P. Vennela

1

IN THE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)- CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS FOR MOBILE, CHITTOOR.

Present: Smt. P.Vennela, V Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum- Judl. Magistrate of I Class for Mobile, Chittoor

Thursday the Fourteenth (14 th ) day of May, 2026

C.C.No.128 OF 2018

(old CC.No.324/2018)

Between :-

C.Paramadass, s/o (late) Chinna Pillai, aged about 60 years, D.No.4-499, Sali Street, Greamspet, Chittoor Town and District. Complainant.

And :-

C.Manigandan, s/o S.Chinna, aged about 24 years, D.No.4-2206/A, Iruvaram, Chittoor Town and District. Accused.

This case is coming for final hearing before me on 11.05.2026 in the presence of Sri T.Balaji, Advocate for Complainant and Sri M.Sathish Kumar, Advocate for accused and upon hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusal of all relevant records, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The complainant filed this complaint against the accused under section 200 of

Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act,1881.

2.The contents of complaint in brief are as follows :-

(a)The case of complainant is that accused borrowed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- as cash on 07.06.2016 from the complainant for his family necessities, personal and business needs and executed a promissory note in favour of the complainant by agreeing to repay the same together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. In-spite of oral requests and approaches made by the complainant, the accused has issued a cheque bearing number 2 093967, dt.09.02.2018 for a sum of ₹ 3,50,000/- drawn on IDBI Bank, Gandhi Road,

Chittoor Branch, in favour of the complainant. On presenting the said cheque through his

State Bank of India, Collectorate Branch, Chittoor on 09.02.2018 the same was returned on 14.02.2018 with an endorsement that “Insufficient Funds”.

b)The complainant issued a legal notice, dt.19.02.2018 to the accused, calling upon to repay the said amount of 3,50,000, accused received the same on 20.02.2018,₹ he did not give any reply notice nor did not pay the amount within 15 days from the date of received of legal notice. Hence, the complainant filed the present complaint under Section 138 of NI Act.

c) The complainant submits that the accused has issued above said cheque in favor of the complainant in discharge of the debt amount and failed to honor the cheque and he is liable for punishment and also liable to pay compensation to the complainant besides the cheque amount. The complainant is obliged to file this complaint, to punish the accused in accordance with law and for compensation.

3.This case has been taken on file U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act against accused and numbered as CC.No.324/2018. The accused was furnished with copies of necessary documents in compliance with Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Subsequently, the case was transferred from Spl Judicial Magistrate of I Class for IV AJCJ Court, Chittoor to this

Court, as per the Orders of the Hon’ble District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor in

Dis.No.4410, dt.11.06.2018 and renumbered as CC.No.300/2018.

4.Accused was examined Under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. The substance of accusation for the offense punishable Under Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881 was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During trial, the complainant examined himself as PW.1 and marked Ex. P1 to

Ex.P7.

3

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined Under section 313 of Cr.P.C with regard to incriminating material appearing in the evidence of PW.1 for which, he denied and reported defence evidence on his behalf and examined himself as DW.1.

7.Heard the arguments of the learned counsels for both sides. Perused the material available on record.

8. Now the points that arose for determination are as follows:-

Whether the complainant brought home the guilt of accused beyond

reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act?

9. POINT :-

The case of the complainant, is that the accused is a well acquainted person to him and one of his friends, by taking the same into consideration, on 07.06.2016, accused borrowed an amount of 2,50,000 to meet his family and personal needs and to repay the₹ same together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and executed a promissory note/Ex.P7. On 09.02.2018 accused drew a cheque/Ex.P1 for an amount of 3,50,000.₹

Cheque bearing number 093967 drawn on IDBI Bank, Chittoor branch, for due discharge of principle and accrued interest. On presenting, the alleged cheque before the banker and the same was returneEx.P3 as funds insufficient. The complainant had issued legal notice/Ex.P4 on 19.02.2019, to the accused by calling upon him to discharge the cheque amount. The accused has received the legal notice on 20.02.2019 and did not paid the cheque amount. Hence, file the complaint against the accused.

11.For this the accused entered into witness box and examined himself as DW.1.

The defence of accused is that he did not receive any legal notice, which is prerequisite to be complied by the complainant to make the accused punishable under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant argued that tracking consignment/Ex.P6 shows that the same was delivered to the address. But the 4 accused argued that the signature on the acknowledgment/Ex.P5 does not belong to the him. As he did not receive any legal notice/Ex.P4, the complaint against accused does not stand and the complaint is liable to be dismissed for non compliance of main ingredient u/s.138(b) of Negotiable Instruments Act. Second is that complainant would have sent some papers to the said address on the name of legal notice to mislead the court.

