Currently Serving

Ms. Manchala Mamatha

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Suryapet

Suryapet, PDJ Court Complex · Suryapet · Telangana

Ms. Manchala Mamatha, II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Suryapet, is posted at Suryapet, PDJ Court Complex, Suryapet, Telangana, India. 67 court orders on record since 2025. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, PRC, STC cases.

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

CC/2097/2024 Acquitted

SHO CHIVVEMLA vs Shaiak mahaboob

04 May 2026

1 C.C.No.2097 of 2024

Date:04 -05-2026

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM II

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, AT SURYAPET

Present : Ms. Manchala Mamatha II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Suryapet

(Dated, this the 04th day of May, 2026)

C.C No.2097 of 2024

Between: The State of Telangana, through, Sub-Inspector of Police Chivvemla Police station.

…Complainant AND Shaik Mahaboob, S/o.Meer Karnam Saheb, Age.32yrs, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.74-28-4, Plot No.6559, Bhavani Shankar road Ayyappa Nagar, Near Bala Vignan school, Vijaywada Urban.

...Accused

This case is coming up before me on 30-04-2026 for final hearing in the presence learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri.

P.Narasaiah Yadav, learned Counsel for the Accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, today this court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Chivvemla Police Station, filed the Charge

Sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under section 106(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2024 (hereinafter called as BNS) 2 C.C.No.2097 of 2024

Date:04 -05-2026

and Sec.146 r/w 196 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [hereinafter called as M.V.Act].

2. The brief facts of the case of prosecution are as follows: -

a)On 07-10-2024 at 14.00hrs, the complainant Mattapally Srinu , has lodged a report in which he stated that on 07-10-2024 at about 10.00Am, his son Mattapally Sandeep took the complainant to

Dr.Ramurthy, Hospital Suryapet for treatment on his motor cycle bearing No. TS 05ED 6262 as the complainant was suffering with fever and his son returned from there, on the way at about 1.00 PM, his son reached Gumpula U-turn and when his son was taking the U- turn, one Swift D-zire car bearing No. AP -07BW-1177 drove in a rash and negligent manner and dashed his son’s motorcycle, as a result his son fell down on the road along with motor cycle and sustained severe injuries to his head, legs and other parts of the body and died on the spot. therefore, the complainant requested to take legal action against the driver of the said car.

b)Based on the report, LW-10/B.Venkat Reddy, SI of Police, Chivvemla

Police Station, registered a case in Cr.No.288/2024 for the offence punishable under section 106(1) of BNS and took up the investigation.

3 C.C.No.2097 of 2024

Date:04 -05-2026

c)During the course of investigation, LW-10 examined and recorded the statement of LW-1/M.Srinu and visited the scene of offence near

Gumpula U-turn on NH-65 road, and found the dead body of deceased Mattapally Sandeep and crime vehicle Swift D-Zire car bearing No. AP 07BW-1177 and motor cycle bearing No. TS 05ED6262 of the deceased and examined and recorded the statements of LW2 to LW5 i.e. Mattapally Rajitha, Mattapally Sathish,

Pitta Saidi Reddy, Nathala Ashok Reddy and conducted inquest panchanama in the presence of LW6/Pitta Prabhakar Reddy and

LW7/Mattapally Srisailam . LW9/ Dr. A. Kranthi Kiran conducted

PME report over the dead body of deceased . LW10/B.Venkat Reddy served the notice U/Sec.35(3) BNSS to the accused and verified the documents of crime vejhicle and found that the said crime vehicle was not insured, hence, LW10 added the section of law 146/196 of MV Act to 106 (1) of BNS. Later, LW10 collected the PME report from LW9 who conducted PME and opined that “ the death of deceased was due to Head injury.” Later, LW10 addressed a letter to LW8/S.Jaya

Prakash Reddy, MVI on 23-10-2024 with a request to visit the police station and inspect the crime vehicle. On requisition LW8 visited the police station and inspected the crime vehicle and opined that “ the

accident did not occur due to any mechanical defects of the

4 C.C.No.2097 of 2024

Date:04 -05-2026

vehicle.” Thereafter, LW10 transferred from Chivvemla Police station and LW11/V.Maheshwar took up the investigation.

d)After the completion of the investigation, LW-11 has filed a police report against the accused for the offence under section 106(1) of

BNS and Sec.146 r/w 196 of M.V. Act

3. Based upon the contents of the police report, this court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under section 106(1) of BNS and Sec.

146 r/w 196 of MV Act against the accused and issued summons to him.

4. On the appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him under section 230 of BNSS, which is contemplated

U/Sec.261 of BNSS.

5. The accused was examined under Section 262 of BNSS by framing charges for the offences U/Sec.106(1) of BNS and Sec. 146 r/w 196 M.V. Act and the same were read over and explained to him in Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the trial proceeded.

6. To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-4 and Ex.P1 to

P5 are marked. The details of which are indicated in the Appendix of

Evidence. The learned APP has given up the evidence of LW-4 to LW-11 and reported no further prosecution evidence. Hence, the prosecution's evidence is closed.

5 C.C.No.2097 of 2024

Date:04 -05-2026

7. After the completion of prosecution evidence, the examination u/s 351 of

BNSS of the accused has been dispensed with, as no incriminating circumstances appeared against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

8. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel

for the accused, who submitted that the matter may be decided on merits.

Perused the material on record.

9. Now the point for determination is:

i. “Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under section 106 (1) of BNSS,

Sec. 146/196 of MV Act beyond reasonable doubt?”

ii. As to what result?

POINT : -

10. As per section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as IEA), the onus of proving these points is on the prosecution. Due to the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence

Viz., the presumption of innocence, the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the evidence of the de facto complainant plays an important role.

6 C.C.No.2097 of 2024

Date:04 -05-2026

11. Among the listed (11) prosecution witnesses, the prosecution has examined only (04) witnesses.

12. PW-1, who is cited as the de facto complainant and father of the deceased, deposed in his chief examination that the deceased is his elder son. He did not lodge any report against his son’s death. The police have obtained his signature on white paper and he does not know the contents of the report. Police never examined him and recorded his statement. It reveals that PW1 has resiled from his previous statement, and as such, the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor sought the permission of the court to cross-examine PW1.

