Mohd. Abdul Khaleel

Addl Junior Civil Judge s cum JFCM Court Gajwel

Gajwel, JCJ Court Complex · Siddipet · Telangana

Mohd. Abdul Khaleel, Addl Junior Civil Judge s cum JFCM Court Gajwel, is posted at Gajwel, JCJ Court Complex, Siddipet, Telangana, India. 325 court orders on record since 2020. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, MC, STC cases.

325

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

CC/703/2016 Acquitted

PS Begumpet vs Mankady Yadagiri

06 Apr 2022

C.C.No. 703 of 2016 Page 1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM- ADDL.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - AT GAJWEL.

Wednesday, the 06 th day of April, 2022.

Present: Sri. Mohd Abdul Khaleel, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge –cum- Addl. JMFC, Gajwel.

C.C.No. 703 of 2016

Between

State represented through Sub Inspector of police, Police Station Begumpet. …Complainant.

And

A1 – Mankady Yadagiri, S/o. Rajaiah, Age : 50 years, Occ : Agril.,

A2 – Mankady Bhoopal, S/o. Yadagiri, Age : 21 years, Occ : Agril.,

A3 – Mankady Manjula, W/o. Yadagiri, Age : 45 years, Occ : Agril.,

A4 – Mankady Naveen, S/o. Narsimulu, Age : 21 years, Occ : Agril.,

A5 – Mankady Bhoomavva, W/o. Narsimulu, Age : 38 years, Occ : Agril.,

All caste SC (Mala), R/o. Begumpet (V), Doulthabad (M)

...Accused No.1 to 5.

, Offences u/secs. 148, 323, 504, 506 (ii) R/w. 34 of IPC.

<<<>>>

This case is coming up before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of the A.P.P. on behalf of the State and of Sri G.Balamukunda Reddy, Advocate for the accused/A1 to A4 and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered following :-

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

1.The brief facts of the case that on 29-02-2016 the complainant filed a private complaint before this Court by alleging that the accused abused her in filthy language and threatened her with dire consequences when she tried to visit her father, who was ailing in her village and she was not allowed to enter into the village by the accused due to previous grudges with them in connection with her love marriage.

2.And she filed said private complaint before this Court which was referred to police, who registered the case and examined the witnesses. And after

C.C.No. 703 of 2016 Page 2 elaborate investigation they filed charge sheet against the accused/A1 to A5 for committing the offences u/secs. 148, 323, 504, 506 (ii) IPC R/w. 34 of IPC.

3.This Court has taken cognizance of the offences against accused/A1 to

A5 for the offences u/secs. 148, 323, 504, 506 (ii) R/w. 34 of IPC.

4.On appearance of accused/A1 to A5, copies of case documents were furnished to them u/sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused/A1 to A5 were examined u/sec 239 of Cr.P.C for the charge sheet allegations leveled against accused/A1 to A5 for the offences u/secs. 504, 506 (ii) of IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution got examined (07) witnesses as PWs. 1 to 7 and got marked Exs. P1 to P4. The evidence of LW8,

LW9 is closed by this Court.

7.After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused No.1 to 5 were examined u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating circumstances voiced against them, for which the accused No. 1 to 5 denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is, whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused No. 1 to 5 for the offences u/sec. 148, 323, 504, 506 (ii) R/w. 34 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt ?

10.The learned A.P.P.O argued that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is proving the guilt of the accused, as such she prayed the Court to convict the accused No. 1 to 5.

C.C.No. 703 of 2016 Page 3

11.The case of the accused No. 1 to 5 is one of total denial. The learned defence counsel argued that the evidence of the prosecution all the witnesses is nowhere proving the guilt of the accused. As such he prayed the Court to acquit the accused No. 1 to 5 by giving the benefit of the doubt.

12.I have gone through the evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution which is as follows :-

13.PW-1/Kuppu Shyamala is the de facto complainant and she deposed that her marriage with Koppu Swamy was performed in the year 2007 and the accused objected her marriage and quarreled with her parents about her love affair with her husband. And after one month of her marriage, all the accused beat her with hands and sticks. And at that time her father was ill and later he died. And the accused did not allow her to attend funerals of her father. And the said incident occurred on 23-2-2015. And later in the year 2015 she gave report against the accused.

14.PW-2/Koppu Swamy is the husband of PW1. And he deposed that the accused are agnates of his wife. And after the marriage of PW1 with him, in the year 2007 the accused bore grudge against them due to their love marriage. And in the year 2015 they came to their village to attend the marriage of his sister, then

Accused No. 1 in drunken condition abused PW1 in filthy language and threatened her with dire consequences. And in the year 2011 when his father-in-law died they came to the village for his funerals. And the accused searched them with intention to kill them. Later on the advice of elders they went back to the Hyderabad. And later this case was filed by his wife.

15.PW-3/K.Sathyanarayana is the eye witness and he deposed that the accused, who are agnates of PW1 and PW2 are not happy with the alleged love

C.C.No. 703 of 2016 Page 4 marriage of PW1 and PW2. And on 23-02-2015 a quarrel took place in which all the accused abused PW1 and PW2 and the elders separated them.

16.PW-4/Kuppu Hemalatha is another witness. And she deposed that on 23-02-2015 at 05:00 AM all the accused quarreled with PW1 and PW2 and beat them with stick due to which PW1 and PW2 sustained injuries on their back.

