Sri.mohammad Umar

C.C. No. 1598 of 2020 I-Addl. JFCM,Kodad Pg. No. 1 of 9

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

AT: KODAD

PRESENT: Sri.Mohammad Umar, I- Addl. JFCM, Kodad

Wednesday, the 6 th day of May, 2026

C.C. No. 1598 of 2020 Between: The State of Telangana through Sub- Inspector of Police, PS Kodad Rural.

....Complainant

AND Dandamudi Veera Venkata Satya Siva Prasad S/o Babu Rao, Age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Veda apartments, Gudivada Town of Krishna District, A.P.

...Accused

This case has come up before me for final hearing on 04.05.2026 in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of prosecution and of Sri V. Ranga Rao, learned counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Kodad Rural, filed a charge sheet in

Crime No. 100 of 2019 against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-A, 337 of Indian Penal Code.

2.The brief facts of the case are that on 03.06.2019 at 07:30 hours,

PW1 came to PS and lodged a report/Ex.P1 stating that on 02.06.2019 at morning hours his mother Chidumula Veeramma went to the house of his elder sister Mandula Vijay. At about evening 4 PM his mother along with her grand-son Mandula Ashok return to Annavaram village on motor cycle bearing no. TS 05 AGTR 5929. While they proceeding to Annavaram

Sri Mohammad Umar I Addl. JFCM, Kodad

C.C. No. 1598 of 2020 I-Addl. JFCM,Kodad Pg. No. 2 of 9 village from Dorakunta in the midway when they reached at near RTA check post mean time one who is the driver of the car bearing no. AP 16

EW 9396 drove his car in rash and negligent manner and hit to the his Son- in-law motor cycle from back side and hit to the another motor cycle. As a result his mother and his Son-in-law was sustained several injuries,

Immediately they are shifted to Kodad Government hospital. While his mother was shifted to Khammam hospital by PW2, LW3/G. Mariyamma and Uppelli Uma for better treatment in an ambulance in the midway at about evening 05.30 hours his mother was died. Subsequently they shifted his mother to mortuary room at Kodad Government hospital. His Son-in- law was shifted to Khammam Government hospital after he shifted to

Omini Hospital at Hyderabad. When the Chidumula Ravikumar told to me the same matter through the Phone call immediately he came to Kodad and saw his mother dead body. Upon that today he came to police station and gave petition. He know that his son-in-law. was going to un-conscious.

Finally he requested to take necessary action against the car driver.

3.Based on the said report PW7 registered a case in Cr.No.100/2019 for the offence punishable U/sec.304-A, 337 of IPC and issued FIR and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, PW7 examined and recorded the statement of PW1 at police station. PW7 visited scene of offence, observed the scene of offence in the presence of LW13/G.

Sri Mohammad Umar I Addl. JFCM, Kodad

C.C. No. 1598 of 2020 I-Addl. JFCM,Kodad Pg. No. 3 of 9

Venkateswarlu and LW14/G. Narsimha Rao and drawn the rough sketch of scene. Subsequently PW7 visited CHC, Kodad and examined PW2,

LW3/G. Mariyamma, PW3, PW4 and recorded their statements. PW7 observed dead body of deceased in the presence of LW15/G. Janaki and

LW16/N. Prathap and conducted inquest panchanama and subjected the dead body for PME. On my requisition LW18/Dr. S. Suraj conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased. On 07.06.2019 LW6/M. Satheesh came to police station and lodged a complaint stating that his elder brother

Mandula Ashok succumbed to injury at Osmania hospital, hyderabad on 06.06.2019 at 20:30 hours, immediately PW7 made a GD entry and entrusted the investigation to LW21/K. Lingaiah. LW21 examined LW6 and recorded his statement and visited Osmania hospital, Hyderabad and re examined PW2, LW3/G. Mariyamma, PW3, PW4 and recorded their statements. Collected the death summary from Osmania Hospital,

Hyderabad secured the presence of LW16 and LW17/G. Venkateshwarlu and conducted inquest over the dead body. LW19 held autopsy over the dead body of deceased. LW7/T. Bhaskar Rao produced the accused before me on 07.06.2019 at 17:30 hours and PW7 recorded the statement of LW7 and PW7 served 41(a) Cr.P.C notice to the accused with a direction to appear before him on 08.06.2019 at 10:00 hours. On 08.06.2019 at 09:00 hours, PW7 visited Jaggaiahpet town and secured the witness and

