7-8-2019 and filed their own affidavits testifying that they are not interested to live together and both parties stated that they voluntarily agreed for divorce on mutual consent by way of mutual agreement.

5.However, it is the burden of the petitioners to establish that they are entitled for seeking divorce, as prayed for.

6.In order to prove the same, the petitioners got examined themselves as PW1 and PW2 and marked documents Exs.A1 and

A2. In view of the affidavits of both parties and on enquiry, this

Court is satisfied that the marriage of the petitioners has been solemnized and that the averments in the petition are true. Both parties appeared before the Court and expressed their willingness for dissolving their marriage. Further from the evidence of PW1 and 2 in their chief-affidavits it is established that there is no chance of reunion and there is no collusion between them. The petitioner No.1 is agreed to pay Rs.6,50,000/- to the petitioner No.2 towards permanent alimony, except that amount the petitioner No.2 is is not having right whatsoever over the person or properties of the petitioner No.1 in further and that both the parties have agreed to live separately and they may marry with others as per their wishes 4 H.M.O.P. 126 OF 2018 and either party will not claim any kind of objection and they may lead happy marital life with their spouses.

7.For the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is allowed. Accordingly, the point is answered.

8.In the result, this petition is allowed and the marriage between the petitioners No.1 and 2 solemnized on 24-12-2015 is dissolved and decree of divorce is granted by way of mutual consent.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8th day of August, 2019.

Senior Civil Judge,

Sangareddy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PETITIONER. RESPONDENT.

PW1: Alusali Guruprasad. Nil. PW2: Smt. Sujatha.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER.

Ex.P1: Marriage card. Ex.P2: Marriage photo.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.

Nil.

Senior Civil Judge,

Sangareddy.

5 H.M.O.P. 126 OF 2018

TSSN020003962015

IN THE COURT OF

Senior Civil Judge AT ,Sangareddy

OS/207/2015

The Chief Manager, State Bank of India Address: The Chief Manager,State Bank of India,Sangareddy Branch. VERSUS Lokareddygari Padmamma Address: Ro. Gollapally Village,Kondapur Mandal,Medak District. 2:Lokareddygari Ram Reddy Ro. Gollapally Village Kondapur Mandal Medak District ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : M.Sunil Kumar Advocate for : appearing for Lokareddygari Padmamma: Advocate appearing for 2 respectively.

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 08-08-2019 )

ORDER

The learned counsel for plaintiff-bank had filed a memo in which stated that the defendants had paid the outstanding loan amount to the plaintiff- bank and the account was closed. Hence the plaintiff-bank intending to not press the suit against the defendants. Memo recorded. Consequently, this

Original Suit is dismissed as withdrawn.

Date : 08-08-2019 Senior Civil Judge , Sangareddy

TSSN020003982015

IN THE COURT OF

Senior Civil Judge AT ,Sangareddy

OS/211/2015

The Chief Manager, State Bank of India Address: The Chief Manager,State Bank of India,Sangareddy Branch.

VERSUS Lokareddygari Vittal Reddy Address: Ro. Gollapally Village,Kondapur Mandal,Medak District. 2:Lokareddygari Ram Reddy Ro. Gollapally Village Kondapur Mandal Medak District ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : M.Sunil Kumar Advocate for : appearing for Lokareddygari Vittal Reddy: Advocate appearing for 2 respectively.

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 08-08-2019 )

ORDER

The learned counsel for plaintiff-bank had filed a memo in which stated that the defendants had paid the outstanding loan amount to the plaintiff-bank and the account was closed. Hence the plaintiff-bank intending to not press the suit against the defendants. Memo recorded. Consequently, this Original Suit is dismissed as withdrawn.

Date : 08-08-2019 Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy

TSSN020004932018

IN THE COURT OF

Senior Civil Judge AT ,Sangareddy

EP/55/2018

M/s Shriram Chits Private Limited, BR Sangareddy Age: 41 Address: M/s Shriram Chits Private Limited, BR Sangareddy VERSUS K.Laxman Rao and 03 others Address: R/o Sangaipet V, Andole Mandal, Sangareddy District. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : Advocate for : appearing for K.Laxman Rao and 03 others: Advocate appearing for respectively.

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 07-08-2019 )

ORDER

JDR No.4 called absent. As there is no representation from JDR. NO.4 it is treated that he has no objection and consequently attachment effected against the salary of JDR. No.4 is hereby made absolute. Therefore, this EP is closed.

Date : 07-08-2019 Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy