Smt. P. Swathi Bhavani

1 of 7 MC No. 3 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF F.C. AT HUZURABAD

Present: ­ Smt Radhika Gavvala I­Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C, Huzurabad Friday, this the 21st day of June, 2019

M.C No. 3 OF 2018

Between:­

1.Pragnapuram @ Pandrala Pranitha Vani, W/o. Praveen Kumar, age: 28 yrs, Occ: House wife

2.Pragnapuram Rishi, S/o. Praveen Kumar, age: 6 years

3.Pragnapuram Rithvik, S/o. Praveen Kumar, age: 4 yrs (Being minors Petitioners No.2 and 3 are represented by their mother i.e petitioner No.1)

All are R/o. H.No.3­14, Near Gram Panchayath, Narmeta (V) and (M) of Jangon District. Presently residing at her parent’s house at D/o.Pandrala Sammaiah, R/o. H.No.9­61, Rajakawada, Huzurabad town and mandal of Karimnagar District. …Petitioners

And

Pragnapuram Praveen Kumar, S/o. Yadagiri, age: 32 yrs, Occ: Teacher in ZPHS Bachannapeta, R/o. H.No.3­14, Near Cram Panchayath, Narmeta (V) and (M) of Janagon District. …Respondent.

This petition is coming before me on 04­06­2019 for hearing in the presence of Sri G. Srinivas, Counsel for the Petitioners and Sri Bandi Kaladhar, Counsel for the Respondent, and having been heard and having stood for consideration, the Court made the following: **********

: : O R D E R : :

1. This petition is filed by the petitioner Under Section 125 Criminal Procedure

Code (in short Cr.P.C) praying the Court to direct respondent to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/­ (Rupees Fifteen thousand) to Petitioner No.1 and

Rs.7,500/­ (Rupees Seven thousand and five hundred) each to the Petitioner no.2 and 3 from the date of the Petition.

2. The averments of the petition are that, Respondent No.1 is husband of Petitioner no.1 and father of Petitioner No.2 and 3. The marriage of Petitioner No.1 and respondent was performed on 26.02.2012 at Petitioner’s house at Huzurabad as per the Hindu Tradition and customs prevailed in their caste and community. At the time of marriage, parents of Petitioner no.1 gave an amount of Rs.10 lakhs as 2 of 7 MC No. 3 of 2018 dowry and presented 15 tulas Gold, other valuable house hold articles and Splendor

Plus Motor Bike to the respondent. The marriage between petitioner no.1 and respondent was consummated and they lived happily for a period of 2 years at the respondent’s house. During the wedlock, they blessed with two male children by name Pragnapuram Rishi (Petitioner no.2) who is 5 years old and Pragnapuram

Rithvik (petitioner No.3) who is 3 years old. The respondent is working as

Government Teacher in ZPHS, Bachannapet. The petitioner no.1 and respondent led happy marital life for two years and after that the respondent showed disinterested over the petitioner no.1 by keeping the same in mind he used to harass the petitioner no.1 to bring additional dowry of Rs.5 lakhs and gold chains to their son’s. Accordingly parents of petitioner no.1 again gave additional dowry of

Rs.5 lakhs and presented 2 tulas gold and additional amount of Rs.50,000/­ to the respondent. The respondent addicted to Alcohol and daily used to come home in drunken state and used to beat the petitioners indiscriminately. In this regard several panchayath were held in the presence of their caste and village elders, in that panchayath respondent confessed his mistakes and stated that in future he will look after the petitioners with love and affection. On such assurance, the petitioners joined in the society of respondent. Thereafter the respondent again started harassing the petitioner with the instigation of his parents, brother, sister­in­ law (brother of respondent wife), sisters and brother­in­laws who supported the respondent and all together harassed the petitioner mentally and physically to bring again an additional dowry of Rs.5 lakhs and abused the petitioner in filthy language and beat the petitioner on 16/12/2017 and necked out the petitioners from the house of the respondent by taking 17 tulas gold and other valuable articles and by stating that until and unless the petitioner no.1 will not bring additional dowry of

Rs.5 lakhs the respondent will not take her and her sons to his conjugal society and bluntly refused to maintain the petitioners and since then the petitioners have been living at her parents’ house. The respondent having sufficient means to maintain petitioners. Hence, the petition. 

3. In counter, respondent denied all the material allegations, averments and submitted that Petitioner no.1 is not a household lady and she is doing private job and earning more than Rs.10,000/­ per month, Further submitted that the payment of dowry of Rs.10 lakhs and presenting 15 tulas of gold, valuable house hold articles and Splendor Plus motor bike to the respondent are false and incorrect. In 3 of 7 MC No. 3 of 2018 fact the marriage of the petitioner no.1 with the respondent solemnized without any dowry, customary articles and gold and no dowry was either demanded or presented by the petitioner no.1 at any point of time. The contention of the petitioner no.1 in respect of occupation of respondent as Government teacher is true. The respondent denied the contention of petitioner no.1 in respect of showing disinterest over the petitioner no.1 and harassing her to bring additional dowry of

Rs.5 lakhs and gold chains to their sons are false and incorrect. Further the respondent addicting to alcohol and used to come with drunken state and beating the petitioners indiscriminately, in the panchayaths confessing his mistakes stating that he will look after the petitioners with love and affection on assurance joining the petitioners with the respondent, and thereafter the respondent again started harassment on the instigation of other respondents no.2 to 8 who supported the respondent and all together harassing the petitioners mentally and physically with a demand to bring additional dowry of Rs.5 lakhs and on 6/12/2017 necking out the petitioners from the house of respondent no.1 by taking 17 tulas of gold and other valuable articles by stating that until and unless the petitioner no.1 will not bring the additional dowry of Rs.5 lakhs the respondent will not take her and her sons to his conjugal society and bluntly refusing to maintain the petitioners are also false and incorrect. Further submitted that Petitioner no.1 herself left his society without any reason. Finally he prayed to dismiss the petition.

4. In order to prove the case of Petitioners, Petitioner No.1 herself examined as

PW1 and Ex.P1 and P2 are marked. The respondent himself examined as RW1 and his father examined as RW2 and no documents marked on his behalf.

5. Heard both sides and perused the record. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the Petitioners are entitled for maintenance as prayed for?

In order to provide maintenance, the settled law is that the Petitioners have to prove the following aspects. 

1.Whether the first petitioner is wife and second petitioners are sons of respondent or not?

2.Whether the petitioners have sufficient reason to live separately and claim maintenance and whether there are any refusal or negligence on the part of respondents in maintaining the Petitioners or not?

4 of 7 MC No. 3 of 2018

3.Whether the respondent has sufficient means to provide maintenance to the petitioners as prayed for?

4.Whether the Petitioners have sufficient means to maintain themselves?

5.To what relief ?

POINT NO. 1: Whether the first petitioner is wife and second and third petitioners are sons of respondent or not?

It is admitted fact that first Petitioner is wife and second and third petitioners are the sons of respondent. Since there is no denial or dispute about the relationship between the parties, this point is answered accordingly.

POINT NO.2: Whether the petitioners have sufficient reason to live

separately and claim maintenance and whether there are any refusal or

negligence on the part of respondents in maintaining the Petitioners or not?

The evidence of Petitioner no.1 as PW1 is that her marriage with respondent took place on 26.2.2012 at Huzurabad. During marriage her parents gave Rs.10 lakh dowry and presented 15 Tulas Gold and other valuable house hold articles and also splendor plus motor cycle to the respondent. After marriage, they lived happily for two years. Thereafter, respondent showed disinterest towards petitioner and started harassing her to bring additional dowry of Rs.5 lakhs and gold chains to 2nd and 3rd petitioners. Further respondent addicted to alcohol and he used to come home in drunken state and used to beat petitioner indiscriminately. In this regard several panchayaths were held, in said panchayaths respondent confessed his mistakes and assured that he will take are of petitioners with love and affection.

But when Pw1 joined with respondent, he did not change his attitude and continued the harassment at the instigation of his family members. On 16­12­2017 respondent abused her and beat her and necked her out and children from the house by taking 17 tulas of gold and other valuable articles, with a demand to bring

additional dowry of Rs. 5 lkahs. As vexed with the attitude of respondent, she filed

complaint on 6­2­2018 before police, Huzurabad.

Thus the above evidence of PW1 is showing that she has sufficient reason to live separately and to claim maintenance. Though respondent filed his counter denying the allegations and made counter allegations against petitioner no.1, no evidence is adduced by him in support of his contention. The learned counsel for 5 of 7 MC No. 3 of 2018 respondent cross examined PW1 by giving suggestions regarding performance of marriage against her wish, proof of dowry, presentation of dowry, properties of

RW1, her attitude towards her in­laws and also harassing respondent, her argumentative nature and alleged harassment, except denial nothing was elicited in support of case of respondent. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 is that the respondent harassed her is appearing to be true and believable.

On the other hand RW1 deposed that PW1 left his company without any reason, she used to harass him stating that his family should not come to their house and then she used to threaten him that she will commit suicide and then twice she made attempts, however he rescued her with great difficulty and then

PW1 is quarrelsome lady and then PW1 not allowing him to see his children and he was falsely implicated in this case. He admitted that he did not pay any maintenance to the petitioner till date. Except the evidence of his father/RW2, no evidence either oral or documentary placed before this court to prove that PW1 used to harass him and threatened him that she will commit suicide and attempted twice.

No prudent women would spoil her life and future of her minor sons by deserting her husband without any valid reason. No material is placed by RW1 to elicit that PW1 herself left his company without any reason and she used to threaten him that she will commit suicide and made attempts twice. Therefore, in view of the above discussion and reasons stated supra, this Court holds that petitioners have reasonable ground to live separately and to claim maintenance. 