Sri Mohammad Umar I Addl. JFCM, Kodad

C.C. No. 1598 of 2020 I-Addl. JFCM,Kodad Pg. No. 4 of 9 examined them as LW8/U. Yesupadam and LW9/U. Vimala and recorded their statements. Thereafter, PW7 visited Dorakunta village examined

LW10/M. Vijayamma and recorded her statement. On 08.06.2019 at 17:00 hours accused came to PS and surrendered before PW7 by voluntarily admitting his guilt and after obtaining necessary sureties from the accused

PW7 have granted station bail to accused. On 09.06.2019 PW7 examined

LW11/K. Srikanth and LW12/K. Vamshi and recorded their statement and

PW7 have sent them CHC, Kodad for treatment and for report. On his requisition LW20/U. Subhash inspected the crime vehicle and issued report. After collection of PME reports, wound certificates, MVI report and after completion of investigation PW7 filed charge sheet before this court.

4.Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under Section 304-

A, 337 of Indian Penal Code against the accused. Copies of case documents are furnished to the accused as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.On 23.07.2024 the accused is examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C for the offence under Section 304-A, 337 of Indian Penal Code was read over and explained to him for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.The prosecution in support of its case examined the PWs1 to 7 and marked Exs.P1 to P14 documents through them. The learned APP has

Sri Mohammad Umar I Addl. JFCM, Kodad

C.C. No. 1598 of 2020 I-Addl. JFCM,Kodad Pg. No. 5 of 9 given up the evidence of LW3, LW6 to LW10, LW13 to LW20 and LW21.

PW1 is complainant, PW2 is Circumstantial witness, PW3 and PW4 are

Eye witness, PW5 is Injured, PW6 is Injured and PW7 is Investigation Of- ficer.

7.After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. For which he denied the same and reported no defense evidence and the defence is accordingly closed.

8. Heard arguments of learned APP and counsel for the accused and carefully perused the record.

9.The point for determination is that:

“Whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence publishable under sections 304-A, 337 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt ?”

POINT:

10.PW1 and PW2 in their evidence admitted the suggestion given by the learned counsel for the accused that they are not the eye witness the case of prosecution.

Sri Mohammad Umar I Addl. JFCM, Kodad

C.C. No. 1598 of 2020 I-Addl. JFCM,Kodad Pg. No. 6 of 9

11.PW3, PW4 who are the eye witness to the case of prosecution and

PW5, PW6 who are injured persons are turned hostile and deposed that they do not know anything about this case.

12.PW7 who is the investigating officer in this case deposed the chronological events of his investigation which are similar to the allegations made in charge-sheet and the reproduction of the same would not serve any purpose.

13.In this case, the identity of the accused itself is not established by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence. It is clear that the identity of the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle is not established. There is no evidence on record to show the nature of act of the accused resulting into the accident. The essential ingredients of rashness or negligence constituting the offence of Sec.304-A of IPC was not brought on record and no cogent material was adduced in establishing the criminal negligence or rashness on the part of the accused.

14.It is well established principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution is supposed to establish the identity of the accused and that the accused was the perpetrator of the imputed crime. In this case though the prosecution had asserted that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle on the alleged day of accident but no potent material was brought

Sri Mohammad Umar I Addl. JFCM, Kodad

C.C. No. 1598 of 2020 I-Addl. JFCM,Kodad Pg. No. 7 of 9 on recording, establishing the identity of the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle. No persuasive evidence was led by the prosecution to prove the rashness or negligence. It is for the prosecution to establish from the materials on record that there was rashness or negligence on the part of the accused which resulted in the commission of offence. When there is no material the court cannot presume rashness or negligence on the part of the accused. As such the accused is entitled for acquittal.

15.In the result, the alleged accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 304(A), 337 of IPC. Accordingly he is acquitted

U/s 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time under section 437-A of Cr.P.C. Since no property is produced before this court, there is no order as to property.