17.PW-5/Kuppu Sathyanarayana is another eye witness. And he deposed that on 23-2-2015 when PW1 and 2 came to attend a marriage, near a culvert, all the accused beat PW1 and PW2 with sticks and threatened them with dire consequences.

18.PW-6/Bandela Nagulu is the scene panch. He turned hostile.

19.PW-7/Y.Swamy goud is another panchayathdar for scene of offence panchanama. And he deposed that on 24-05-2016 at 04:00 PM in SC colony.

Begumpet at the house of Uppu Sathaiah, the police called him and prepared one panchanama. And he signed on it.

20.In spite of giving so many adjournments the other witnesses did not turn up to the Court. And this matter is pertaining to the year 2016. And after taking cogent steps, the evidence of other witnesses is closed by this court.

21.The main charge levelled against the accused is u/sec. 323 IPC, which deals for the punishment of causing simple hurt. And in this case the evidence of all the witnesses is silent about sustaining of any injuries by PW1 and PW2. And in fact

PW1 stated that on that day the accused did not allow them to enter into the village and to attend funeral of her father. And she did not stated where she sustained

C.C.No. 703 of 2016 Page 5 injuries and which of the accused have beat her. So, her evidence is silent with regard to charge u/sec. 323 IPC.

22.Similarly her husband PW2/Kuppu Swamy stated that on that day they came to village for the funeral of his father-in-law and the accused searched for them with intention to kill. In fact as per the evidence of the husband of PW1 no incident of beating by the accused to the complainant was occurred. So, the charge u/sec.

323 IPC is not spoken by the husband of PW1.

23.Whereas PW-3/K.Sathyanarayana deposed that a quarrel took place and both parties abused each other. And he is also silent about sustaining of any injury by PW1 and PW2. Surprisingly PW4 stated that on that day PW1 and PW2 sustained injuries on their back. And that was not stated by PW1 and PW2 themselves, who are the injured. And similarly PW5/Sathyanarayana also stated that

PW1 and PW2 were beaten with stick and they sustained so many injuries. But not a single injury was spoken by the injured themselves. So, the charge u/sec. 323 is prima facie not established by any of the witnesses.

24.With regard to the charge u/sec. 504 IPC, not a single witness of prosecution stated in what manner the accused provoked the complainant and whether any breach of peace took place in the village. And as per the evidence of

PW2 he frankly admitted that no such incident occurred and simply the accused searched them for beating. But on the advice of elders they went away from that village. And PW2 is none other than the husband of complainant. So, there is no necessity of him to give evidence against his wife. As such the offence u/sec. 504 of IPC is also not proved. And absolutely there is nothing to connect the accused for the charge u/sec. 506 IPC.

C.C.No. 703 of 2016 Page 6

25.Apart from it, on seeing the evidence of these witnesses the alleged incident occurred in the year 2015. And as per the evidence of PW1, she married

PW2 in the year 2007. And after one month they came to the village and accused beat them with hands and sticks, which means the alleged incident might have occurred in the year 2008. And the complaint was given in the year 2015. There is no proper clarification on behalf of the prosecution for the delay of giving report. Apart from it, this is not a police case. And initially this case was filed by way of private complaint which was referred to the police for investigation.

26.And visit of the panchayathdar at the scene of offence is also doubtful.

Since PW6/Nagulu turned hostile. Whereas PW7/Y.Swamy goud stated that in the year 2016 he went to the scene of offence. By that time one year gap was there for actual commission of the offence. So, visit of this witness after one year of the offence to the scene and nothing was seized from the scene of offence. So, his evidence is of no use to the case of prosecution.

27.On careful observation of the evidence of these witnesses, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 is quite contra to the evidence of other witnesses. All the witnesses belong to one family. They are agnates to each other. And since long time there were disputes between them due to love affair of PW1 and PW2. Not a single independent villager was examined to say what are the exact differences between these persons.

And the contents of Ex.P1 are also not properly spoken by PW1 herself. So from the stage of FIR itself the case of the prosecution is doubtful.

28.And even the investigation done by the police is also of not useful to their own case. Because much delay was already occurred in giving private complaint before this Court. And complainant herself is not sure, whether the incident occurred in the year 2007 or in the year 2015. And if the incident occurred in 2007 as spoken by her. Why she gave report in the year 2015.

C.C.No. 703 of 2016 Page 7

29.And according to the evidence of PW1, she went to the village to attend funerals where the incident occurred. But her husband contradicted her by stating that on that day they went to the village to attend the marriage of his sister. And that was not spoken by PW1 herself. So even though PW1 and PW2 are wife and husband, their evidence is not corroborating in material aspect. So, all the negative facts clearly show that the evidence of prosecution witnesses not corroborating with each other. And all the charges levelled against them are spoken by them in proper way. And this is a fit case to give benefit of doubt to the accused.

30.In the result, the accused/A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offences u/secs. 148, 323, 504, 506 (ii) R/w. 34 of IPC. Accordingly they are acquitted u/sec.

248 (1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds cancelled. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time.

Dictated to stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 06 th day of April, 2022.

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gajwel

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined For Prosecution:Defence:

PW-1 : Kuppu Shyamala -None -

PW-2 : Kuppu Swamy

PW-3 : K.Sathyanarayana

PW-4 : Kuppu Hemalatha

PW-5 : Koppu Sathyanarayana

PW-6 : Bandela Nagulu

PW-7 : Y.Swamy goud

Exhibits Marked For Prosecution:Defence:

Ex.P1 : Private complaint of PW1 -Nil-

Ex.P2 : Signature of PW6 on Scene panchanama

Ex.P3 : Scene panchanama

C.C.No. 703 of 2016 Page 8

Ex.P4 : Rough sketch.