During the cross-examination, PW-1 denied that he stated to the police, as in his 180 BNSS Statement and deposed falsely before the Court to help the accused person.

13. PW-2, who is the mother of the deceased, deposed in her chief examination that the deceased is her elder son. Police never examined her nor recorded her statement. It reveals that PW2 has resiled from her previous statements, and also she did not support the case of the prosecution.

14. PW-3, who is the brother of the deceased, deposed in his chief examination that the police never examined him nor recorded his statement. It reveals that PW3 has resiled from his previous 7 C.C.No.2097 of 2024

Date:04 -05-2026

statements U/Sec.180 of BNSS and also did not support the case of the prosecution.

15. PW-4, who is an eyewitness, deposed in his chief examination that he never witnessed any accident and the police never examined him. It reveals that PW4 has resiled from his previous statements U/Sec.180

BNSS and also did not support the case of the prosecution.

16. Upon perusal of material on record, PW-1 i.e., de facto complainant who is the father of the deceased, PW -2 is the mother of the deceased and PW-3 is the brother of the deceased and PW-4 is the eyewitness, in their Chief Examination, resiled from their previous statements and didn't support the prosecution on any fact to incriminate the accused for the charges framed against him. In view of not supporting the prosecution's case, Learned Assistant Pubic Prosecutor cross- examined PW1 to PW4, but they denied the allegations made by him to the police. Since there is no incriminating evidence available against the Accused, the learned APP has given up the evidence of the remaining witnesses.

17. Since the de facto Complainant didn’t depose anything about the alleged offence against the Accused. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences under section 8 C.C.No.2097 of 2024

Date:04 -05-2026

106(1) of BNS and Sec.146 r/w 196 M.V. Act. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the Accused.

18. In the result, the Accused was found not guilty; accordingly, the

Accused is acquitted under section 271(1) of BNSS for the offences under section 106(1) of BNS and Sec. 146 r/w 196 of M.V. Act. Hence, the

Accused shall be at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Sec 483 of BNSS. No order as to property, as nothing is deposited before this Court.

(Typed by my dictation and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 04th day of May 2026.)

II ADDL. JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SURYAPET

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION WITNESSES EXAMINED:

Prosecution Name of Witness Description

Witness No. 1 PW1-M.Srinu Father of deceased 2 PW2- M.Rajitha Mother of deceased 3 PW3- M.Satish Brother of deceased 4 PW4-P.Sadi Reddy Eye witness FOR DEFENCE WITNESSES EXAMINED: Defense Witness Name of Wit- Description No. ness --NONE-- 9 C.C.No.2097 of 2024

Date:04 -05-2026

FOR PROSECUTION EXHIBITED DOCUMENTS

Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by/At- tested by Ex.P1 is the signature of report PW1 Ex.P2 is the sec. 180 BNSS statement of PW1

PW1 Ex.P3 is the sec.180 BNSS statement of PW2 PW2 Ex.P4 is the sec.180 BNSS statement of PW3

PW3. Ex.P5 is the sec.180 BNSS statement of PW4

PW4

FOR DEFENSE EXHIBITED DOCUMENTS

Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested by --NONE--

FOR MATERIAL OBJECTS/MUDDAMALS Material Ob- Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested by ject No. --NONE--

II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SURYAPET

C.C No.2097/2024

Dt:04-05-2026

CC/283/2020 Acquitted

SHO Chivvemla vs Sayyad Thanveer Hussain

24 Apr 2026

C. C. No.283/2020

Dt: 24-04-2026

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, AT SURYAPET

(Dated, this, the 24th day of April, 2026)

Present : Ms. Manchala Mamatha

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Suryapet

C.C. No. 283 of 2020

Between:

The State, through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chivvemla Police Station.

...Complainant

And

1)Sayyad Thanveer Hussain, S/o.Ejaz Hussain, Age.36yrs, Occ: Business, R/o.Kuda kuda village of Chivvemla Mandal.

2)Shaik Shafi, S/o.Gouse, Age.22yrs, Occ:student, R/o.Kuda kuda village of chivvemla.

3)Shaik Amzath Ali, S/o.Shaik Abbas Ali, Age.29yrs, Occ:Coolie, R/o.Kudakuda village of chivvemla.

4)Jittaboina Shiva, S/o.Venkanna, Age.23yrs, Occ:Student, R/o.Kuda kuda village, Chivvemla.

5)Bolla Rajesh Reddy, S/o.Krishna Reddy, age.24yrs, Occ:Agriculutre, R/o.Kudakuda village of chivvemla.

6)Yedula Gopikrishna Prasad, S/o.Thirupathi Rao, Age.23yrs, Occ:student, R/o.Kuda kuda village of chivvemla Mandal.

C. C. No.283/2020

Dt: 24-04-2026

7)Shaik Nazeer, S/o.Madar, Age.26yrs, Occ:Corier boy, R/o.H.No.6-16/1, Kudakuda village of chivvemla mandal.

8)Shaik Javeed, S/o.Jahangir, Age.21yrs, Occ:student, R/o.Sneha Nagar, Kuda kuda village of Chivvemla.

9)Bandari Srikanth, S/o.Veeraiah, Age.26yrs, Occ:student, R/o.Muthyalamma bazar, Kuda kuda village of Chivvemla Mandal.

10)Kanchugatla Sathish, S/o.Janaiah, Age.21yrs, Occ:student, R/o.H.No.1-120/B, Veerannagudi, Kuda kudavillage of Chivvemla.

11)Kanchugatla Raju, S/o.Saidulu, Age.28yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Veerannagudi bazar, Kuda kuda village of Chivvemla.

12)Bandari Nagaraju, S/o.Veeraiah, Age.29yrs, Occ: Pvt. Job, R/o.H.No.7- 144, Muthyalamma bazar, Kuda kuda village of Chivvemla.

13)Reddaboina Janaiah, S/o.Chinna Saidulu , Age.25yrs, Occ:Coolie, R/o.Veerannagudi bazar, Kuda kuda village of Chivvemla.