(Typed by stenographer Gr.III to my dictation, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 6 th day of May, 2026.)

Sd/-

I-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KODAD.

Sri Mohammad Umar I Addl. JFCM, Kodad

C.C. No. 1598 of 2020 I-Addl. JFCM,Kodad Pg. No. 8 of 9

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Accused:

PW1: Ch. Srinivasa Rao/Complainant --Nil-- PW2: Ch. Ravi Kumar/Circumstantial witness PW3: M. Mahesh/Eye witness PW4: Sk. Hussain/Eye witness PW5: K. Srikanth/Injured PW6: K. Vamshi/Injured PW7: M. Dasharatha/Investigation Officer.

DOCUMENTS MARKED.

For Prosecution: For Accused:

Ex.P1: Report --Nil-- Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3 Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4 Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW5 Ex.P5: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW6 Ex.P6: FIR Ex.P7: Scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch Ex.P8: Inquest panchanama deceased No.1 Ex.P9: Inquest panchanama of deceased No.2 Ex.P10: PME report of deceased No.1 Ex.P11: PME report of deceased No.2 Ex.P12: Wound certificate of PW5 Ex.P13: Wound certificate of PW6 Ex.P14: MVI report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

Sd/-

I- ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KODAD.

Sri Mohammad Umar I Addl. JFCM, Kodad

C.C. No. 1598 of 2020 I-Addl. JFCM,Kodad Pg. No. 9 of 9

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

AT :: KODAD

C.C. No. 1598 of 2020 1Name of Complainant:: The State: represented by Sub- Inspector of Police, PS Kodad Rural :: Dandamudi Veera Venkata Satya Siva 2Name of Accused Prasad :: U/section 304-A, 337 of Indian Penal 3Nature of Offence Code 4Finding:: Not guilty 5Sentence:: Acquitted 6Date of Occurrence of offence:: 02-06-2019 7Date of Report:: 03-06-2019 8Date of Commencement of trial:: 09-03-2026 9Date of Closure of trial:: 29-04-2026 10Date of Sentence or Order:: 06-05-2026 11Explanation of delay:: ---

Sd/-

I-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KODAD.

To The Hon’ble I-Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Suryapet.

I.A. No. 198 of 2025 in O.S. No. 212 of 2025Pg.No. 1 of 7 I AJCJ, Kodad

IN THE COURT OF I-ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT: KODAD

PRESENT : Sri. Mohammad Umar,

I-Addl. JCJ, Kodad

Monday, this the 4th day of May, 2026

I.A. No. 198 of 2025 in O.S. No. 212 of 2025

Between:

Jakkula Shambhaiah S/o Gopaiah, Age: 61 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H.No. 1-100, Yepala Madharam Village of Mellacheruvua Mandal, Suryapet District.

... Petitioner/Plaintiff

And

1.Yarram Rajashekar Reddy s/o Late Saidi Reddy, Age: 35 years, Occ: Agriculture,

2.Yarram Ramasitha W/o Rajashekar Reddy, Age: 33 years, Occ: Housewife,

3.Yarram Laxmamma W/o Late Saidi Reddy, Age: 55 years, Occ: Household, Defendant No.1 to 3 are R/o H.No.2-43/2, Thimmareddygudem Village of Munagala Mandal, Suryapet District.

4.Bogala Saidi Reddy S/o Rami Reddy, Age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Yepala Madharam Village of Mellacheruvu Mandal, Suryapet District.

...Respondents/Defendants

The above numbered petition is presented before me for final hearing on 01.05.2026 in the presence of Sri N. Satyanarayana, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri S. Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel for the respondents and upon hearing of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following: -

// O R D E R //

This Petition is filed U/o XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession of petitioner over the petition schedule property till disposal of main suit.

Sri Mohammad Umar IAJCJ, Kodad

I.A. No. 198 of 2025 in O.S. No. 212 of 2025Pg.No. 2 of 7 I AJCJ, Kodad

1. Brief averments of the application as follows:

1.1.Petitioner is owner and possessor of petition schedule property, purchased the same through a registered sale deed bearing document No. 853/2022 on 24-09-2022 from respondent No.1. After purchase the then Tahsildar, Munagala mutated his name in concern revenue records and also issued the New Digital pattedar passbook cum title deed.