Material Objects Marked -- Nil --

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gajwel.

CC/200466/2016 Acquitted

Police Station Jagadevpur. vs Aitha Balraju.

06 Apr 2022

C.C.No. 466 of 2016 Page 1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM- ADDL.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - AT GAJWEL.

Wednesday, the 06 th day of April, 2022.

Present: Sri. Mohd Abdul Khaleel, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge –cum- Addl. JMFC, Gajwel.

C.C.No. 466 of 2016

Between

State represented through Sub Inspector of police, Police Station Jagadevpur. …Complainant.

And

Aitha Balraju, S/o. Lingaiah, Age : 41 years, Occ : Kirana Business, R/o. H.No. 3-85, Doulapur (V), Jagadevpur (M), Medak dist.

...Accused.

, Offences u/secs. 6-A, 7 of E.C. Act, 1955.

<<<>>>

This case is coming up before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of the A.P.P. on behalf of the State and of Sri V.Bhaskar, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered following :-

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

1.The brief facts of the case that on 10-07-2015 at 10:00 hours the complainant Thota Venkatesh, who was the Assistant Supply Officer lodged a police report by alleging that on 08-07-2015 on the reliable information about the illegal storage of 10 quintals of public distribution system rice by the accused in his godown.

He along with his staff went there and surprised the shop of the accused and seized 10 quintals of PDS rice bags and 45 quintals of broken rice which the accused kept illegally for sale against the government rules. As such he requested the police to take action against the accused.

2.As per his report, the police registered the case and examined the witnesses and went to the scene of offence and arrested the accused and charge sheeted him for committing the offences u/secs. 6-A R/w. 7 of Essential Commodities

Act, 1955.

C.C.No. 466 of 2016 Page 2

3.This Court has taken cognizance of the offences against accused for the offences u/secs. 6-A R/w. sec. 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

4.On appearance of accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him u/sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined u/sec 239 of Cr.P.C for the charge sheet allegations leveled against accused for the offences u/secs. 6-A R/w. 7 of Essential

Commodities Act, 1995 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution got examined (07) witnesses as PWs. 1 to 7 and got marked Exs. P1 to P7. The evidence of LW2,

LW4, LW7, LW11, LW12 is closed by this Court.

7.After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused is examined u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating circumstances voiced against him, for which the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is, whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offence u/sec. 6-A R/w. 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, beyond all reasonable doubt ?

10.The learned A.P.P.O argued that the evidence of PW1, PW4 and PW7 is clearly proving the guilt of the accused, as such she prayed the Court to convict the accused.

11.The case of the accused is one of total denial. The learned defence counsel argued that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is nowhere proving the conscious or constructive possession of the rice by the accused. And all the other

C.C.No. 466 of 2016 Page 3 witnesses including the seizure panchayathdar except the complainant they turned hostile. And no case is made out against the accused. As such he prayed the Court to acquit the accused by giving the benefit of the doubt.

12.I have gone through the evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution which is as follows :-

13.PW-1/Kalva Rameshwar is the eye witness to the incident and he was

Deputy Tahsildar in civil supply, Siddipet and he deposed that on 08-07-2015 on reliable information received by LW1 he went to Doulapur village and went to kirana shop of the accused. And they demanded the accused to open the godown and they found 10 quintals of PDS rice and 45 quintals of broken rice. And since the accused confessed about illegal purchase of that rice. They sealed it and handed over the custody to VRO. And subsequently his statement was recorded by police.

14. PW2/Itikyala Sudhakar Reddy and PW3/ Itikyala Srinivas Reddy are the independent eye witnesses. They turned hostile.

15.PW4/Thota Venkatesh is the complainant. And he deposed that on 08-07-2015 on reliable information about illegal storage of PDS rice in the godown of accused in Doulapur village, he along with MRO and staff went and surprised the godown and found 10 quintals of PDS rice which the accused illegally purchased from one contractor in Nalgonda district, then they seized the rice. And subsequently gave report to the police for taking action.

16.PW5/Arutla Yadava Reddy and PW6/Maddikunta Uppala Reddy are the panch witnesses for the seizure panchanama under which the alleged rice was seized. They both turned hostile.

C.C.No. 466 of 2016 Page 4

17.PW7/Muthyala Thirupathi is the VRO, who deposed that on 08-07-2015 at 03:00 PM he went to Doulapur village and after the seizure of 10 quintals of PDS rice by DTF staff he took the custody of that rice for safeguarding it and he issued one receipt of custody to the officials etc.

18.Now it is the contention of the learned APP that the evidence of PW1 and PW4 is proving the guilt of the accused. On the other hand the learned defence counsel argued that the evidence of these two witnesses is also giving clean chit to the accused. Since they both admitted that they have no proof to show that the alleged seizure of the rice was as per government rules. And in fact the rice belongs to PDF scheme.

19.It is true in this case complainant PW4/Thota Venkatesh admitted that he did not obtained any ownership certificate of the godown and he cannot say the boundaries of the scene of offence. And the rice bags which were seized by him does not contain any stamp or seal. And they are kept in plastic bag and not in gunny bag.

20.And except the confession of the accused they have no authority to say that rice belongs to the government under PDS scheme. Similar facts were admitted by PW1. And these two important witnesses admitted that they have no proof to say that the rice which was seized from the godown of the accused is illegally kept by the accused.