...Accused nos.1 to 13

This case is coming up before me on 17.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of

Sri.K.Dharmarjun, learned Counsel for the accused, and upon hearing both sides and perusing the record, the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, today, this Court delivered the following:

C. C. No.283/2020

Dt: 24-04-2026

: J U D G M E N T :

1.The Accused nos.1 to 13 were charged by Sub-Inspector of Police,

Chivvemla in Crime no. 41 of 2020 for the offence punishable under section 143, 448, 324, 427 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called as I.P.C).

2. The brief facts of the prosecution's case are as follows:

a)On 25-01-2020 at 2000hrs, LW-1/Kothi Upendar lodged report in which he stated that on 25-01-2020, LW-1/Kothi Upendar went to the house of LW-1’s brother-in-law, Pillala Ramesh Naidu. At about 4.30

PM, accused no,.1 who is contested candidate for 15th ward for

Suryapet Municipality and defeated in elections and also alleging that

Pillala Ramesh Naidu is not supporting accused no.1 and with accused no.1 associates i.e. accused nos.2 to 13 were criminally trespassed into

Pillala Ramesh Naidu’s house and damaged two chairs, tap, Scootor and also pelted stones on the inmates and caused injuries to LW- 2/Pillala Bhavani on her left cheek, then while rescuing Pillala Ramesh

Naidu, LW3/ Pillala Suresh caused injury on his head and also beat

LW-4/Merella Naresh on his abdomen with chair. On seeing the incident, neighbours rescued them, as such accused nos.1 to 13 escaped. Therefore, the informant lodged a report at Chivvemla police station to take legal action against the accused nos.1 to 13.

C. C. No.283/2020

Dt: 24-04-2026

b)Based on the above report LW-9/N.Lava Kumar, S.I of police, P.S.

Chivvemla registered a case in Cr.No. 41/2020, for the offence U/Sec.

143, 448, 324, 427 r/w 34 IPC and took up the investigation.

c)During the course of investigation LW-9/N.Lava Kumar examined and recorded the statement of LW1 at police station . On 26-01-2020, LW- 9/N. Lava Kumar proceeded to the scene of offence situated in the house of LW2 and examined and recorded the statements of LW2 to

LW5, and conducted the scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch in the presence of LW-6/Jogam Srinivas and LW-7/Sama

Shekhar. On 29-01-2020, LW-9/N.Lava Kumar collected medical certificates of LW2 to LW4 from LW-8/Dr.L.Rajeswar Reddy in which opined that the sustained injuries by the LW 2 to 4 are “Simple in

Nature”.

d)Accordingly, LW-9/N.Lava Kumar has filed a Police report u/s 173(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter called as

CrPC) against the accused nos.1 to 13 for the offence under section 143, 448, 324, 427 r/w 34 of IPC .

3.Based upon the contents of the Police report, this Court has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sec.143, 448, 324, 427 r/w 34 IPC against the accused nos.1 to 13 and issued summons to the Accused nos.1 to 13.

C. C. No.283/2020

Dt: 24-04-2026

4.On the appearance of the Accused nos.1 to 13, copies of documents are furnished to them under section 207 Cr.P.C. as contemplated under section 238 of Cr.P.C

5.When the case is coming up for examination of the accused, at this stage, as per the orders of the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Suryapet vide Pro. Dis No. 66/2024/A1 dated 22.02.2024, this case has been transferred from the Hon’ble Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First class, Suryapet, to this court for disposal according to law.

6. The accused nos.1 to 13 were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C wherein the charges framed against Accused nos.1 to 13 for the of- fences U/s.143,448,324,427 r/w 34 IPC were read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which accused nos.1 to 13 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, trial proceeded.

7. To prove the guilt of the accused nos.1 to 13, the prosecution has ex- amined PW1 and PW3 and Exhibits P1 to P4 are marked. The learned

APP has given up the evidence of LW4 to LW9 and reported that the pros- ecution evidence is closed.

8. Since there is no incriminating material available against the Accused nos.1 to 13 from the prosecution evidence, the examination of the ac- cused nos.1 to 13 U/sec 313 of Cr.P.C has been dispensed with.

C. C. No.283/2020

Dt: 24-04-2026

9. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel

for the accused, who submitted that the matter may be decided on mer-

its. After Perusal of the entire record.

10. Now the point for determination is:

i) Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/sec. 143,448,324,427 r/w 34 IPC beyond any reasonable doubt?

ii) As to what result?

POINT: -

11. As per section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as I.E.A.), the onus of proving these points is on the prosecution. Due to the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence

Viz., the presumption of innocence, the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the evidence of de-facto complainant plays an important role.

12. Among the listed (09) prosecution witnesses, the prosecution has examined only (03) witnesses.

13. PW-1, who is cited as de facto complainant in his chief examination, deposed that He did not lodge any report against the accused. Police obtained his signature on white paper. He does not know the contents of the report. Further deposed that Police never examined him nor 6

C. C. No.283/2020

Dt: 24-04-2026

recorded his statement. As such, the learned APP sought the permission of the court to cross-examine the witness, and Pw1 denied that he stated to police in 161 Cr.P.C statement and deposing false before the court to help the accused no.1 to 13.

14. PW-2, who is cited as an eyewitness/injured in her chief examination, deposed that she does not know about the facts of the case. Police never examined her nor recorded her statement. As such, the learned APP sought the permission of the court to cross-examine the witness, and

Pw2 denied that she stated to police in 161 Cr.P.C statement and deposing false before the court to help the accused nos.1 to 13.

15. PW-3, who is cited as an eye witness /injured in his chief examination, deposed that he never witnessed any incident, he does not know the case facts, and police never examined him nor recorded his statement.

As such, the learned APP sought the permission of the court to cross- examine the witness, and Pw3 denied that he stated to police in 161

Cr.P.C statement and deposing false before the court to help the accused nos.1 to 13.