The proceedings U/Sec. 126 Cr.P.C are summary in nature. Hence, it is not necessary to ascertain as to who was in wrong and the minute details of matrimonial disputes between husband and wife. Further, in the present case RW1 stated that he has been working as teacher in ZPHS, Bachannapet and getting monthly salary and then he has purchased own house at Jangon and then his family having agricultural land at Narmeta. He also stated that he has raised loans to purchase the house and also for other family necessities and is getting meager income. But, these are all not the grounds to refuse maintenance to the wife and minor children. Accordingly, this point is answered. 

6 of 7 MC No. 3 of 2018

POINT NO.3: Whether the respondent has sufficient means to provide

maintenance to the petitioners as prayed for?

The evidence of PW1 is that RW1 has purchased house at Jangan and has been working as teacher in ZPHS Bachannapeta and getting monthly salary of

Rs.41,000/­(forty one thousand rupees). On the other hand RW1 stated that he has raised loan to purchase house and he also raised personal loans and then he has responsibility to take care of his aged parents and after deductions he is getting meager amount. No document is filed before this Court by either of the parties to establish monthly/annual income of RW1. But then during cross examination RW1 admitted that he has purchased house at Jangon and his family has own house and agriculture land at Narmeta and he has no unmarried siblings. Being husband and father of two minor children, RW1 is liable to pay maintenance to the petitioners.

It is settled law that any person with able body has duty and responsibility to maintain his wife and minor children. Therefore, in view of the above discussion and reasons stated this Court holds that RW1 has sufficient means to maintain petitioners. This point also answered accordingly.

POINT NO.4: Whether the Petitioners have sufficient means to maintain

themselves?

Though RW1 contended that PW1 is doing private job and earning

Rs.10,000/­ per month, no document is filed before this court to establish that petitioner has bee dong job and earning money. Admittedly, petitioner no.2 and 3 are minors and are residing with Petitioner no.1 and then Petitioners are residing at the Parents house of Petitioner no.1. Therefore, in view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated supra, this Court holds that Petitioners have no means to maintain themselves. This point also answered accordingly. 

POINT No.5: To what relief ?

In view of findings on point no.1 to 4, this Court holds that Petitioners are entitled for maintenance. Considering the status of respondent and present cost of living, this Court feels that awarding maintenance of Rs.8,000/­(eight thousand rupees) to petitioner no.1 and Rs.3,000/­(three thousand rupees) each to the 2nd and 3rd petitioners from the date of petition would meet the ends of justice.

7 of 7 MC No. 3 of 2018

6.In the result petition is allowed in part and respondent is directed to pay maintenance of Rs.8000/­ (Rupees Eight thousand only) per month to the petitioner no.1 and that awarding maintenance of Rs. 3,000/­ (Rupees Three thousand only) per month each to the 2nd and 3rd petitioners from date of Petition.

Total maintenance amount is Rs.14,000/­ (Rupees Fourteen thousand only). The respondent is directed to pay the maintenance amount on or before 15th day of every succeeding month. Further Respondent is directed to pay the arrears amount to the petitioner within 3 (three) months from the date of this order.

Dictated to the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me, in the open court on

this the 21st day of June, 2019.

I­Addl. Judicial Magistrate Of First Class Huzurabad

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PETITIONER FOR THE RESPONDENTS

PW1­ Pragnapuram @ Pandrala RW1­ Pragnapuram Praveen Kumar Pranitha Vani RW2­ Pragnapuram Yadagiri

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PETITIONER FOR THE RESPONDENTS

Ex.P1: Wedding invitation of petitioner no.1 and ­Nil­ Respondent no. 1 Ex.P2: One Wedding photographs of petitioner no.1 and Respondent no. 1

I­Addl. Judicial Magistrate Of First Class Huzurabad

Page 1 of 5 CC.No.244 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

HUZURABAD, KARIMNAGAR DISTRICT

PRESENT: SMT. SWATHI BHAVANI POTLA,

PRL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF F.C., HUZURABAD,

FAC:I-ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF F.C.,

HUZURABAD.

THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

CALENDAR CASE NO. 244 OF 2015

Between:

The State, through the Inspector of Police, Huzurabad (Cr. No. 120/2015) …Complainant

And

Thallapalli Venkatesh, S/o. Late Mahender, Age: 25 years, R/o. Duddenapalli V/o. Saidapur (M), Now at H.No. 16-705, Shivanagar, Warangal.

… Accused.

This case is coming before me on 16.02.2022 for Judgment in the presence of Smt. S. Gayatri, Ld. Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. G. Jayakrishna, Ld. Counselfor the Sole Accused. Having heard both the sides, having perused the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following: -

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

1.The Inspector of Police, P.S., Huzurabad, has filed a Chargesheet against the

Sole Accused in Crime No. 120 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A of IPC, Sec. 3/181 of M.V. Act and Sec. 146/196 of M.V. Act against Sole

Accused.