12.The second argument of defense is that the accused had issued cheque as security for chit transaction, to one muntaaz and he never executed any promissory note in favour of the complainant and Ex.P7/promissory note is not supported by consideration . The said muntaaz colluded with the help of complainant, attestor and

Scribe, who are the accomplice of the complainant, forged and fabricated

Ex.P7/promissory note.

13.The accused admitted that he had issued cheque, but did not receive any consideration as alleged by the complainant, the alleged cheque was given as security to one muntaaz for chit transactions. The Ex.P7/promissory note is a forged and fabricated by muntaaz along with complainant, attestor and scribe. The accused admitted that he had issued a cheque, even when a cheque is issued as security, the drawer is liable under the said cheque. It is burden on the accused, as Section 118 of

Negotiable Instruments Act the presumption is in favour of the complainant. Now it is burden on the accused to prove that whether he had issued the alleged cheque to discharge any legally enforceable debt as alleged by complainant.

14.The Accused filed written arguments and relied on following Authorities on support of his case:

1. 2006 (6) SCC 39, N.S.Narayana Meenon Vs. State of Kerala;

2. 2009 (2) SCC 513, Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan;

3. 2013 SAR (Crl.) 373;

4. 2013 (2) SCC (Crl.) 237;

5. 2019 2 ACR 1978 Basalingappa Vs. Mudibashappa; 5

6. 2004 0 Ker 79129;

7. 2007 (Crl.). L.J 1285;

8. 2013 Supreme (SC) 130;

9. 2008 1 ALD (Crl.) 485 (SC);

10. 2022 3 AIR (KAR) ® 820 and other ;

15.Basing on the rival arguments of both the parties, It is a burden on the accused to determine the following questions to prove his innocence.

1.Whether the legal notice was served properly on the accused?

2. Whether the alleged promiser's note is forged and fabricated by the complainant and the same is not supported by consideration, as alleged by the accused?

16.The question is with respect to the proper serving of legal notice on the accused. For this, it is imminent to ascertain the credibility of Ex.P5/postal acknowledgment alleged to have been received by the accused. On perusal of Ex.P5, there is a signature of the accused, but on perusal of Ex.P1, that is admitted to be signature of the accused and on comparing signatures of both, definitely the signature on Ex.P5 is not the same as Ex.P1 of the accused. Also it is clear that someone tried to copy the signature of the accused. Even considering it to be the signature of the accused, endorsed in such a way to make the court believe that he had not received the notice, on perusal of Ex.P5, there is no seal of the postal authorities on it.

17. The complainant filed Ex.P6/tracking consignment dated 23.02.2018 on support of his argument that accused has received the legal notice. On perusal of Ex.P4/legal notice containing with a postal receipt, the consignment number on postal receipt of

Ex.P4 and the consignment number on Ex.P6 are one and the same. The defense argued that the complainant would have sent another postal letter, to show that accused has received the notice and filed the same before the court. The Ex.P5 poster 6 acknowledgment does not belong to the said consignment number of legal notice. As there is no seal of the postal authorities, it cannot be relied that the said postal acknowledgment and the tracking consignment is with respect to the legal notice sent by the complainant to the accused. On perusal of the signatures on the postal acknowledgment and the cheque, it is clear that the signature on the postal acknowledgment does not belong to the accused.

18.One of the arguments put by the accused is that none of the family members of the accused has endorsed the poster acknowledgment. Even if considering the argument of the accused is not correct that, the tracking consignment and postal receipt on legal notice is not with respect to the legal notice. A question is put to the accused/DW.1, in his cross-examination, and he denied that his family members never signed his signature in any situation on acknowledgment. Further the complainant admitted in his cross examination that he did not receive the acknowledgment, then his advocate went to the postal authorities and obtained the document as to serving of the legal notice to the accused. On pursuing Ex.P5, that is difference of the signature and absence of postal seal on Ex.P5, raises suspicion with respect to whether the accused has received the said legal notice. If that is the evidence of the complainant, it appears that the accused has raised suspicion with respect to the serving of legal notice. Now the burden shifts on the complainant to prove that the legal notice was served properly on him. For which the accused has argued that the complainant had not examined any postal authorities.