1.2.After purchase, petitioner gave the petition land to the respondent No. 1 for cultivation on lease base for a period of two years. But, the respondent No. 1 harassed him when pays the lease amount every year. Vexed with the attitude of the respondent No.1, petitioner refused to continue the lease agreement with the respondent No.1 and thereafter petitioner, himself cultivating the petition land from 2024-25 rainy season to till today. The respondent No. 1 has the land at eastern side of the petition schedule property. There are some personal disputes arose in between me and respondents in the village. Due to the said disputes keep in their mind all the respondents hatched a plan to create troubles and planned to grab the petition scheduled property which belongs to petitioner. On 05-09-2025 at about 11-00 am when petitioner is in the petition scheduled property the respondent No.1 to 3 were came to the petition land and tried to occupy the petition land, but petitioner resisted the same. On 09-09-2025 at about 10-00 A.M the respondent No.4 tried to trespass into his house and abused him in most filthy language and threatened him "that he see his end if, he visit the petition land".

Immediately on 10-09-2025 petitioner approached the SHO, Mellacheruvu and gave a complaint against the respondent No.4, after due enquiry the SHO,

Sri Mohammad Umar IAJCJ, Kodad

I.A. No. 198 of 2025 in O.S. No. 212 of 2025Pg.No. 3 of 7 I AJCJ, Kodad

Mellacheruvu registered a case and issued FIR vide Cr.No. 170/2025 against the respondent No.4 and the same are pending before the Hon'ble Addl. JFCM court,

Huzurnagar. Once again on 16-10-2025 at about 11-00 AM when petitioner was in the petition schedule land for supervise and watering the present crop, all the respondents along with their men have been tried to interfere and obstructed petitioner works, as well as peaceful possession and enjoyment of petitioner over the petition schedule property and also the respondents threatened petitioner with dire consequences. With a great difficulty petitioner sent away the respondents from the petition schedule land with the help of neighboring land holders. The respondents went away from the petition schedule land by proclaiming that they will dispossess him from the petition schedule property and occupy the same by force at any cost. Hence the petition.

2. The Notices are served to the respondents, and respondents engaged the counsel and filed the counter by denying the averments of petition.

3.In counter the respondents further contended that the petitioner has not approached the Hon'ble Court with clean hands. He suppressed material facts, fabricated possession, and created a false story of alleged interference. The petition suffers from misrepresentation, non-disclosure of real transactions, and is filed only to take advantage of fabricated revenue entries.

3.1.The petitioner is in the habit of lending money to needy people upon which he demands to register their lands with an assurance that he will register back the same whenever they return the amount with interest. Further, the petitioner allows such defendants to cultivate the lands without any hesitation

Sri Mohammad Umar IAJCJ, Kodad

I.A. No. 198 of 2025 in O.S. No. 212 of 2025Pg.No. 4 of 7 I AJCJ, Kodad and he never takes possession till the payment is made. In this case also, the petitioner never took possession as falsely mentioned in his petition. This practice is being continued by the petitioner and there are several cases pending in Kodad and Huzurnagar courts. Recently, several victims approached the SP, Suryapet District and filed their grievances which are under investigation. In this case also the petitioner, taking advantage of the bare necessity of the respondents, is trying to occupy the agricultural land by filing false petitions to obtain injunction orders and dispossess innocent people.

3.2.The alleged sale deed relied on by the petitioner is only a nominal and document executed as security for a loan. The petitioner, himself admits that the land was being cultivated by the respondent after alleged purchase which shows possession always remained with respondents.

3.3.That the petitionerfailed to prove possession. Revenue entries are self- procured whereas actual possession is with respondents. Fabricated incidents are imaginary and created solely for this injunction. Hence respondents prayed to dismiss the petition.

4.Now the point for determination is:

I.Whether the petitioner is entitle for temporary injunction restraining respondents from interfering with the possession petitioner over the petition schedule property till disposal of main suit ?

II.To What Relief?

5. To substantiate the case of petitioner Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 got marked. To

Sri Mohammad Umar IAJCJ, Kodad

I.A. No. 198 of 2025 in O.S. No. 212 of 2025Pg.No. 5 of 7 I AJCJ, Kodad substantiate the case of respondents nothing got marked. Heard both learned counsel on record and carefully perused the material available on record.