21.And moreover according to the evidence of PW1 there is no door number to the godown. But PW1 contradicted him and stated that there was a number to the door. But during the course of investigation also the police could not secured any proof to show that the godown was owned by the accused. And he kept it for illegal safe custody of that rice.

C.C.No. 466 of 2016 Page 5

22.According to the evidence of PW4, the accused purchased that rice from one contractor in Nalgonda district. Whereas PW1 stated that the accused purchased that rice from Lambadi people in Nalgonda district.

23.And on perusal of the panchanama prepared at the spot it was mentioned in it that before riding of the police on that godown the accused was in the habit of selling that rice to some persons for one rupee extra charge per kilogram.

And that was not detected by the police and not investigated by the police. And PW1 and PW4 have not sure whether any rice was already sold by the accused to some customers on their demand. So selling of that rice for extra charge is also not prima facie proved by the prosecution.

24.And moreover to prove the charge u/sec. 6A and 7 of EC Act, the prosecution must prove that the accused was found in conscious and constructive possession of one essential commodity. But that was not done in this case. All the official witnesses admitted that they have no proof to show that the said godown belongs to the accused. And at the time of that raid no customers were found at the kirana shop of the accused for purchase of that rice.

25.And moreover to prove the charge u/sec. 7 of EC Act, which deals for the punishment in contravention of section 3 of the Act, which deals powers to control production, supply, distribution etc. of essential commodities. And to prove it, the prosecution must prove that some essential commodity was maintained by the

Government for equitable distribution at fair price. And in this case as per the evidence of PW1 and PW4 they are the silent from which dealer that was secured by the accused and where it was distributed is not spoken by PW1, PW4 and investigated by the police.

C.C.No. 466 of 2016 Page 6

26.And moreover both the witnesses also admitted that the rice was kept in plastic bag. Generally the rice supplied by the government will be kept in gunny bag containing the seals of the scheme under which it was transported. And not a single piece of gunny bag was seized. And how the prosecution witnesses with accuracy say that rice belongs to PDS scheme is not established. And that important fact was not established by the evidence of PW1, PW4 and PW7.

27.Apart from it, there is a delay of two days in giving report by PW4. And that was not explained by the prosecution. So, the unexplained delay in giving report is fatal to the prosecution. And the manner in which the rice retained is made against the rules. And all these negative facts are not proving the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

28.Apart from it the seizure of the said bags is also not established due to the independent witnesses turned hostile. And including the seizure panchayathdars for the said panchanamas also turned hostile. So, the essential ingredients of sec.

6A and 7 of EC Act are not established. And it can be said that the case against the accused is not proved beyond all reasonable doubt. And he is entitled for the benefit of doubt.

29.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences u/secs. 6 (A), 7 of EC Act. Accordingly he is acquitted u/sec. 248 (1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds cancelled. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time.

Dictated to stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 06 th day of April, 2022.

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gajwel

C.C.No. 466 of 2016 Page 7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined For Prosecution:Defence:

PW-1 : Kalva Rameshwar-None -

PW-2 : Itikyala Sudhakar Reddy

PW-3 : Itikyala Srinivas Reddy

PW-4 : Thota Venkatesh

PW-5 : Arutla Yadava Reddy

PW-6 : Maddikunta Uppala Reddy

PW-7 : Muthyala Thirupathi

Exhibits Marked For Prosecution:Defence:

Ex.P1 : 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW2 -Nil-

Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW3

Ex.P3 : Report

Ex.P4 : Attested copy of panchanama prepared by PW4.

Ex.P5 : Signature of PW5 on panchanama prepared by ASO.

Ex.P6 : Signature of PW6 on panchanama prepared by ASO.

Ex.P7 : Attested copy of custodial receipt issued by PW7. .

Material Objects Marked -- Nil --

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gajwel.

CC/758/2018 Acquitted

Ps Mulugu vs Shanigaram Ravi kumar

11 Apr 2022

C.C.No. 758 of 2018 Page 1

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

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - AT GAJWEL.

MONDAY, this the 11 th day of April, 2022

Present: Sri. Mohd Abdul Khaleel, Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Gajwel.

C.C.No. 758 of 2018

Between State represented through Sub Inspector of police, Police Station Mulugu.

…Complainant.

And

C. Ravi Kumar, S/o Pochanna, Age 30 yrs, Caste: SC (Madiga), Occ: Lorry Driver, R/o Shanthinagar, Chinthakunta, Kareemnagar mandal and (D).

...Accused.

Offences u/s.: 304-A of IPC.

-o0o-

This case coming up before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of the A.P.P. Gajwel on behalf of the State and of Sri Vanam Bhasker, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The brief facts of the case are that on 10-07-2017 at 11.00 hrs, the complainant/Gaikward Prathibha gave police report by alleging that on 09-07-2017 when her husband was driving the lorry loaded with sand at

Mulugu FRC center one driver of another lorry b/No. AP15-TC-5588 parked on Rajeev Rahadari without taking any precautions of parking lights etc., due to which her husband dashed that lorry on its back side and died on the spot, as such she gave report to the police for taking action and on her report the police registered the case examined the witnesses and held inquest over the dead body of the diseased and later witnesses were

C.C.No. 758 of 2018 Page 2 examined and postmortem was conducted and the doctor opined that the cause of the death was due to cardio respirator failure due to head injury, and on 13-07-2017, the accused surrendered before the police. Later after elaborate investigation the police filed charge sheet against the accused for committing the offence u/sec 304-A of IPC.