2.The case of the Prosecution in brief is that, on receipt of a Report from the

Complainant/L.W.1/Sangala Rajaiah on 06.05.2015 at 1800 hours stating that he is eking his livelihood by doing coolie works. On 06.05.2015 in the afternoon at about 1400 hours, his father Sangala Yellaiah left from their house to attend a marriage at

Sai Garden, Huzurabad. After attending said marriage, while the said Sangala Yellaiah was returning to their house on his bicycle, on reaching near Sirsapally cross road at the same time one Motorcycle B/No. AP-36-7908 proceeding from his back side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his bicycle. On noticing the same, his brother-in-law Mulugu Ravi who was returning from the same marriage on his motor

Page 2 of 5 CC.No.244 of 2015 cycle, has informed the same to him and their family members through phone. Upon which, LW1 along with his sister/Mulu Bhavani/L.W.4 have reached the spot and found that his father was died. This incident was occurred at about 1630 hours. On enquiry, they came to know that the Accused name was Thallapally Venkatesh and his particulars. Hence, the L.W.1 requested to take necessary action against the Sole

Accused by lodging a Report with the Investigating Officer/L.W.11, who in turn registered the case as Crime No. 120/2015 of P.S. Huzurabad, investigated into it and the deceased sustained severe head injury and fracture injury over his left feet and died on the spot, thereafter, L.W.12 filed a Chargesheet against Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A of IPC, Sec. 3/181 of M.V. Act and Sec.

146/196 of M.V. Act against Sole Accused .

3.Cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A of IPC,

Sec. 3/181 of M.V. Act and Sec. 146/196 of M.V. Act against Sole Accusedby this Court and the case was registered as C.C. No. 244 of 2015.

4. After securing the presence of the Sole Accused, copies of documents relied upon by the prosecution was furnished to him, as required by Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

5. The Accused was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under

Sections 304-A of IPC, Sec. 3/181 of M.V. Act and Sec. 146/196 of M.V. Act against Sole

Accused and explained to him in Telugu, the substance of the accusation leveled against him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove its case, the Prosecution examined L.Ws.1 to 3 as P.Ws. 1 to 3 respectively and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P.4. The Ld. APPO has given up the evidence of L.Ws.4 to 12. Hence, the evidence for prosecution is closed.

Page 3 of 5 CC.No.244 of 2015

7. As there is no incriminating material against the Accused from the evidence of

P.Ws.1 to 3, the examination of the Accused U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

8. The Ld. Counsel for the Sole Accused reported no defence evidence. Hence, the evidence for defence is closed.

9. Heard the Ld. APPO for the Prosecution and the Ld. Counsel for Defence for the

Sole Accused.

10. Now the point that arises for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the Sole Accused Nos.

for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A of IPC, Sec. 3/181 of M.V. Act and

Sec. 146/196 of M.V. Act against Sole Accused , beyond reasonable doubt?

11.In order to establish the offences punishable under Sections 304-A of IPC, Sec.

3/181 of M.V. Act and Sec. 146/196 of M.V. Act against Sole Accused, the Prosecution has to prove that the Accused drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed without having a valid driving license and dashed to a cycle, causing injuries, thereby leading to the death of the deceased.

12.P.W.1/Sangala Rajaiah/de facto Complainant and son of deceased deposed that he does not know who caused the accident in which his father had died. He only learnt over telephone that his father had collapsed. He does not know the reason. By the time he reached there, his father was already no more. He does not know the contents of the Report that he gave to the police. Ex.P1 is his signature on the

Report. During cross examination he deposed that, the Police neither examined him nor recorded his Statement. He does not know anything about the Accused. The 161

Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex. P2.

Page 4 of 5 CC.No.244 of 2015

13. P.W.2/Sangala Prameela, wife of the deceased deposed that she does not know who caused the accident in which her father was died. She only learnt from a phone call by L.W.3 to P.W.1 that her husband had collapsed. She does not know the reason.

By the time she reached there, her husband was already no more. During cross examination she deposed that, the Police neither examined her nor recorded her

Statement. She does not know anything about the Accused. The 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement is marked as Ex. P3.

14.P.W.3/Molugu Ramesh, son-in-law of the deceased eye witness deposed that the deceased is his father-in-law. They all went to a marriage on the date of the accident. His father-in-law returned a bit earlier than them. As they were returning, on the road they saw that a crowd was gathered. They stopped by to see what happened and found that his father-in-law was lying unconsciously. They also noticed that a person who looked suspicious and gave a Police Complaint, but he cannot recognize that person then. He does not know who exactly caused the accident.

During cross examination he deposed that, he does not know anything about the

Accused or his name. He cannot recognize him. The Police neither examined him nor recorded his Statement. The 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex. P4.