POINT:

6.The case of the petitioner in a nutshell is that he is owner and possessor of petition schedule property and purchased the same from respondent No.1 and his name was incorporated in revenue records. After purchasing the petition schedule property the petitioner given petition schedule property on lease to the respondent No.1. Since 2024-2025 rainy season the petitioner is cultivating the petition schedule property. The respondents several times tried to occupy the petition schedule property. Hence the petition.

7.The simple contention of the respondents is that the alleged sale deed relied by the petitioner is only a nominal and document executed as security for a loan. The petitioner himself admits that the land was being cultivated by the respondents after alleged purchase. That the petitionerfailed to prove possession and the petition in present nature is not maintainable. Therefore respondents prayed to dismiss the petition.

8.On perusal of Ex.P1, P3 to P5 it appears that the name of the petitioner is reflecting as pattadar for petition schedule property in revenue record. On perusal of Ex.P2 the respondent No.1 executed registered sale deed vide document No.

853/2022, dated: 24.09.2022 in respect of petition schedule property.

9.The contention of the respondents is that the Ex.P2 is only a nominal

Sri Mohammad Umar IAJCJ, Kodad

I.A. No. 198 of 2025 in O.S. No. 212 of 2025Pg.No. 6 of 7 I AJCJ, Kodad document and executed as security for loan and the respondents are contending the title of petitioner. Therefore, on careful perusal of record there is a title dispute is involved in this case and it is settled law that the scope of interlocutory application is very limited as such this court is not inclined to go in to the merits and nature of case.

10.The very purpose of granting a temporary injunction is to protect the rights of both parties and to maintain the status-quo of the suit schedule property.

In the present case, this court have not found prima facie case in favour of the petitioner and if an injunction is not granted in favour of the petitioner certainly the petitioner will not suffer any irreparable loss and hardship for all these reasons it is not fit case to grant temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner.

11.In view of above facts and circumstances and points discussed above this

Court is inclined to dismiss the Petition. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitle for the equitable relief of injunction.

II.To What Relief.

In the result, the petition is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances the both the parties shall bare their own cost.

( Typed by the stenographer Gr.III on my dictation, corrected signed and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 4 th day of May, 2026. )

Sd/-

I- ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KODAD

Sri Mohammad Umar IAJCJ, Kodad

I.A. No. 198 of 2025 in O.S. No. 212 of 2025Pg.No. 7 of 7 I AJCJ, Kodad

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PETITIONER FOR THE RESPONDENTS

- NIL -- NIL -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PETITIONER:

Ex.P1:Pattadar pass book vide bearing No. T29140090886, Khata No. 60326.

Ex.P2:Sale deed vide document No.853/2022, dated: 26.09.2022.

Ex.P3:Details of land transferred vide pattadar pass book No. T29140090379.

Ex.P4:Copy of 1-B Namoona (ROR) fasli 1435, dated: 21.10.2025.

Ex.P5: Copy of Bhoo bharathi.

FOR THE RESPONDENTS

-NIL -

Sd/-

I- ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KODAD

Sri Mohammad Umar IAJCJ, Kodad

1

IN THE COURT OF I-ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KODAD

Present: Sri. Mohammad Umar

I-Addl.JFCM, Kodad.

Monday, the 11th day of May, 2026.

P.R.C. No. 47 of 2025

[Cr.No. 102/2025 of P.S. Kodad Rural] Between : - State represented by the Inspector of Police, PS Kodad Rural.

….Complainant

And

Gugulothu Bhagwan S/o Shiva @ Sevulu, Age: 21 years, Occ: Student, R/o Kuchipudi thanda Village of Kodad Mandal.

…. Accused

This case has come up today before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Complainant and Sri. K. Sharat Kumar, learned Advocate for the accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration, this Court made the following.

//ORDER//

1.The State represented by the Inspector of Police, PS Kodad Rural has filed this case against accused in Cr.No. 102/2025 for the offence punishable under section 329(4), 78, 118(1), 109, 352 of BNS. This case was taken on file for the offence under section 78, 118(1), 109, 352 of BNS against accused.