16. Upon perusal of the material on record, and upon the examination of

PW1 to 3 it appears that they didn't support the prosecution on any fact to incriminate the accused nos. 1 to 13 for the charges framed against accused nos.1 to 13. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that 7

C. C. No.283/2020

Dt: 24-04-2026

the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused nos.1 to 13 beyond any reasonable doubt for the offence under section 143, 448, 324, 427 r/w 34 IPC. Hence, the accused nos.1 to 13 are entitled to acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered against the prosecution and in favor of the accused persons.

17. In the result, the Accused nos.1 to 13 are found not guilty, the Accused nos.1 to 13 are acquitted under section 248(1) for the offence under section 143, 448, 324,427 r/w 34 IPC. Hence, Accused nos.1 to 13 shall be at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Sec. 437A of Cr.P.C. from the date of this Judgment.

No order as to property, as nothing is deposited before this Court.

(Typed to dictation and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 24th day of April, 2026.)

II ADDL. JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SURYAPET

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION WITNESSES EXAMINED:

Prosecution Name of Witness Description Witness No.

1 PW1-K.Upender Complainant 2 PW2-P.Bhavani Eye witness/injured 3 PW3- P.Suresh Eye witness /injured 8

C. C. No.283/2020

Dt: 24-04-2026

FOR DEFENCE WITNESSES EXAMINED:

Defense Witness No. Name of Witness Description --NONE--

FOR PROSECUTION EXHIBITED DOCUMENTS

Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested

by Ex.P1 Signature of PW-1 on the report PW1 Ex.P2 Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-1 PW1 Ex.P3 Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-2 PW2 Ex.P4 Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-3 PW3

FOR DEFENSE EXHIBITED DOCUMENTS

Exhibit No. Description of the Ex- Proved by/Attested by

hibit --NONE--

FOR MATERIAL OBJECTS/MUDDAMALS

Material Object No. Description of the Ex- Proved by/Attested by

hibit --NONE--

II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SURYAPET

C. C. No.283/2020

Dt: 24-04-2026

CC/53/2022 Acquitted

SHO Penpahad vs Pittala Mattaiah

27 Apr 2026

C. C. No.53/2022

Dt: 27-04-2026

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, AT SURYAPET

(Dated, this, the 27th day of April, 2026)

Present : Ms. Manchala Mamatha

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Suryapet

C.C. No. 53 of 2022

Between:

The State, through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Penpahad Police Station.

...Complainant

And

Pittala Mattaiah, S/o.Yallaiah, Age.35yrs, Occ: RMP, R/o.N.Annaram village of Penpahad Mandal.

...Accused

This case is coming up before me on 24.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of

Sri.Jatangi Venkateshwarlu Yadav, learned Counsel for the accused, and upon hearing both sides and perusing the record, the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, today, this Court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

1.The Accused was charged by Sub-Inspector of Police, Penpahad in

Crime no. 04 of 2022 for the offence punishable under section 354(D),354, 509 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called as I.P.C).

C. C. No.53/2022

Dt: 27-04-2026

2. The brief facts of the prosecution's case are as follows:

a)On 06-01-2022 at 1300hrs, LW-1/Naraboina Anitha, lodged report in which she stated that on 05-01-2022 in absence of LW-1’s husband at about 7.00 PM, the accused who resides in front of complainant’s house, followed her and made gesture to her stating that “nuvvu naaku kaavali naa korika theerchaali and misbehaved with her and also made phone calls to her Phone No.9948505064 from his phone

Nos.9866560953, 7780301093 stating such as “nuvvante naakistam ninnu ista paduthunna” and harassed her sexually. After husband’s arrival complainant informed the same. Therefore, the informant lodged a report at Penpahad police station to take legal action against the accused .

b)Based on the above report LW10/B.Srikanth Goud, S.I of police, P.S.

Penpahad registered a case in Cr.No. 04/2022, for the offence U/Sec.

354 D IPC and took up investigation.

c)During the course of investigation, LW10/B.Srikanth Goud examined and recorded the statements of Lw1/Naraboina Anitha and

LW2/Naraboina Nagarjuna. Later , LW10/B.Srikanth Goud proceeded to Annaram village examined and recorded the statements of LW3 to

LW5 i.e. Naraboina Lingamma, Naraboina Veeraiah and Naraboina

Jyothi and later LW10/B.Srikanth Goud, conducted scene of offence 2

C. C. No.53/2022

Dt: 27-04-2026

panchanama and drawn rough sketch in the presence of

LW6/Veeraboina Buchaiah and LW7/Dubani Gopi. On 10-01-2022 accused was arrested and recorded accused confessional statement and seized LAVA company mobile phone in the presence of

LW-8/NakirekantiVenkataiah and LW-9/NakirekantiVenkateshwarlu and produced accused before the court for judicial remand. As per the investigation it revealed that accused has sexually harassed the victim stalked , insulted the modesty by gesture and outraged her modesty by caught holding her.

d)Accordingly LW10/B.Srikanth Goud has filed a Police report u/s 173(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter called as

CrPC) against the accused for the offence under section 354 D, 354, 509 of I.P.C.

3.Based upon the contents of the Police report, this Court has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under section 354 D, 354, 509 of I.P.C. against the accused and issued summons to the Accused.

4.On the appearance of the Accused , copies of documents are furnished to him under section 207 of Cr.P.C. as contemplated under section 238 of Cr.P.C

5. The accused examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C wherein the charges framed against Accused for the offences U/Sec. 354 D, 354, 509 3

C. C. No.53/2022

Dt: 27-04-2026

of IPC were read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, trial proceeded.

6. To prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW3 and Exhibits P1 to P4 are marked. The learned APP has given up the evidence of LW3, LW4, LW6 to LW10 and reported prosecution evi- dence is closed.

7. Since there is no incriminating material available against the Accused from the prosecution evidence, the examination of the accused U/sec.

313 of Cr.P.C has been dispensed with.

8. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel

for the accused, who submitted that the matter may be decided on mer-

its. After Perusal of the entire record

9. Now the point for determination is:

i) Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/sec. 354 , 354 D 509 of I.P.C beyond any rea- sonable doubt?

ii) As to what result?