15.It is the case of the prosecution that Accused drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner without having a proper driving license and insurance resulting in the death of the deceased who was going by his cycle. The P.Ws.1 to 3 did not support the case of the prosecution, turned hostile and did not depose anything with regard to the Accused driving the Motorcycle and stated that they do not know who caused the accident. Since there is nothing in the evidence of eye-witnesses, to point to the Accused as the wrong-doer, the learned APPO has given up the evidence of

L.Ws.4 to 12. Therefore, there is no evidence to connect the Accused with the alleged offences. The prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the alleged offences; hence the point is answered accordingly.

Page 5 of 5 CC.No.244 of 2015

16. IN THE RESULT, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A of IPC, Sec.3/181 of M.V. Act and Sec. 146/196 of M.V. Act against Sole Accused. Accordingly, he is acquitted U/Sec. 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time. Accused is set at liberty.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17 th day of February, 2022.

Prl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., FAC:I-Additional Judicial Magistrate of F.C., Huzurabad.

Appendix Of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW-1: Sangala Rajaiah. --None—

PW-2: Sangala Prameela.

PW-3: Molugu Ramesh.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: Signature of the Complaint. --Nil--

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

Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2

Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3

M.Os. marked.

--Nil--

Prl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., FAC:I-Additional Judicial Magistrate of F.C., Huzurabad.

 IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS AT :: HUZURABAD

Present: Smt. Swathi Bhavani Potla I­Addl. Judicial Magistrate of F.C., Huzurabad FAC: II­Addl. Judicial Magistrate of F.C., Huzurabad Thursday, this the 11th day of November, 2021

CALENDER CASE NO. 684 of 2020

Between:

The State Telangana, through The Sub­Inspector of police, Jammikunta Police Station. (Cr.No.138/2020 ) …Complainant.

And

1. Mattepalli Madhukar Rao, S/o. Kamalakar Rao, Age: 32 years, Velma, R/o.H.No.5­60, Suraram village of Elkaturthy Mandal.

2. Mattepalli Padma, W/o. Kamalakar Rao, Age: 50 years, Velma,R/o.H.No.5­60, Suraram village of Elkaturthy Mandal.

3. Mattepalli Rajeshwar Rao, S/o. Kamalakar Rao, Age: 27 years, Velma, R/o.H.No.5­60, Suraram village of Elkaturthy Mandal.

4. Pulluri Prabhakar Rao, S/o. Rajeshwar Rao, Age: 50 years, Velma, R/o.H.No.1­17, Veeranarayanapur village of Elkaturthy Mandal.

5. Pulluri Ahalya, W/o. Prabhakar Rao, Age: 47 years, R/o.H.No.1­17, Velma,Veeranarayanapur village of Elkaturthy Mandal.

6. Ramadugu @ Mattepalli Deepika, W/o. Madhukar Rao, Age: 32 years, Velma, R/o.H.No.5­8­193, Kishanpura, Hanmakonda, now at Suraram village. 

….Accused

Offences under Section 498­A, 109 of IPC against Accused No.1 to

Accused No.6 and Sec.494 R/w.109 of IPC against Accused No.1 and

Accused No.6. 

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Ld. APP for the State, and of Sri K. Srinivas Reddy, Ld. Counsel for Accused having heard and having been stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:­

:: J U D G M E N T ::

Page No.02 of 05 Calender Case No.684 of 2020

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Jammikunta Police Station filed charge sheet against the Accused in Crime No.138/2020 for the offences under Section 498­A, 109 of Indian Penal Code against Accused No.1 to

Accused No.6 and Sec.494 R/w.109 of Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) against Accused No.1 and Accused No.6.

2.The brief averments of the case of prosecution are that on 23.06.2020 at 1130 hours Lw1/Mattepalli Divya lodged a Complaint

before Jammikunta PS stating that her marriage was performed with

Accused No.1 on 06.01.2013 at Sai Gardens, Huzurabad and the couple is blessed with a female child, named Hanvitha, aged 06 years.

Subsequently, the Accused Nos.1 to 5 started harassing the complainant physically and mentally and refused to permit her to stay at their home, as her kidneys are failed and she is undergoing Dialysis treatment regularly, as her health is not good and for bearing all the expenses for her treatment. The Accused No.1 to Accused No.5 further threatened that if she registers the Ac.1­00 guntas of land that she got from her mother onto their name, they will bear expenses for her treatment. On 27.02.2020, on the occasion of her daughter’s birthday, the Accused persons confined her in a room, snatched the phone, asked her to die and threatened her to put a signature on a bond paper to perform another marriage to her husband. Due to unbearable torture, she along with her daughter came to her parents house and the matter was informed to the elders. Later, she came to know that Accused No.4 and

Accused No.5 performed her husband’s marriage with Accused No.6. In this regard, a panchayat was held in between the parties, and in the panchayat, the Accused No.4 refused to give their properties to her and her daughter and went away from there. Hence, she requested to take

Page No.03 of 05 Calender Case No.684 of 2020 necessary action against the Accused. The concerned Police conducted investigation and filed a charge sheet against the Accused persons after completion of the investigation.