The offence punishable under section 78, 118(1), 109, 352 of BNS is exclusively triable by Hon’ble Court of Sessions. Therefore, this case is committed under Section 232(a) BNSS to the Hon’ble Principal District and

Sessions Judge, Suryapet, for trial. Copies of case documents were furnished

to Accused.

2

2.Accused was released on bail as per the orders of Hon’ble Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Suryapet vide orders in Crl.M.P. No. 159/2025, Dt.

10.06.2025 and he isdirected to be continued on the same bail till conclusion of trial as provided u/s.232(b) BNSS.

3.Accused submitted that he has got means to engage a counsel to defend their case before the court of sessions. Therefore, the records and the case property, if any, shall be submitted to the Hon’ble Sessions Court, Suryapet under Section 232(c) of Cr.P.C.

4.Office is directed to intimate the public prosecutor about commitment of case under section 232(d) of Cr.P.C.

Typed by me personally, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this the 11 th day of May, 2026

Sd/-

I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kodad 3

FORM NO.28

STATEMENT OF PRELIMINARY ENQUIRIES HELD BEFORE THE

I-ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KODAD

P.R.C.NO. 47 OF 2025

Number of the Case :P.R.C.No. 47/2025

Name of the accused :Gugulothu Bhagwan

Name of the Complainant:Inspector of Police, PS Kodad Rural

Result of the enquiry : Case is committed to the Hon’ble sessions court, Suryapet u/s 209 (a) of Cr.P.C since the offence 78, 118(1), 109, 352 of BNS are exclusively triable by the Hon’ble Court of Sessions. The accused is directed to appear before the Hon’ble

Court of Sessions as and when directed by the Hon’ble Court.

Date of offence:15-05-2025

Date of Complaint:15-05-2025

Date of Cognizance:11-11-2025

Date of Appearance of accused:17-05-2025

Date of closing enquiry.11-05-2026

List of Prosecution witnesses:1. B. Thriveni, 2. B. Nagaraju, 3. B. Sharadha

4. B. Bikshalu, 5. B. Babu Rao

6. G. Nanchari, 7. B. Ramesh, 8. B. Saida

9. B. Mukunda, 10. B. Saida

11. G. Narsimha Rao

12. R. Venkatachary

13. Dr. B. Narsimha

14. P. Maruthi Prasad/Prl. JFCM, Huzurnagar

15. B. Padma/WPC 2974

16. M. Anil Reddy/SI of Police, Kodad Rural

17. G. Rajitha Reddy/CI of Police, Kodad Rural

18. K. Prathap Lingam/CI of Police, Kodad Rural

Explanation of delay :–

Sd/-

I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kodad

TSSR050000152023

Presented on : 05-01-2023 Registered on : 05-01-2023 Decided on : 07-05-2026 Duration : 3 years, 4 months, 2 days

IN THE COURT OF

I Additional Junior Civil Judge AT KODAD , Presided Over by SRI.MOHAMMAD UMAR

EP/4/2023

M/s Kapil Chits (Kosta) Private Limited Nalgonda town and District VERSUS

Bejjam Rama Koteshwar Rao

ORDER

(Delivered on 07-05-2026 )

As per office note process not paid. No representation on

behalf of DHR and DHR called absent. This court waited till

04:00 PM. Process not paid. Hence E.P. is dismissed for default.

Date : 07-05-2026

(SRI.MOHAMMAD UMAR)

I Additional Junior Civil Judge KODAD

TSSR050009122024

Presented on : 24-06-2024 Registered on : 24-06-2024 Decided on : 04-05-2026 Duration : 1 years, 10 months, 10 days

IN THE COURT OF

I Additional Junior Civil Judge AT KODAD , Presided Over by SRI.MOHAMMAD UMAR

EP/49/2024

M/s . Shriram Chits Pvt. Limited rep by G. Nagaraju

VERSUS

Narla Srinivasarao and (3) others

ORDER

(Delivered on 04-05-2026 )

No representation and DHR called absent. No

representation till 04:15 PM. Process not paid.

Hence E.P. is dismissed for default.

Date : 04-05-2026

(SRI.MOHAMMAD UMAR)

I Additional Junior Civil Judge

KODAD ,