POINT: -

10. As per section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as I.E.A.), the onus of proving these points is on the prosecution. Due to the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence 4

C. C. No.53/2022

Dt: 27-04-2026

Viz., the presumption of innocence, the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the evidence of de-facto complainant and victim plays an important role.

11. Among the listed (10) prosecution witnesses, the prosecution has examined only (03) witnesses.

12. PW-1, who is cited as defacto complainant in her chief examination deposed that she has never lodged report against the accused but police has obtained her signature on white paper. She does not know the contents of the complaint. Police never examined her nor recorded her statement. As such, the learned APP sought the permission of the court to cross-examine the witness, and Pw1 denied that she stated to police in 161 Cr.P.C statement and deposing false before the court to help the accused.

12. PW-2, who is cited as husband of PW1 in his chief examination deposed that he does not know the case facts and police never examined him nor recorded his statement. As such, the learned APP sought the permission of the court to cross-examine the witness, and

Pw2 denied that he stated to police in 161 Cr.P.C statement and deposing false before the court to help the accused.

13. PW-3 in her chief examination deposedr that she does not know the case facts. As such, the learned APP sought the permission of the court 5

C. C. No.53/2022

Dt: 27-04-2026

to cross-examine the witness, and Pw3 denied that she stated to police in 161 Cr.P.C statement and deposing false before the court to help the accused.

14. Upon perusal of the material on record, and upon the examination of

PW1 to 3 it appears that they didn't support the prosecution on any fact to incriminate the accused for the charges framed against the accused .

Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt for the offence under section 354(D),354, 509 of IPC. Hence, the accused is entitled to acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered against the prosecution and in favor of the accused.

15. In the result, the Accused is found not guilty, the Accused is acquitted under section 248(1) for the offence under section 354(D),354, 509 of

I.P.C. Hence, Accused shall be at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Sec. 437A of Cr.P.C.

from the date of this Judgment. The unmarked case property i.e.mobile phone shall be returned to its owner upon filing an application and production of receipt as per law.

(Typed by myself and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 27th day of April, 2026.

II ADDL. JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SURYAPET

C. C. No.53/2022

Dt: 27-04-2026

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION WITNESSES EXAMINED:

Prosecution Name of Witness Description Witness No.

1 PW1-Naraboina Anitha Complainant /victim 2 PW2-Naraboina Nagarjuna Husband of victim 3 PW3- Jyothi Circumstantial witness

FOR DEFENCE WITNESSES EXAMINED:

Defense Witness No. Name of Witness Description --NONE--

FOR PROSECUTION EXHIBITED DOCUMENTS

Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested

by Ex.P1 Signature of PW-1 on the report PW1 Ex.P2 Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-1 PW1 Ex.P3 Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-2 PW2 Ex.P4 Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-3 PW3

FOR DEFENSE EXHIBITED DOCUMENTS

Exhibit No. Description of the Ex- Proved by/Attested by

hibit --NONE--

FOR MATERIAL OBJECTS/MUDDAMALS

Material Object No. Description of the Ex- Proved by/Attested by

hibit --NONE--

II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SURYAPET

C. C. No.53/2022

Dt: 27-04-2026

C. C. No.53/2022

Dt: 27-04-2026

CC/966/2020 Acquitted

SHO Penpahad vs B. Naresh

11 May 2026

C. C. No.966/2020

Dt: 11-05-2026

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, AT SURYAPET

(Dated, this, the 11th day of May, 2026)

Present : Ms. Manchala Mamatha

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Suryapet

C.C. No. 966 of 2020

Between:

The State, through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Penpahad Police Station.

...Complainant

And

Bollam Naresh, S/o.Lingaiah, Age.23yrs, Occ:Tractor driver, R/o.Cheedella village of Penpahad Mandal.

...Accused

This case is coming up before me on 04.05.2026 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of

Sri. S.Someshwar, learned Counsel for the accused, and upon hearing both sides and perusing the record, the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, today, this Court delivered the following:

C. C. No.966/2020

Dt: 11-05-2026

: J U D G M E N T :

1.The Accused was charged by Sub-Inspector of Police, Penpahad in

Crime no. 130 of 2018 for the offence punishable under sections 448, 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called as I.P.C).

2. The brief facts of the prosecution's case are as follows:

a) On 23-10-2018 at 9.30hrs, the LW1/Gottiparthi Mamatha, lodged a complaint in which he stated that on 11-10-2018 at about 2300hrs, in the absence of her husband , the accused came to her while she was sleeping and caught hold of her hand, by stating that “Nathora” otherwise, accused will damage complainant’s conjugal life and threatened her with dire consequence and tired for cohabitation . As such, the complainant removed his hand, raised hue and cries by calling her grandmother, then he escaped through the thorn fencing.

Therefore, the informant lodged a report at Penpahad police station to take legal action against the accused.

b)Based on the above report LW8/S.Venkataiah, Penpahad, Police station registered a case in Cr.No. 130/2018, for the offence U/Sec 448 and 354 of IPC and took up the investigation.

c)During the course of investigation, LW8/S.Venkataiah has examined and recorded the statements of Lw-1/Gottiparthi Mamatha. Later, 2

C. C. No.966/2020

Dt: 11-05-2026

visited the Cheedella village, examined and recorded the statements of

LW2 to LW5 i.e. Gottiparthi Paspamma, Gottiparthi Gopaiah, Maripalli

Upendar and Anneboina Kotesh and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of LW6/Gottiparthi Gopaiah and

LW7/Gottiparthi Laxminarasaiah and also drawn rough sketch. Later,

LW9/B.Praveen Kumar took up the investigation. Later, on 27-10- 2018, LW9/B.Praveen Kumar served notice U/Sec.41 (A) Cr.P.C. to the accused.

d)Accordingly, LW9/B.Praveen Kumar has filed a Police report u/s 173(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter called as

CrPC) against the accused for the offence under section 448, 354, 506 of I.P.C.

3.Based upon the contents of the Police report, this Court has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under section 448, 354, 506 of

I.P.C against the accused and issued summons to the Accused.