2.This court has taken cognizance of the offence against accused for the offence u/s. 304-A of IPC.

3.On appearance of accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him u/sec.207 Cr.P.C. He is examined u/sec 251 of Cr.P.C for the charge sheet allegations leveled against accused u/sec 304-A of IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During the course of trial the prosecution got examined (4) witnesses as PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Exs. P1 to P8. The evidence of

LW7 to LW10 were closed by this court due to hostile behavior of the witnesses.

5.After close of prosecution side evidence the examination of the accused u/sec 313 of Cr.P.C was dispensed with since no incriminating material voiced against him and the accused reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

6.Heard both sides and perused the record.

Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offence u/sec. 304-A of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

C.C.No. 758 of 2018 Page 3

7.The learned A.P.P., argued that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is not supporting their case due to compromise of the case between the parties and the case may be decided on merit. The learned defence counsel argued that absolutely there is no iota of evidence to connect the accused with the case since all the material witnesses turned hostile and no case is made out against the accused and he prayed the court to acquit the accused.

8.In this case Pw1/G. Prathiba is the wife of the deceased and she deposed that her husband while coming from Hyderabad on his sand loaded lorry dashed to another lorry which was parked in the middle of the road in the night due to which her husband died amd somebody has informed about that accident and she do not know the particulars of the driver who negligently parked that lorry.

9.Pw2/Nagesh is the brother of the deceased and he deposed that his brother while coming from Hyderabad on his sand loaded lorry dashed to another lorry which was parked in the middle of the road in the night due to which his brother died and somebody has informed about that accident and he do not know the particulars of the driver who negligently parked that lorry.

10.Pw3/Aravind is the half brother of the deceased and he deposed that his brother while coming from Hyderabad on his sand loaded lorry dashed to another lorry which was parked in the middle of the road in the night due to which his brother died and somebody has informed about that accident and he do not know the particulars of the driver who negligently parked that lorry.

11.Pw4/Sanjay is the eye witness and he turned hostile.

C.C.No. 758 of 2018 Page 4

12.PW5/Kannayya and Pw6/Maharudhra are the panch witnesses for scene of offense panchanama and rough sketch and also inquest panch but they also turned hostile. On seeing the hostile behavior of these witnesses the evidence of other witnesses was closed by this court since no purpose will be served in examining them.

13.Absolutely there is no iota of evidence to connect the accused for the charge u/sec 304-A of IPC since non of the prosecution witnesses had stated about the involvement of the accused in this case and they do not know the particulars of the accused since they are the hearsay witnesses and their evidence is not admissible in law and even the eye witness also turned hostile. Moreover on perusal of the evidence of prosecution witnesses prima facie there is no negligent of the accused and since all the witnesses themselves admitted that the deceased dashed to the lorry in the dark night which clearly shows that he failed to take any precautions to avoid collusion and even the circumstantial witnesses also not supported by the prosecution, as such the charge u/sec 304-A IPC is not proved by the prosecution.

14.In the result the accused is found not guilty for the offence u/sec 304-A of IPC. Accordingly he is acquitted u/sec 255(1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds cancelled forthwith. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 11 th day of April,

2022.

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gajwel

C.C.No. 758 of 2018 Page 5

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined For

Prosecution:Defence:

PW1 G. Prathibha -None -

PW2 G. Nagesh

PW3 T. Aravind

PW4 M. Sanjay

PW5 K. Kannaiah

PW6 Maharudhra

Exhibits Marked For

Prosecution:Defence:

Ex P1 Signature of Pw1 on Report -Nil-

Ex P2 Sec 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw4

Ex P3 Signature of of Pw5 on Inquest panchanama

Ex P4 Signature of of Pw5 on Scene of offense panchanama

Ex P5 Signature of of Pw5 on Rough sketch

Ex P6 Signature of of Pw6 on Inquest panchanama

Ex P7 Signature of of Pw6 on Scene of offense panchanama

Ex P8 Signature of of Pw6 on Rough sketch

Material Objects Marked -Nil-

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gajwel

CC/811/2018 Acquitted

PS Gowraram vs Lakavath Devya

11 Apr 2022

C.C.No. 811 of 2018 Page 1

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

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - AT GAJWEL.

MONDAY, this the 11 th day of April, 2022

Present: Sri. Mohd Abdul Khaleel, Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Gajwel.

C.C.No. 811 of 2018

Between State represented through Sub Inspector of police, Police Station Gowraram.

…Complainant.

And

Lakavath Devya, S/o Pantuliya, Age 43 yrs, Caste: SC (Lambada), Occ: RTC bus Driver, R/o Rangampet village, Virnapally mandal, Rajanna Siricilla (D).

...Accused.

Offences u/s.: 304-A of IPC.

-o0o-

This case coming up before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of the A.P.P. Gajwel on behalf of the State and of Sri M. Chandrashekar Reddy, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The brief facts of the case are that on 31-08-2017 at 1000 hrs, the complainant/Sripathi Sathyaranayana gave police report by alleging that on the same day at about 06.50 am, his father met with an accident while while he was crossing the road (Rajeev Rahadari) towards Mamidyala

Kaman side and he was knocked down by one RTC bus b/No. AP29-Z-2926 in negligent manner and he was shifted to hospital but succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment, as such he gave report to the police for taking action and on his report the police registered the case examined the witnesses and held inquest over the dead body of the diseased and

C.C.No. 811 of 2018 Page 2 later witnesses were examined and postmortem was conducted and the doctor opined that the cause of the death was due to cardiopulmonary arrest, and on 31-08-2017, the accused surrendered before the police.