3.Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under

Section 498­A, 109 of IPC against Accused No.1 to Accused No.6 and

Sec.494 R/w.109 of IPC against Accused No.1 and Accused No.6 and on appearance of the Accused persons, the copies of case documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/sec.207 Cr.P.C.

4.The charges under Section 498­A, 109 of IPC against Accused

No.1 to Accused No.6 and Sec.494 R/w.109 of IPC against Accused No.1 and Accused No.6 are framed, and the contents of charges were read over and explained to the Accused in Telugu, to which, the Accused denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to establish its case, the prosecution has examined

P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3. The Ld APPO given up the evidence of the remaining witnesses as the material witnesses to the case turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution.

6.As there is no incriminating evidence against the Accused, the examination of the Accused under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

Heard both sides. Perused the record. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused for the offences punishable Section 498­A, 109 

of IPC against Accused No.1 to Accused No.6 and

Sec.494 R/w.109 of IPC against Accused No.1 and 

Accused No.6 beyond all reasonable doubt?”

7.In this case, the prosecution filed Death Certificate of

L.W.1/Mattepalli Divya, basing on which, the evidence of Lw1 is closed.

To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined the mother of defacto­complainant as Pw1. She deposed that the Lw1 is her

Page No.04 of 05 Calender Case No.684 of 2020 daughter who got married to A1 about ten years ago. Due to petty issues and on the advice of village elders, the Lw1 lodged a report before the

Police. She deposed that she does not know the contents of the said report and does not know anything regarding this case. She further deposed that the police neither examined her nor recorded her statement and turned hostile. Pw2 is the cousin of Lw1, who deposed on the similar lines as Pw1 and turned hostile. These witnesses were also cross­ examined by the Ld.APP but nothing is elicited in support of the prosecution case. The Ld. APP had given up the evidence of the remaining witnesses since Pws1 and 2 turned hostile.

8.Thus, in this case, Pw1 and Pw2 who were examined by the prosecution, did not depose anything against the Accused for the charges leveled against them in support of the prosecution. Therefore, there is no evidence against the Accused to prove their guilt. For the reasons discussed above, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the Accused and therefore, the Accused No.1 to 6 are entitled for acquittal.

9.In the result, the Accused Nos.1 to 6 are found not guilty for the offences punishable Section 498­A, 109 of IPC and Sec.494 R/w.109 of IPC against Accused No.1 and Accused No.6 and they are acquitted

U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. 

Dictated to Stenographer directly on Computer, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open Court on this the 11th day of November, 2021.

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, FAC:II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad.

Page No.05 of 05 Calender Case No.684 of 2020

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

Pw1 ­ Polsani Laxmikantha ­­None­­­ Pw2 ­ Polsani Srinivas Rao

FOR THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 is the 161 Cr.P.C Statement by Pw1 Ex.P2 is the signature of Lw1 on complaint Ex.P3 is the 161 Cr.P.C Statement by Pw2

FOR THE DEFENCE

­­Nil­­­ MO.s Marked. ­­Nil­­­ I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, FAC:II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad.

 IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS AT :: HUZURABAD

Present: Smt. Swathi Bhavani Potla I­Addl. Judicial Magistrate of F.C., Huzurabad FAC: II­Addl. Judicial Magistrate of F.C., Huzurabad Friday, this the 22nd day of October, 2021

CALENDER CASE NO. 844 of 2021

Between: The State Telangana, through The Sub­Inspector of police, Jammikunta Police Station. (Cr.No.204/2019 ) …Complainant.

And

Soora Venkatesh, S/o. Ellaiah, Age: 22 years, Caste: Waddera, R/o. C­1­5, Kommulavancha, Narsimhulapeta Mandal of Mahaboobabad district.….Accused

Offence under Section 354­D,500,509 of IPC and Sec.65,66­C,67,

67­A of IT Act

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of learned APP for the State, and of Sri Md. Mustafa, Learned Counsel for Accused having heard and having been stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:­

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The Sub Inspector of police, Jammikunta Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.204/2019 for the offences

U/s 354­D,500 and 509 of Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) and

Sec.65,66­C,67,67­A of Information Technology Act (Amendment Act), 2008 (for short IT)

2.The brief averments of the case of prosecution are that on 16.05.2019 at 2000 hours Pw1 Vallepu Srinu lodged complaint before

Jammikunta PS stating that he is eaking livelihood by doing labour work. He is having one daughter and son who are aged 17 years and 11 years respectively. His wife Rajitha also doing labour work along with him. On 15.05.2019 at about 02.00 pm he received a Whats App message to his mobile number 9908878532 from 6304831771 phone number in the form of a screen shot which contained the photo of his

Page No.02 of 04 Calender Case No.844 of 2021 wife, his phone number and also his mother­in­law phone number stating that “Sex family business Srinu Agent”. Later he received another Whats App message from another mobile number 6304360237 in the form of screen shot with facebook profile id by name Raji Siri in which the morphed nude photo of his wife was uploaded, in the said screen shot also his number, his mother in law and his son phone numbers were displayed and further contained “call to Ajay to ask

Rajitha…. Just 4 one nit….” and the same was uploaded on facebook publicly. Due to which he is receiving many phone calls and asking him that “Hello, Entha Swamy Miru Agent Anta Kadha”. Hence, he requested to take necessary action against the accused.