4.When the case is coming up for the appearance of the accused, at this stage, as per the orders of the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate,

C. C. No.966/2020

Dt: 11-05-2026

5. On the appearance of the Accused, copies of documents are furnished to him under section 207 of Cr.P.C. as contemplated under section 238 of Cr.P.C.

6. The accused is examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C wherein the charges framed against the Accused for the offences u/s.448, 354, 506 of IPC were read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, trial pro- ceeded.

7. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined

PW1 and PW2 and Exhibits P1 to P3 are marked. The learned APP has given up the evidence of LW2 to LW9 and reported prosecution evi- dence is closed.

8. Since there is no incriminating material available against the Accused from the prosecution evidence, the examination of the accused u/sec 313 of Cr.P.C has been dispensed with.

9. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel

for the accused, who submitted that the matter may be decided on mer-

its. After Perusal of the entire record.

10. Now the point for determination is:

C. C. No.966/2020

Dt: 11-05-2026

i) Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/sec. 448, 354 and 506 of I.P.C beyond any reasonable doubt?

ii) As to what result?

POINT: -

Viz., the presumption of innocence, the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, the evidence of the de facto complainant plays an important role.

12. Among the listed (9) prosecution witnesses, the prosecution has examined only (02) witness.

13. PW-1, who is cited as the de facto complainant in her chief examination, stated that she knew the accused. She did not lodge any complaint against the accused. The police have obtained her signature on white paper, and do not know the contents mentioned on it. Ex.P1 is the signature on the report. As such, the learned APP sought the permission of the court to cross-examine the witness, and Pw1 denied that she stated to police in 161 Cr.P.C statement and deposing false before the court to help the accused.

C. C. No.966/2020

Dt: 11-05-2026

14. PW-2, who is cited as the circumstantial witness in his chief examination, stated that PW1 is his wife. He knew the accused and PW1 did not lodge any complaint against the accused. Further deposed that he does not know any case facts, and the police never examined him. As such, the learned APP sought the permission of the court to cross- examine the witness, and Pw2 denied that he stated to police in 161

Cr.P.C statement and deposing false before the court to help the accused.

15. Upon perusal of the material on record, and upon the examination of

PW1 and PW2, it appears that they didn't support the prosecution on any fact to incriminate the accused for the charges framed against the accused. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt for the offences under section 448, 354, 506 of IPC.

Hence, the accused is entitled to acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered against the prosecution and in favor of the accused person.

16. In the result, the Accused found not guilty, the Accused is acquitted under section 248(1) for the offence under section 448,354 and 506 of

I.P.C. Hence, the Accused shall be at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Sec. 437A of 6

C. C. No.966/2020

Dt: 11-05-2026

Cr.P.C. from the date of this Judgment. No order as to property, as nothing is deposited before this Court.

(Typed by myself and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 11th day of May, 2026.)

II ADDL. JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SURYAPET

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION WITNESSES EXAMINED:

Prosecution Name of Witness Description Witness No.

1 PW1- G.Mamatha Complainant and victim 2 PW2-G.Gopaiah Husband of victim

FOR DEFENCE WITNESSES EXAMINED:

Defense Witness No. Name of Witness Description --NONE--

FOR PROSECUTION EXHIBITED DOCUMENTS

Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested

by Ex.P1 Signature of PW-1 on the report PW1 Ex.P2 Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-1 PW1 Ex.P3 Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-2 PW2 7

C. C. No.966/2020

Dt: 11-05-2026

FOR DEFENSE EXHIBITED DOCUMENTS

Exhibit No. Description of the Ex- Proved by/Attested by

hibit --NONE--

FOR MATERIAL OBJECTS/MUDDAMALS

Material Object No. Description of the Ex- Proved by/Attested by

hibit --NONE--

II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SURYAPET

C. C. No.966/2020

Dt: 11-05-2026

CC/1158/2020 Acquitted

THE SHO PENPAHAD vs B. Naresh

11 May 2026

C. C. No.1158/2020

Dt: 11-05-2026

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, AT SURYAPET

(Dated, this, the 11th day of May, 2026)

Present : Ms. Manchala Mamatha

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Suryapet

C.C. No. 1158 of 2020

Between:

The State, through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Penpahad Police Station.

...Complainant

And

Bollam Naresh, S/o.Lingaiah, Age.23yrs, Occ:Tractor driver, R/o.Cheedella village of Penpahad Mandal.

...Accused

This case is coming up before me on 04.05.2026 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of

C. C. No.1158/2020

Dt: 11-05-2026

: J U D G M E N T :

1.The Accused was charged by Sub-Inspector of Police, Penpahad in

Crime no. 07 of 2019 for the offence punishable under sections 448, 354

A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called as I.P.C).

2. The brief facts of the prosecution's case are as follows:

a) On 27-01-2019 at 900hrs, the LW1/Gottiparthi Mamatha, lodged complaint in which she stated that on 24-01-2019 at about 10.00 PM, while she was sleeping in their house alone, accused entered into their house and caught hold her hand and forced for cohabitation , as such she afraid and raised hue and cries. Meanwhile, her Aunt

Thirupathamma and neighbours LW4/Marepalli Gopaiah and

LW5/Marepalli Santhosh came to her house, on seeing them , accused took to heals. Therefore, the informant lodged a report at

Penpahad police station to take legal action against the accused.

b)Based on the above report LW8/B. Praveen Kumar, P.S. Penpahad registered a case in Cr.No. 07/2019, for the offence U/Sec 448 and 354

A of IPC and took up the investigation.

c)During the course of investigation, LW8/B.Praveen Kumar has examined and recorded the statements of Lw-1 to LW3 i.e. Gottiparthi

Mamatha, Gottiparthy Gopaiah, Kadari Thirupathamma. Later, visited 2

C. C. No.1158/2020

Dt: 11-05-2026

the Cheedella village examined and recorded the statements

LW4/Marepalli Goopaiah, LW5/Marepalli Santosh and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of LW6/Gurram

Saidireddy and LW7/Julakanti Venkatreddy and also drawn rough sketch. Later, on 31-01-2019, LW9/B.Praveen Kumar served notice

U/Sec.41 (A) Cr.P.C. to accused.

d)Accordingly, LW8/B.Praveen Kumar has filed a Police report u/s 173(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter called as

CrPC) against the accused for the offence under section 448 and 354

A of I.P.C.