Later after elaborate investigation the police filed charge sheet against the accused for committing the offence u/sec 304-A of IPC.

2.This court has taken cognizance of the offence against accused for the offence u/s. 304-A of IPC.

4.During the course of trial the prosecution got examined (4) witnesses as PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs. P1 and P2. The evidence of LW5 to LW11 were closed by this court due to hostile behavior of the witnesses.

6.Heard both sides and perused the record.

Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offence u/sec. 304-A of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

C.C.No. 811 of 2018 Page 3

8.In this case Pw1/Sripathi Sathyanarayana is the son of the deceased and he deposed that on 31-08-2017 his father while travelling on his TVS XL near Gowraram one RTC bus knocked down his father and he was informed about that accident by one Kumar, on that police prepared one report and took his signature and by that time he do not know the number of the bus.

9.Similarly Pw2/Sripathi Yadagiri is another son of the deceased whoe deposed that his father knocked down by one RTC bus but he do not know the number of that bus.

10.Similarly PW3/Mallavva is the daughter of the deceased, she also admitted that she do not know the particulars of the driver and the bus.

11.Pw4/P. Karunakar Goud is the eye witness to this case and he turned hostile. On seeing the hostile behavior of these witnesses the evidence of other witnesses was closed by this court since no purpose will be served in examining them.

C.C.No. 811 of 2018 Page 4

12.Absolutely there is no iota of evidence to connect the accused for the charge u/sec 304-A of IPC due to hostile behavior of all the prosecution witnesses and the case against him is not proved by the prosecution and the accused is entitled for acquittal.

13.In the result the accused is found not guilty for the offence u/sec 304-A of IPC. Accordingly he is acquitted u/sec 255(1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds cancelled forthwith. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 11 th day of April,

2022.

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gajwel

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined For

Prosecution:Defence:

PW1 Sripathi Sathyanarayana -None -

PW2 Sripathi Yadagiri

PW3 Mallavva

PW4 P. Karunakar goud

Exhibits Marked For

Prosecution:Defence:

Ex P1 Signature of Pw1 on Report -Nil-

Ex P2 Sec 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw4

Material Objects Marked -Nil-

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gajwel

CC/2000516/2015 Acquitted

Ps Begumpet vs Sunke Surender

07 Apr 2022

C.C.No. 516 of 2015 Page 1

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

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - AT GAJWEL.

THURSDAY, the 07 th day of April, 2022

Present: Sri. Mohd Abdul Khaleel, Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Gajwel.

C.C.No. 516 of 2015

Between :-

State represented through Sub Inspector of police, Police Station Begumpet. …Complainant.

And

Sunke Surender, S/o. Pentaiah, Age: 38 years, Occ: Farmer, R/o. B..V. Pur (v), village, Gajwel mandal, Medak Dist.

...Accused.

Offences u/s. 386 of IPC.

<<<>>>

This case coming up before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of the A.P.P. Gajwel on behalf of the State and of Sri Y. Swamy, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered following :- -: J U D G M E N T :-

1.The brief facts of the case are that on 24-09-2012 at 18:30 hours the complainant MD. Bhooran, S/o Kayum gave police report by alleging that on that day while he was doing road works the accused came there and demanded Rs. 10,00,000/- from the sanctioned amount of contract work for the village and since the complainant refused to give that amount, the accused threatened him with dire consequences, as such he gave report and on his report a case was registered and after elaborate investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused for committing the offence u/sec. 386 of IPC.

C.C.No. 516 of 2015 Page 2

2.This court has taken cognizance of the offence against accused for the offence u/sec. 387 of IPC.

3.On appearance of accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him u/sec.207 Cr.P.C.

4.Accused was examined u/sec 239 of Cr.P.C for the charge sheet allegations leveled against accused u/sec 387 of IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial the prosecution did not brought single witness to prove the case and this case is pertaining to the year 2012 and after giving so many adjournments and after taking cogent steps, the evidence of prosecution witnesses is closed.

6.After closure of prosecution side evidence the examination of the accused u/sec 313 of Cr.P.C was dispensed with since no witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution.

7.Heard both sides.

Now the point for determination is, whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offence u/sec. 387 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt ?

8.It is the contention of the learned defence counsel that in spite of giving so many adjournments the prosecution failed to bring any of the witnesses and no case is made out against the accused.

Even though the incident occurred in the year 2012 from then onwards the prosecution never made any efforts to produce the

C.C.No. 516 of 2015 Page 3 witnesses. And after giving so many adjournments, since this case is pertaining to the year 2012 and after taking cogent steps, the evidence of prosecution witnesses is closed. Moreover from the stage of FIR itself it is clearly mentioned that the complainant did not handed over any amount to the accused under extortion. So the very word “Extortion” was no where prima facie appears in the report.

9.Due to non-production of witnesses, the examination of accused u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C. is also dispensed with. Absolutely there is no iota of evidence to connect the accused for the offence u/sec. 386 of IPC. No case is made out against the accused and the accused is entitled for acquittal.

10.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence u/sec. 387 of IPC. Accordingly he is acquitted u/sec 248 (1) of

Cr.P.C. Bail bonds cancelled. The unmarked property shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 07 th day of April, 2022.