3.On receipt of the above complaint, Lw11/Inspector of Police,

Jammikunta registered a case in Crime No.204/2019 under Sec. 354­

D,500,509 of IPC and Sec.65,66­C,67,67­A of IT Act and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses. Lw11 sent a letter to Commissioner of Police, Karimnagar with a request to direct the cyber analysis wing, Karimnagar to furnish the details of facebook account id Raji Siri with IP Address for further investigation. The concerned facebook authorities furnished the details of accused. On 22.06.2019 the accused was arrested and on interrogation, he confessed to have committed the offence due to family disputes and also recovered the cell phone, Sim Card under cover of panchanama and then he was sent for judicial remand. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.

4.The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under

Sec.354­D,500,509 of IPC and SEc.65,66­C,67,67­A of IT Act against the

Page No.03 of 04 Calender Case No.844 of 2021 accused and on appearance of the accused, the copies of case documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated U/sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5.The charges under Sec. 354­D,500,509 of IPC and Sec.65, 66­C,67,67­A of IT Act are framed against the accused, and the contents of charges are read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which, the accused denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to establish its case, the prosecution has examined

Pw.1 to 3 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.4. The Learned APPO given up the remaining witnesses since the material witnesses to the case turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution.

7.As there is no incriminating evidence against the accused, the examination of the accused under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

Heard both sides. Perused the record. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable U/s 354­D,500,509 of IPC and SEc.65,66­C,67,67­A of IT Act beyond all reasonable doubt?”

8.To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined the defacto­complainant as Pw1. His testimony is that the

Pw2 is his wife, Pw3 is his father­in­law and Lw4/Vallepu Ajay is his son, the incident took place about two and half years ago and due to petty issues with the accused and on the advise of village elders, he lodged

Ex.P1 report. He further deposed that he does not know the contents of the report and the police neither examined him nor recorded his statement and turned hostile. Pws2 and 3 who are wife and father­in­ law of Pw1 respectively deposed that that they do not know anything about the case facts and turned hostile. These witnesses were also cross­examined by the learned APP but nothing is elicited in support of

Page No.04 of 04 Calender Case No.844 of 2021 the prosecution case. The Learned APP had given up the evidence of the remaining witnesses since Pws1 to 3 turned hostile.

9.Thus, in this case, P.Ws.1 to 3 who were examined by the prosecution, did not depose anything against the accused for the charges leveled against him in support of the prosecution. Therefore, there is no evidence against the accused to prove his guilt. For the reasons discussed above, I hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused and he is therefore entitled for acquittal.

10.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s 354­D,500,509 of IPC and Sec.65,66­C,67,67­A of IT Act and he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. 

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22nd day of October, 2021.

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, FAC:II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

Pw1 ­ Vallepu Srinu ­­None­­­ Pw2 ­ Vallepu Rajitha Pw3 ­ Alakuntla Komuraiah

FOR THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 is the Complaint Ex.P2 is the 161 Cr.P.C Statement by Pw1 Ex.P3 is the 161 Cr.P.C Statement by Pw2 Ex.P4 is the 161 Cr.P.C Statement by Pw3

FOR THE DEFENCE

­­Nil­­­ MO.s Marked. ­­Nil­­­ I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, FAC:II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad.

180 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE

NCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL,J JUDGE

02

AT: HUZURABAD

Present: Smt. Swathi Bhavani Potla, TAddl. Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad, FAC: Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad

Friday, this the 29th day of October, 2021

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 180 of 2021

Between:

Gulla

Ravinder. S/o. Yellaiah, age: 57 years. Occ: Agriculture,

R/o. Singapur

village of

Uzurabad mandal of Karimnagar district.

Plaintiff

AND

Ailaiah. S/0. Venkataiah. age: 50 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.

amchandrapoor viliage of Said:.poor mand al of Karimnagar district.

Jefendant.