3.Based upon the contents of the Police report, this Court has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under section 448 and 354 A of I.P.C against the accused and issued summons to the Accused.

4.When the case is coming up for the appearance of the accused, at this stage, as per the orders of the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate,

5. On the appearance of the Accused, copies of documents are furnished to him under section 207 of Cr.P.C. as contemplated under section 238 of Cr.P.C.

C. C. No.1158/2020

Dt: 11-05-2026

6. The accused is examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C wherein the charges framed against the Accused for the offences u/s.448 and 354 A of IPC were read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, trial pro- ceeded.

7. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined

PW1 and PW2 and Exhibits P1 to P3 are marked. The learned APP has given up the evidence of LW3 to LW8 and reported prosecution evi- dence is closed.

8. Since there is no incriminating material available against the Accused from the prosecution evidence, the examination of the accused u/sec 313 of Cr.P.C has been dispensed with.

9. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel

for the accused, who submitted that the matter may be decided on mer-

its. After Perusal of the entire record.

10. Now the point for determination is:

i) Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/sec. 448 and 354 A of I.P.C beyond any rea- sonable doubt?

ii) As to what result?

C. C. No.1158/2020

Dt: 11-05-2026

POINT: -

Viz., the presumption of innocence, the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, the evidence of the de facto complainant plays an important role.

12. Among the listed (8) prosecution witnesses, the prosecution has examined only (02) witnesses.

13. PW-1, who is cited as the de facto complainant in her chief examination, deposed that she did not lodge any complaint against the accused. The police have obtained her signature on white papers, and she does not know the contents mentioned on it.. As such, the learned APP sought the permission of the court to cross-examine the witness, and Pw1 denied that she stated to police in 161 Cr.P.C statement and deposing false

before the court to help the accused.

14. PW-2, who is cited as the circumstantial witness in his chief examination deposed that PW1 is his wife. PW1 did not lodge any complaint against the accused. He does not know any case facts and deposed that police never examined him. As such, the learned APP sought the permission of the court to cross-examine the witness, and 5

C. C. No.1158/2020

Dt: 11-05-2026

Pw2 denied that he stated to police in 161 Cr.P.C statement and deposing false before the court to help the accused.

15. Upon perusal of the material on record, and upon the examination of

Hence, the accused is entitled to acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered against the prosecution and in favor of the accused person.

16. In the result, the Accused found not guilty, the Accused is acquitted under section 248(1) for the offence under section 448 and 354 A of

I.P.C. Hence, the Accused shall be at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Sec. 437A of

Cr.P.C. from the date of this Judgment. No order as to property, as nothing is deposited before this Court.

(Typed by myself and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 11th day of May, 2026.)

II ADDL. JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SURYAPET

C. C. No.1158/2020

Dt: 11-05-2026

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION WITNESSES EXAMINED:

Prosecution Name of Witness Description Witness No.

1 PW1- G.Mamatha Complainant and victim 2 PW2-G.Gopaiah Husband of victim

FOR DEFENCE WITNESSES EXAMINED:

Defense Witness No. Name of Witness Description --NONE--

FOR PROSECUTION EXHIBITED DOCUMENTS

Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested

by Ex.P1 Signature of PW-1 on the report PW1 Ex.P2 Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-1 PW1 Ex.P3 Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-2 PW2