19.It is clear from the admission of the complainant that he did not receive the postal acknowledgment and the genuineness of Ex.P5/postal acknowledgment is at question. To prove the authenticity of postal acknowledgment/Ex.P8 and to prove that the tracking consignment/Ex.P6 belongs to the actual legal notice sent by the complainant, the complainant failed to examine any postal authorities. Though the legal presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act is in favour of the complainant, the burden under this Act is rebuttable. The complainant has to prove 7 the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts and with respect to the accused he can produce evidence or elicit any facts from evidence of complainant, with preponderance of probabilities. From the above discussion, it appears that the complainant has failed to discharge his burden. Hence accused is eligible for benefit of doubt with respect to receiving the legal notice as alleged by the complainant.

20.Now the question with respect to the genunity of Ex.P7/promissory note for which the accused has drawn Ex.P1/cheque to discharge the legally enforceable debt under Ex.P7. The accused argued that one Muntaz is complainant's wife and he shifted to the address of Muntaz and the address of the complainant in the complaint is that of the Muntaz. The complainant was cross examined as PW1 and questions were put to him and he admitted that the address in the complaint belongs to him and one Muntaz is his wife. The accused argues that a signature on Ex.P7 was forged and the entire instrument was fabricated by Muntaz, complainant, attestors and the scribe.

In proof of it, he cross examined PW1 and PW1 admitted that the ink of the accused and the rest of the instrument is in one anther ink.

21.On perusal of Exhibit P7 promissory note, it is clear that the signature of the accused's ink and the rest of the document is different. Also, the signature of the ink of the scribe and the ink of the attestors are different. On comparing the Ex.P7 promissory note and Ex.P1 cheque, there is a variation of inl not only in the signature.

Also as per Ex.P1, the initial of the accused is ‘C’, but as per the Ex.P7/promissory note, the initial of the accused is “LC”. Even though the complainant denied variation of signature in the Ex.P1 to P7, on perusal of the signatures in both the exhibits there is a variation of signature, also there is variation signature of the accused, in the two sets of signature within the Ex.P7 itself. The signature on the revenue stamps is different from that of the signature below the revenue stamps of the accused in Ex.P7.

The signature of accused is in one ink, the scribe in another ink and the attestors in another ink in total there are more thn 3 different inks used in Ex.P7. It appears that the said transactions did not took at a single place or time. Also, it has to be 8 questioned why the ink of the scribe and the ink of the attestors are in different colour.

Also, the ink of the accused and the ink of the rest of the instrument is in different colour.

22.A question was put to PW1 in cross-examination that the signature of the accused in promisory note is cursive, but the signature in cheque is not in cursive writing. Though the complainant denied, it appears from the promissory note that the argument of the accused is true, that there is a variation of signature in the Ex.P1 cheque and the promissory note. On comparing the signatures and the variation of signatures and variation of ink in the Ex.P7 promissory note, it is highly doubtful as to the genuity of the execution of Ex.P7. When such is evidence of PW.1, it appears from the above discussion that accused has raised sufficient doubt in his favour with respect to the execution of Ex.P7 promissory note. Now the burden shifts on the complainant to prove that Ex.P7 is genuine and it is supported by consideration, for which the complainant had failed to establish the genuity of the promissory note. The complainant did not produce any witness, though he had a opportunity to produce a witness such as a scribe and attestor to the alleged Ex.P7. The complainant failed to produce any witness to the said instrument Ex.P7. When such is the case, when the complainant failed to produce any other witness to discharge his burden to support that the Ex.P7 is genuine and supported by the consideration. The accused has benefit of doubt with respect to the genunity of the Ex.P7. The complainant has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt with respect to the execution of Ex.P7.

23.The complainant argued that the accused filed petition to send the alleged forged documents to FSL and the same was dismissed and the accused had file CRP in the Appellate court, but later not pressed the same. On the other hand, the accused argued that the same was not pressed based on understanding with the complainant to settle the matter out of court. But later the complainant with mulified intention, after not pressing the said CRP, again contested this case. It is not the inaction or defect on 9 the part of the defence, but it is a malified act of the complainant to make him not press the CRP. On making him believe to compromise the matter out of court, later cheated the accused and contest the present complaint against the accused.

24.The defence further argued that the accused has issued an empty signed cheque and the same was filed by the complainant and filed the present complaint. On proof of it, the accused put questions to the PW.1 and complainant admitted that accused bought a filled-up cheque and affixed his signature in his presence and issued the same to him, and further admitted that Ex.P2 counter foil is written by his office subordinate by name Venkatesh and later he presented the cheque in the bank.

And he denied that the handwriting in the cheque/Ex.P1 and the counter foil/Ex.P2 are the one and the same.