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gajwel

C.C.No. 516 of 2015 Page 4

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined For

Prosecution: Defence: Nil-None -

Exhibits Marked For Prosecution:Defence:

Nil -Nil-

Material Objects Marked -Nil-

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gajwel

Order Record 325 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/758/2018	Ps Mulugu vs Shanigaram Ravi kumar	11 Apr 2022	Aquittal	Acquitted
CC/811/2018	PS Gowraram vs Lakavath Devya	11 Apr 2022	Aquittal	Acquitted
CC/2000516/2015	Ps Begumpet vs Sunke Surender	07 Apr 2022	Aquittal	Acquitted
CC/703/2016	PS Begumpet vs Mankady Yadagiri	06 Apr 2022	Aquittal	Acquitted
CC/200466/2016	Police Station Jagadevpur. vs Aitha Balraju.	06 Apr 2022	Aquittal	Acquitted
CC/200029/2017	P.S. Doultabad. vs Kamatam Balnarsu	24 Mar 2022	Aquittal	—
CC/915/2019	PS Raipole vs Srimukti Sreedhar	23 Mar 2022	Aquittal	—
CC/463/2017	PS Raipole vs Kodakandla Srikanth	21 Mar 2022	Aquittal	—
CC/464/2017	PS Raipole vs Kodakandla Srikanth	21 Mar 2022	Aquittal	—
CC/472/2016	PS Doulthabad vs Alladi Mallesham	17 Mar 2022	Aquittal	—
CC/283/2021	Ps Jagadevpur vs Paramesh Sailendri	15 Mar 2022	Aquittal	—
CC/1244/2021	PS Mulugu vs Kadaveru Santhosh Kumar	15 Mar 2022	Aquittal	—
CC/200377/2016	PS.Mulugu vs Rapolu Srikath	15 Mar 2022	Aquittal	—
CC/751/2018	Ps Mulugu vs Gangireddy Shekar reddy	09 Mar 2022	Aquittal	—
CC/4266/2021	PS Jagadevpur vs Ramchandram Narra	04 Mar 2022	Aquittal	—
CC/143/2022	PS Mulugu vs Lasamgalla Shekar	03 Mar 2022	Aquittal	—
CC/821/2018	Ps Gowraram vs Budharapu Naveen Kumar	03 Mar 2022	Aquittal	—
CC/601/2018	Ps Gowraram vs Guddoji Kanakachary	02 Mar 2022	Aquittal	—
CC/200521/2016	P.S.Gouraram vs Sarasam Narsimha Reddy	02 Mar 2022	Aquittal	—
CC/74/2015	PS Jagdevpur vs Shanku Srinu	28 Feb 2022	Aquittal	—
CC/440/2020	Ps Mulugu vs Md Akbar	28 Feb 2022	Aquittal	—
CC/739/2016	PS Jagadevpur vs Tholichukka Kistaiah	28 Feb 2022	Aquittal	—
DVC/1/2018	Muradi Manjula vs Muradi Balraj	28 Feb 2022	Allowed	—
CC/272/2018	PS Markook vs Cheepurupally Nageshwar Rao	25 Feb 2022	Aquittal	—
CC/1020/2018	Ps Doulthabad vs Angadi rajaiah	25 Feb 2022	Aquittal	—
MC/20021/2016	Puruma Aruna vs P. Srinivas	23 Feb 2022	Allowed	—
CC/162/2018	Ps Jagdevpur vs Bhukya Pandu Nayak	17 Feb 2022	Aquittal	—
CC/763/2018	PS Mulugu vs Vanga Ravinder Reddy	17 Jan 2022	Aquittal	—
CC/2560/2021	Ps Jagadevpur vs Krishnareddy Aleti	11 Jan 2022	Aquittal	—
CC/290/2016	Ps Begumpet vs Uppala Nagaraju	10 Jan 2022	Aquittal	—
CC/624/2018	PS Jagadevpur vs Chinthala Babu	10 Jan 2022	Aquittal	—
CC/14/2021	SIP Gowraram vs Gurrala Swamy	07 Jan 2022	Aquittal	—
CC/754/2018	PS Mulugu vs Tallikota. Ventataramana Rao	07 Jan 2022	Aquittal	—
CC/200453/2016	P.S.Markook vs Ponnoji Bhaskar	05 Jan 2022	Aquittal	—
CC/826/2018	PS Gowraram vs Penti Yadagiri	04 Jan 2022	Aquittal	—
CC/832/2019	PS Jagadevpur vs Kodimela Rajashekhar	20 Dec 2021	Aquittal	—
CC/4892/2021	PS Markook vs CH. Ramesh	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/4893/2021	Ps Raipole vs D. Swamy	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/4894/2021	PS Markook vs M. Babu	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/4895/2021	Ps Raipole vs P. Anil Kumar	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/4896/2021	Ps Raipole vs K. Naveen	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/4897/2021	PS Kukunoorpally vs M. Mahendar	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/4898/2021	PS Raipole vs S. Babu	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/4899/2021	PS Kukunoorpally vs E. Koushik	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/4900/2021	Ps Raipole vs G. Milinder Reddy	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/4901/2021	PS Raipole vs M. Anjaneyulu Goud	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/4902/2021	PS Kukunoorpally vs K. Ramana	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/4903/2021	Ps Raipole vs M. Kanakaiah	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/4904/2021	Ps Raipole vs N. Yadaiah	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/4906/2021	Ps Raipole vs Errolla Ramulu	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/4907/2021	PS Kukunoorpally vs M. Karunakar	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/4908/2021	Ps Raipole vs Thudum Raju	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/4909/2021	Ps Raipole vs Surna Sailu	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/4910/2021	PS Kukunoorpally vs MD.Yakub	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/4911/2021	Ps Raipole vs G. Yellam	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/4912/2021	Ps Mulugu vs L. Jayinder	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/4913/2021	Ps Mulugu vs N. Krishna	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/4914/2021	Ps Mulugu vs L Ashok	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/4915/2021	Ps Mulugu vs A. Balnarsilu	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/4916/2021	Ps Mulugu vs Yashwanth	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/4917/2021	PS Mulugu vs Kola Karthiks	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/4918/2021	Ps Mulugu vs P. Srikanth	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/4919/2021	Ps Mulugu vs Thigulla Kumar	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/4920/2021	Ps Mulugu vs Bhanu	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/4921/2021	Ps Mulugu vs J. Naveen Kumar	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/4922/2021	Ps Mulugu vs K. Balesh	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/4923/2021	PS Kukunoorpally vs D. mallesham	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/4924/2021	PS. Kukunoorpally vs D. Venkatesh	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/4925/2021	PS. Kukunoorpally vs M. Swamy	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/4926/2021	PS. Kukunoorpally vs K. Santhosh	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/4927/2021	PS. Kukunoorpally vs K. Ilaiah	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/4928/2021	PS. Kukunoorpally vs D. Srinu	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/4929/2021	PS Mulugu vs B. Vamshi	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/4930/2021	PS Kukunoorpally vs V. Krishna	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/4931/2021	PS Kukunoorpally vs A. Naveen Kumar	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/4932/2021	PS Kukunoorpally vs B. Mallesham	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/4933/2021	PS Kukunoorpally vs P. Prashanth	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/4934/2021	PS Kukunoorpally vs K. Bal Reddy	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/4935/2021	PS Kukunoorpally vs U. Bharath	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/4936/2021	PS Kukunoorpally vs P. Narsimulu	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/4937/2021	PS Jagadevpur vs R. Naveen	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/4938/2021	PS Jagadevpur vs R. Prashanth	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/4939/2021	PS Jagadevpur vs S. Prakash Reddy	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/4940/2021	PS Jagadevpur vs A. Rahul	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/4942/2021	PS Doulthabad vs L. Yadagiri	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/4944/2021	PS Doulthabad vs B. Sai Krishna	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/4945/2021	PS Doulthabad vs P. Masthan	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/4946/2021	PS Doulthabad vs R. Yesu Reddy	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/4947/2021	PS Doulthabad vs P. Prashanth	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/4948/2021	PS Doulthabad vs A. Madhu	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/4949/2021	PS Raipole vs CH. Raju	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/5882/2021	Ps Mulugu vs B. Ravinder	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/5886/2021	PS Mulugu vs D. Kishan	11 Dec 2021	Convicted	—
CC/599/2018	Ps Gowraram vs Kishore Singh	30 Nov 2021	Aquittal	—
CC/717/2020	P.S Raipole vs SRIKANTH REDDY SHAKAMPALLY	29 Nov 2021	Aquittal	—
CC/200450/2016	PS.Gowraram vs Matam Ailaiah	26 Nov 2021	Aquittal	—
CC/273/2016	PS Doulthabad vs Thuppathi @ Madha Kondaiah	17 Nov 2021	Aquittal	—
CC/918/2015	PS Kukunoorpally vs Mundarthi Krishna	16 Nov 2021	Aquittal	—
CC/200480/2016	P.S. Doulthabad. vs Gangadhari Narsimulu.	12 Nov 2021	Aquittal	—
CC/200477/2015	Maddikunta Dhevamma vs Dhatkari Naresh	10 Nov 2021	Aquittal	—