FOR DEFENSE EXHIBITED DOCUMENTS

Exhibit No. Description of the Ex- Proved by/Attested by

hibit --NONE--

FOR MATERIAL OBJECTS/MUDDAMALS

Material Object No. Description of the Ex- Proved by/Attested by

hibit --NONE--

II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SURYAPET

C. C. No.1158/2020

Dt: 11-05-2026

Order Record 61 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/966/2020	SHO Penpahad vs B. Naresh	11 May 2026	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/1158/2020	THE SHO PENPAHAD vs B. Naresh	11 May 2026	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/2097/2024	SHO CHIVVEMLA vs Shaiak mahaboob	04 May 2026	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/53/2022	SHO Penpahad vs Pittala Mattaiah	27 Apr 2026	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/283/2020	SHO Chivvemla vs Sayyad Thanveer Hussain	24 Apr 2026	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/1468/2018	SHO Chivvemla vs P SAIDULU	24 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/1623/2018	SHO Chivvemla vs D DASRU	24 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/324/2019	SHO Chivvemla vs Surakanti Bheemarjun Redd Bhimreddy	06 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
PRC/44/2025	SHO Chivvemla vs Danduguala Laxmaiah	12 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/11/2025	SHO PENPAHAD vs Nagarjuna Redapangi	10 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/2236/2024	SHO PENPAHAD vs Ramesh Kondameedi	10 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/2297/2024	SHO CHIVVEMLA vs Karam Naresh	09 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/3728/2018	SHO Chivvemla vs Padidala Venkanna	06 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/784/2023	PS CHIVVEMLA vs Ravindar Sabavath	05 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/187/2025	SHO PENPAHAD vs Trinadh Mande	27 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
PRC/41/2024	SHO PS Chivvemla vs Bollenka Aravinda Reddy	13 Feb 2026	Other	—
CC/2736/2018	SHO Chivvemla vs N ANASURYA	27 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC/3722/2018	SHO Chivvemla vs Pottapenjara Venkaiah	27 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC/44/2026	SHO Chivvemla vs Gampala Shyam Kumar	20 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC/46/2026	SHO Chivvemla vs Gampala Shyam Kumar	20 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC/1431/2025	SHO Chivvemla vs Kanakaraju Sai sridhar, Sai	20 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC/870/2020	SHO Penpahad vs Alakuntla Paramesh	12 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC/797/2025	SHO PENPAHAD vs Prasanna kumar Dongari	05 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC/480/2025	SHO CHIVVEMLA vs Banotu Kashya	21 Dec 2025	Other	—
CC/503/2023	PS PENPAHAD vs Kadamanchi Lingaiah	21 Dec 2025	Other	—
CC/530/2025	SHO CHIVVEMLA vs Chunchun Yadav	21 Dec 2025	Other	—
CC/537/2025	SHO CHIVVEMLA vs Katakam Venkateshwarlu	21 Dec 2025	Other	—
CC/541/2025	SHO CHIVVEMLA vs Dharavath Ravi	21 Dec 2025	Other	—
CC/732/2025	SHO CHIVVEMLA vs Dharavath VIjay	21 Dec 2025	Other	—
CC/1160/2023	PS CHIVVEMLA vs Mamidi Nagarjuna	21 Dec 2025	Other	—
CC/1217/2020	SHO Penpahad vs Mammidi Nagamma @ Nagamani	21 Dec 2025	Other	—
CC/1560/2025	SHO Chivvemla vs Siripangi Lingamanthulu	21 Dec 2025	Other	—
CC/1561/2025	SHO Chivvemla vs Bairu Sathish	21 Dec 2025	Other	—
CC/1562/2025	SHO Chivvemla vs Champla Banothu	21 Dec 2025	Other	—
CC/1563/2025	SHO Chivvemla vs Gugulothu Jethu	21 Dec 2025	Other	—
CC/1564/2025	SHO Chivvemla vs Gugulothu Srinu	21 Dec 2025	Other	—
CC/241/2023	SHO PS CHIVVEMLA vs DHARAVATH SUDHAKAR AND OTHERS	20 Dec 2025	Other	—
CC/401/2020	PS CHIVVEMLA vs Dharavath Nagaraju	20 Dec 2025	Other	—
CC/886/2020	SHO Penpahad vs Bhukya Raju	20 Dec 2025	Other	—
CC/970/2025	SHO PENPAHAD vs Lingaiah Boda	20 Dec 2025	Other	—
CC/1122/2020	SHO Penpahad vs Bhukya Gopal Singh	20 Dec 2025	Other	—
CC/1410/2019	PS CHIVVEMLA vs Pulichinthala Janardhan reddy	20 Dec 2025	Other	—
CC/1666/2024	SHO Chivvemla vs Pallapu Mallamma	20 Dec 2025	Other	—
CC/2096/2024	SHO CHIVVEMLA vs Pattan nagulu	20 Dec 2025	Other	—
CC/2288/2024	SHO CHIVVEMLA vs Parala Saidulu	20 Dec 2025	Other	—
CC/1404/2023	PS PENPAHAD vs Kommu Venkanna	19 Dec 2025	Other	—
CC/2696/2018	SHO Chivvemla vs D NAGU	19 Dec 2025	Other	—
STC.NI/163/2023	M/s. Shriram Finance Limited, Suryapet vs Suribabu Peddi	19 Dec 2025	Other	—
CC/633/2022	PS CHIVVEMLA vs Potluri Mohith Chandra Chowdary	18 Dec 2025	Other	—
CC/1674/2024	SHO Chivvemla vs Sirapangi Laxmaiah	18 Dec 2025	Other	—
CC/499/2023	PS CHIVVEMLA vs VURADI SAIDULU	17 Dec 2025	Other	—
STC/5/2025	SHO CHIVVEMLA vs Dugrothu Rajesh Harsha	16 Dec 2025	Other	—
CC/2943/2018	SHO Chivvemla vs S VISHNU	15 Dec 2025	Other	—
CC/2055/2020	PS CHIVVEMLA vs Ganapuram Raghu and another	11 Dec 2025	Other	—
CC/2113/2024	SHO PENPAHAD vs Ramesh Chinthala	11 Dec 2025	Other	—
CC/2237/2024	SHO PENPAHAD vs Venkanna Mudigonda	11 Dec 2025	Other	—
CC/1739/2020	SHO Penpahad vs Jupuri anjaiah	05 Dec 2025	Other	—
PRC/13/2025	SHO PENPAHAD vs BHUKYA RAVINDAR	05 Dec 2025	Other	—
PRC/40/2024	SHO Penpahad vs Srinu Etikala	03 Dec 2025	Other	—
PRC/21/2025	SHO CHIVVEMLA vs Rathnavath Harisingh	02 Dec 2025	Other	—
CC/1209/2023	PS PENPAHAD vs Ravinder Reddy Gone	01 Dec 2025	Other	—

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

May 2026		3
Apr 2026		6
Mar 2026		7
Feb 2026		2
Jan 2026		8
Dec 2025		41

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Ms. Manchala Mamatha handled?

Ms. Manchala Mamatha has handled 67 court orders since 2025 at Suryapet, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 11 orders per month.

What types of cases does Ms. Manchala Mamatha hear?

Based on available records, Ms. Manchala Mamatha primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Summary Trial Cases) at Suryapet, PDJ Court Complex.

Where is Ms. Manchala Mamatha currently posted?

Ms. Manchala Mamatha is posted as II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Suryapet at Suryapet, PDJ Court Complex, Suryapet, Telangana.

Are judgments by Ms. Manchala Mamatha available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by Ms. Manchala Mamatha are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Ms. Manchala Mamatha dispose cases?

Ms. Manchala Mamatha disposes approximately 11 cases per month, based on 67 orders handled over their tenure at Suryapet, PDJ Court Complex.

Since when is Ms. Manchala Mamatha serving?

Ms. Manchala Mamatha has been serving at Suryapet, PDJ Court Complex since 2025. and is currently posted there.

Case Types

CC 90%

PRC 7%

STC 3%

Posting History

Dec 2025 — Present

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Suryapet · 67 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 5

Other Judges at this Court

Smt. P.lakshmi Sarada

Prl District and Sessions Judge-cum-Chairman, LRAT...

394 orders

P.siva Rama Prasad

Fast Track Special Court for expeditious Trial and...

1 orders

Smt. Rajitha Gopu

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Suryapet

636 orders

N.Apurva Ravali

I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Suryapet

93 orders

Farheen Kouser

Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet

374 orders

← View all judges at Suryapet, PDJ Court Complex