25.On perusal of the Ex.P1/cheque and counter foil/Ex.P2, the handwriting appears to be one and the same. Ink of the signature of the accused and the rest of the cheque is in different ink. And the ink of the rest of the body of the cheque and the ink of the

Ex.P2/counter foil appears to be one and the same. From this, it is clear that the admissions of the complainant are contradictory to the evidence placed before this court by him. If the genuity of the cheque is true, he would not have stated that the accused himself filed the cheque and endorsed his signature in his presence and gave it to him. It is clear from the handwriting of Exhibit P2 and Exhibit P1 cheque, is one and the same and there is no need for the complainant to depose falsely before this court. The admission of the complainant is contradictory to the evidence placed before this Court, from this, it appears that the complainant had not came before this court with clean hands.

26.This court is relying on the Judgment of Hon’bel Apex Court in Kumar Exports v.

Sharma Carpets is relevant, it was held that mere denial of existence of debt will not serve any purpose but accused may adduce evidence to rebut the presumption. The

Hon’ble Court held as under:

10 20.The accused in a trial under Section 138 of the Act has two options. He can either show that consideration and debt did not exist or that under the particular consideration and debt is so probable that a prudent man circumstances of the case ought to suppose that no consideration and debt existed. To rebut the statutory presumptions an accused is not the non-existence of expected to prove his defense beyond reasonable doubt as is expected of the complainant in a criminal trial. The accused may adduce direct evidence to prove that the note in question was not supported by consideration and that there was no debt or liability to be discharged by him. However, the court need not insist in every case that the accused should disprove the non-existence of consideration and debt by leading direct evidence because the existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated. At the same time, it is clear that bare denial of the passing of the consideration and existence of debt, apparently would not serve the purpose of the accused. Something which is probable has to be brought on record for getting the burden of proof shifted to the complainant. To disprove the presumptions, the accused should bring on record such facts and circumstances, upon consideration of which, the court may either believe that the consideration and debt did not exist or their non-existence was so probable that a prudent man would under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that they did not exist. Apart from adducing direct evidence to prove that the note in question was not supported by consideration or that he had not incurred any debt or liability, the accused may also rely upon circumstantial evidence and if the circumstances so relied upon are compelling, the burden may likewise shift again on to the complainant. The accused may also rely upon presumptions of fact, for instance, those mentioned in Section 114 of the Evidence Act to rebut the presumptions arising under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act. The accused has also an option to prove the non-existence of consideration and debt or liability either by letting in evidence or in some clear and exceptional cases, from the case set out by the complainant, that is, the averments in the complaint, the case set out in the statutory notice and evidence adduced by the complainant during the trial. Once such rebuttal evidence is adduced and accepted by the court, having regard to all the circumstances of the case and the preponderance of probabilities, the evidential burden shifts back to the complainant and, thereafter, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act will not again come to the complainant's rescue.

27.From the above said discussion the accused was able to elicit the variations in the version of complainant through cross examination with respect to execution of Ex.P1 and

Ex.P7. From eliciting such suspicion it appears that accused has discharged his burden that

Ex.P7 was forged and fabricated document and it appears that the arguments of the 11 accused is true that he elicited enough and no need of sending the signatures to expert for opinion. Now the burden shifts on the complainant to prove that the signatures are not forged and they belong to the accused. It appears it is burden on the complainant to prove that it was not forged and fabricated and it is complainant’s duty to prove it is not forged. But the complainant did not sent the same for opinion of expert.

28. In this regard a judgment is relevant, Shaji Vs Ignatious reported in 2009(2) ALD (Criminal) (NOC) Page 15 (Kerala) "When it is alleged that Ex.P1 cheque was issued towards repayment of amount due under the promissory note, without proving execution of promissory note and consideration for that promissory note, it is not possible to uphold the case of the complainant that Ex.P1 cheque was issued towards payment of the amount covered by the promissory note. The case would have been uphold only on establishing that the amount covered by the promissory note was legally recoverable debt. When the entire evidence is appreciated in the proper perspective it can only be held that complainant did not establish that Ex.P1 cheque was issued towards payment of the legally repayable debt due under the accused."