Showing 100 of 325 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Apr 2022		5
Mar 2022		14
Feb 2022		8
Jan 2022		8
Dec 2021		58
Nov 2021		12
Oct 2021		8
Sep 2021		4
Aug 2021		3
Jul 2021		163
Mar 2021		11
Feb 2021		21

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Mohd. Abdul Khaleel handled?

Mohd. Abdul Khaleel has handled 325 court orders since 2020 at Gajwel, JCJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 14 orders per month.

What types of cases does Mohd. Abdul Khaleel hear?

Based on available records, Mohd. Abdul Khaleel primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) at Gajwel, JCJ Court Complex.

Where is Mohd. Abdul Khaleel currently posted?

Mohd. Abdul Khaleel is posted as Addl Junior Civil Judge s cum JFCM Court Gajwel at Gajwel, JCJ Court Complex, Siddipet, Telangana.

Are judgments by Mohd. Abdul Khaleel available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by Mohd. Abdul Khaleel are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Mohd. Abdul Khaleel dispose cases?

Mohd. Abdul Khaleel disposes approximately 14 cases per month, based on 325 orders handled over their tenure at Gajwel, JCJ Court Complex.

Since when is Mohd. Abdul Khaleel serving?

Mohd. Abdul Khaleel has been serving at Gajwel, JCJ Court Complex since 2020.

Case Types

CC 99%

MC 0%

STC 0%

DVC 0%

Posting History

Aug 2020 — Aug 2022

Addl Junior Civil Judge s cum JFCM Court Gajwel · 325 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 5

Other Judges at this Court

Smt. Moola Swathi Goud

Prl Junior Civil Judge Gajwel

436 orders

Sri C.Manveer

I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Additional J...

0 orders

← View all judges at Gajwel, JCJ Court Complex