S & coming on before iue or final hearing in the esence of Sri M. Raianmouli, La. Counsel for Plaintiff ard the Defendant was 3*t ex-parte and having be an heard and having stood cver for consideration to ti is day, the

Court deliveie he following:

********:******

JUD GMNT:

1. This is a Si1it filed by the sole Plainuf for Eviction to direct the 2efendant

To vacate the suit schedule property and directing to pay Rs.13,000 towards rents due from 28.12.2019 to 28.01.2021

2

The averments of the plaint in brief are that the Plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of a tin shed house bearing No.3-108 to an extent of 780 Sq.

feets along with open place, totalling to an extent of 151.25 Sq. yards situated at

Ramchandrapoor illage of Saidapur Mandal of Karimnagar District. Tie Plaintiff

is presently residing at Singapoor Village of Huzurabad Mandal, so he ler out the suit scheduie property to the Defendant on rent on an oral agreement since 28.12.2019. According to oral agreement the period is 11 months. The Plaintiff submits that the suit schedule property 1s the self acquired property of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff ronstructed the suit schedule house about 15 years ago an

Since thei he is enjoving the title and pessc ssIon over the sul schedul property 180 of 202 021 in the Grampanchayathrecords. Thas she Plaintiff inspite of several requests made by oCcupation by the Defendant is ithorized eNtRs the occt it damages along with rent. On 05.12.2020 as and the Plaint it 1o vacite, the Defendant had been postponing Naanet? knandexd io well. when the thout paying rents since 28.12.2019. On th other witho On one pretet 07.02.2021,the Maintit went to the sult schedule property and demanded the defendant to pav the areurs of rent and to vacate the suit schedule property but the defendant abusei and threatened the Plaintift with dire consequences. Finall on 15.02.2021, the Plaintiff got issued a legal notice to Defendant demanding to vacate the suit schedule property and also to pay the arrears of rents from

28.12.2019. Hence, the suit.

3. The Defendant was set ex parte on l6.09.2021 as he refused to receive the

summon Therefore, the Plaintifs er parte evidence was record ,

he got himself

examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.Al to A5 and reported no further evidence on her behalf.

4. Heard the counsel for Plaintiff. Perused the record.

5.

Now the point that arises for determination is:-

Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for Perpetual Injunction as prayed for?

6. ne Burden of Proof lies on the Plaintiff to establish his case. In order to

prove his case, the Plaintiff got himself examined as PW1 and got marked ExS.AI

to AS. Ex.Al

is the Original House Ownership Certificate

Grampanchayath, Ramchandrapur. dated 03.01.2021, Ex.A3 is the copy of legal

issued by

notice, dated 15.02.2020, Ex.A4 is

Sub-Regisirar, Huzurabad dated 08.02 is the valuation certificate issued by the

20.02.2021 and Ex.A2 is copy of Aathar Card 02.2021, Ex.A5 is the refused R.P.,

lated

2021

Vr ]4 A 021 Ex-parte Judgment in 5 It is the claim of the Plaintiff that eyen thouB" that even though the Defendant dres nn have

right or title over the suit schedule property and the property belongs t

Plaintiff, the Defendant is neither paying any rent

paying any rent nor vacating the suit schedule property and causing inconvenience to the Plaintiff. However, as the Defendant did not make his appearance, the evidence produced by the Plaintiit remaine dienged and unrebutted. Upon a ceristiny of oral and documentary evidence

POuuced in support of his case by the paintiff, this court opines that tne Plaintift uld establish his possession over the siit schedule property. In casE tne relier

SOugnt tor by the Plaintiff is not granted. he may have to suffer irreparable loss.

AS the Detendant did not adduce ar evidence and the evidence adduced 8. Dy the Plaintiff remained unrebutted, the evidence of the Piaintif: s aione 2Cnt. As available for 2p.eciation and the same app ars to be trustworthy ar per the oral evidence of Plaintiff/P.W.1, the cause of action arose on i5.02.2021 dence of when the Deferua:t refused to vacate the suir schedule property. The

Plaintiff remained unrebuttec as the Deferdant failed to enter his appe rance and contest the claim of Plaintiff. In view of the foregoing reasons and basing on the material evidence available on record, this Court holds that the Plaintifi is entitled for the relief of eviction without following the due procedure established by law.

Therefore, there is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of Plaintiff, and as such, he is entitled for the reliefs sought ior by him. Accordingly, the point is answercd in favour of the Plaintiff.

IN THE RESUIT, the suit is decreed ex parte by directing the Defendant to 9. to pay the rent arrears amount ot vacate the suit schedule house property d

Rs.13.000/-from 28.12.2019 to 28.01.2021. No Order as to costs. Typed to my dictation, corected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 29" day of October, 2021

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge FAC: Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad.

OS No.1 S0 of 2021

Ex-parte Judgment in OS No 4 of 4

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE DEFENDANT:

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: Exparte

PW.1-G. Ravinder

EXHIBITS MARKED

EOR THE PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1: Original House Ownership certificate issued by Grampanchayath,

Ramchandrapur, dated 03.01.2021.

Ex.A2:- Xerox copy of Aadhar card on comparison with the original.

Ex.A3:- Copy of Legal Notice, dated 15.02.2020.

Ex.A4:- Valuation Certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar, Huzurabad dated

08.02.2021.

Ex.A5:

Refused R.P., dated 20.02.2021.

FOR THE DEFENDANT: -Nil.

990

I Addl. Junior iil Judge,

FAC: Prl. J::nio- Civil Judge,

Huzuad.