29.From the above discussion, the complainant had failed to prove that the accused has executed promissory note/Ex.P7 and the accused has received the consideration under the alleged promissory note beyond reasonable doubt. Also, the complainant by giving contradictory statement with respect to the filling of cheque, to the evidence placed before this court, the complainat failed to prove the execution of

Ex.P1. Also the complainant had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he had served legal notice properly on the accused. The complainant failed to prove the credibility of Exhibit P1 and Ex.P7. Accused has successfully raised benefit of doubt in his favor with regarding to the execution of Ex.P7/promissory note on which the alleged cheque was drawn. When the complainant failed to prove the Exhibit P7/promissory note, the liability of Exhibit P1/cheque, which is drawn to discharge the liability of Exhibit

P7/promissory note, does not exist. The complainant had failed to prove the guilt of accused 12 beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable and

Instruments Act. Hence, this court is of opinion that the accused is not liable under the alleged Ex.P1/cheque, for the offense punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act, 1881.

30.In the result, the accused is not found guilty for the offense punishable under

Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and he is acquitted Under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offense. The bail bonds of the accused and sureties shall stand until the lapse of six months. Accordingly this compliant is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation by the Office Sub-ordinate of this court, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 14th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- P.Vennela,

V Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class for

Mobile, Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR

COMPLAINANT :- ACCUSED :-

PW1 : C.ParamadassDW.1 : C.Manigandan/accused

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

COMPLAINANT :-

Ex.P.1is the cheque bearing No.093967, dt.09.02.2018 for an amount of Rs.3,50,000/-.

Ex.P.2is the presentation slip, dt.09.02.2018 issued by State Bank of India, Collectorate branch, Chittoor.

Ex.P.3is the return memo, dt.14.02.2018, issued by State Bank of India, Collectorate branch, Chittoor.

Ex.P.4is the office copy of legal notice, dt.19.02.2018 along with postal receipt.

13

Ex.P.5is the postal acknowledgment.

Ex.P.6is the Track consignment, dt.23.02.2018.

Ex.P.7is the promissory note, dt.07.06.2016 for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-.

ACCUSED : - NIL -

Material Objects marked - NIL -

Sd/- P.Vennela,

V Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum- Judl. Magistrate of I Class for Mobile Court, Chittoor.

14

IN THE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)- CUM- JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS FOR MOBILE, CHITTOOR.

CALENDER CASE NO. 300 of 2018

Date of offence: 07.06.2016 Date of complaint: 07.03.2018 Date of taken on file: 06.04.2018 Date of apprehension of accused: 14.06.2018 Release on bail: - Date of commencement of trial: 23.10.2018 Date of close of trial: 10.02.2020 Date of sentence of order: 14.05.2026 Explanation of Delay:My best efforts that the complainant did not produce witness properly and it causing delay in disposal of this case. Particulars of the accused:

C.Manigandan, s/o S.Chinna, aged about 24 years, D.No.4-2206/A, Iruvaram, Chittoor Town and District.

C.Paramadass, s/o (late) Chinna Pillai, aged about 60 Name of the Complainant years, D.No.4-499, Sali Street, Greamspet, Chittoor Town and District. Nature of offenceU/sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Finding of the court Found not guilty

Sentence of Order : In the result, the accused is not found guilty for the offense punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and he is acquitted Under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offense. The bail bonds of the accused and sureties shall stand until the lapse of six months. Accordingly this compliant is dismissed.

Sd/- P.Vennela,

V Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum- Judl. Magistrate of I Class for Mobile Court, Chittoor.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION)::

CHITTOOR

Present: Smt. P.Vennela,

V Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chittoor

Thursday, this the 14 th day of May, 2026

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.114/2020

Between:

A.K.Narayana Reddy, s/o A.Krishna Reddy, aged about 50 years, D.No.7, 2nd Main, 4th Cross, Guru Raghavendra Nagar, J.P.Nagar, 7th Phase, Bangalore, Karnataka State-560078 …Plaintiff And:

1. A.K.Markonda Reddy, s/o Krishna Reddy, aged about 46 years, D.No.21, 3rd Main, 5th Cross, Guru Raghavendra Nagar, J.P.Nagar, 7th Phase, Bangalore, Karnatak State – 560078.

2. A.K.Hamsa Kumari, w/o D.Chandra Reddy, aged about 43 years, No.35 Poornachandra, 4th Cross, 5th main behind Ganesh Temple, Ganga Nagar, Bangalore North, Karnataka State – 560032.

3. E.Gaja Lakshmi, w/o E.Konda Reddy, aged about 51 years, Voddepalle Village, Etteri Post, G.D.Nellore Mandal, Chittoor District.

...Defendants

This suit is coming to this day for issues before me in the presence of Sri. V.Jaya Kumar, Advocate for the plaintiff, Sri. V.Ramanarayana Reddy, Advocate for defendants, and having stood for consideration till this day, this Court deliver the following:-

ORDER:

Both called absent. Waited upto 4.40 pm. On perusal of docket it shows that the case is posted for trial on 26.06.2025 since then conditional orders and costs for trail, the case is belongs to Identified and Target Matter, but plaintiff failed to appear before this Court. On 25.11.2025 the counsel for plaintiff reported plaintiff stopped giving instructions and to call for the party, since then condition for appearance and cost was imposed for not starting trial, the same was subsequently enhanced, but plaintiff failed appear before this Court and start trial and there is no representation through his counsel. Hence, the suit is dismissed for default due to non appearance of plaintiff.

V Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Chittoor.

2

1

IN THE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

-CUM- JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS FOR MOBILE, CHITTOOR

PRESENT: Smt. P.Vennela,

V Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum- Judl. Magistrate of I Class for Mobile, Chittoor.

Thursday, the Fourteenth (14 th ) day of May, 2026

C.C.No.1744/2019

Between: S.Niranjan Reddy, s/o S.Subramanyam Reddy, aged about 37 years, Pallicheruvu Village and Post, Thavanampalli Mandal, Chittoor District.Complainant

And

A.Surendra, s/o A.Nagaraja, aged about 32 years, D.No.2-142, Lakshmaiah Kandriga Village, Gandlakothur Post, Yadamari Mandal, Chittoor District. Accused

This case is coming to this day for NBW before me in the presence of Sri. V.Ramanarayana Reddy, Advocate for the complainant, having stood for consideration till this day, this Court deliver the following:-

ORDER:

Complainant absent. No representation waited upto 5.00 pm. On perusal of docket it shows that complainant absent and there is no representation on behalf of him since 25.03.2025, despite several conditional orders for appearance failed appear or represent through his counsel since then. Hence, complaint is dismissed for default u/Sec.256 of CrPC and there by accused is acquitted.

Pronounced in Open Court, this the 14th day of May, 2026.

V Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum- Judl. Magistrate of I Class for Mobile, Chittoor.

2 3

1

IN THE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

-CUM- JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS FOR MOBILE, CHITTOOR

PRESENT: Smt. P.Vennela,

V Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum- Judl. Magistrate of I Class for Mobile, Chittoor.

Thursday, the Fourteenth (14 th ) day of May, 2026

C.C.No.688/2020

Between: M/s Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., Punganur Branch, rep., by its Authorized person P.Hari Babu, s/o P.Venkataramaiah, aged about 38Complainant years, Chittoor.

And

B.Kumar Raju, s/o Jayachandra Raju, aged about 41 years, D.No.15-76/4, Therumanuthota, Brhamin Street, Punganur, Chittoor District. Accused

This case is coming to this day for trial before me in the presence of Sri. C.Hari Krishna, Advocate for the complainant, Sri. A.Devendranath, Advocate for accused, having stood for consideration till this day, this Court deliver the following:-

ORDER:

Accused absent. Petition filed and allowed. Complainant present and filed petition u/Sec.257 of CrPC as matter is settled and received full amount, to withdraw the complaint. Hence, complaint is dismissed as withdraw and accused is hereby acquitted.

Pronounced in Open Court, this the 14th day of May, 2026.

V Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum- Judl. Magistrate of I Class for Mobile, Chittoor.

2 3

1

IN THE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

-CUM- JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS FOR MOBILE, CHITTOOR

PRESENT: Smt. P.Vennela,

V Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum- Judl. Magistrate of I Class for Mobile, Chittoor.

Thursday, the Fourteenth (14 th ) day of May, 2026

C.C. No.1932/2019

Between: G.Purushotham, s/o G.Raghavaiah, D.No.26-18, Kajoor, Chittoor Town and District. Complainant

And

K.Sharma Singh, s/o Krishna Singh, D.No.27- 160, Ramnagar Colony, Chittoor Town and District. Accused

This case is coming to this day for trial before me in the presence of Sri. C.Subramanyam, Advocate for the complainant, Sri. C.Venkataramana Reddy, Advocate for accused, having stood for consideration till this day, this Court deliver the following:-

ORDER:

Both called present. Petition filed by complainant u/Sec.257 of CrPC to not press the complaint as the matter is settled out of Court, received full amount and dismissed the same. Hence, the complaint is dismissed u/Sec.257 of CrPC and accused is acquitted.

Pronounced in Open Court, this the 14th day of May, 2025.

V Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum- Judl. Magistrate of I Class for Mobile, Chittoor.

2 3