Sri R.J. Viswanadham

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS: PRAKASAM DIVISION:

ONGOLE

(Before the Principal Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole]

Present: Sri K.V. Vijayakumar,

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ongole

Dated this 03rd day of October 2017

Crlmp No.730/2017

Between:

Petitioner and Advocate

1) Shaik Ibrahim Address - R/o Near Addanki bus stand, Kota street, Ongole. Advocate- B.V.Siva Rama Krishna

Respondent and Advocate

1) S.H.O Ongole Taluq PS Rep by Public Prosecutor, Ongole Address - Ongole.

/Docket Order//

Made over to the VIIIAddl. District Judge, Ongole for disposal according to law.

Sd/- Sri K.V. Vijayakumar,

PRL. DISTRICT

JUDGE,

ONGOLE

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS: PRAKASAM DIVISION:

ONGOLE

(Before the Principal Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole]

Present: Sri G.Chakradhara Rao, B.com., B.L.,

Principal Sessions Judge, Ongole

Wednesday, this the sixth day of February, 2013

CRL.MP.No.99/2013

(in Cr.No.2/2013 of Giddalur P.S.)

Between:

Siraboina Ranganayakulu @ Rangaswamy, s/o. Chinna Rangaiah, Hindu, 28 years, R/o. Kothakota village, Giddalur Mandal, Prakasam District. … Petitioner/accused AND

State S.H.O., Giddalur P.S. rep. by Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/

This petition coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Mallikarjuna Reddy, counsel for the petitioner/Accused and the Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent and upon hearing the counsel of both parties and upon perusal of the material on record, this Court made the following: -

O R D E R

This petition has been fled u/sec.439 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner/accused concerned in Cr.No.2/2013 of Giddalur PS. for the offences u/Secs. 452,37. r/w. 511 of C.P.C.

2.Notice was given to the Public Prosecutor, who opposed to allow the petition.

3.Heard.

4.Point for consideration in this matter is

Whether the petition can be allowed as prayed for?

..Point:-

(a)As seen from the material available on record, on 3.1.2013 at 9.30 p.m., the mother of the complainant went into the village to see 40 days Jarthulu festival and the complainant, her father and brother slept in the house and when they were in sleep the petitioner entered into the house in a drunken state and removed the dupatta covered on the complainant the caught hold of the hand of the complainant and tried to drag her and on observing the alcohol smell the complainant told her father and then he woke up and picked up a stick and on seeing the same the petitioner ran away from there.

(b) Investigation is pending. I see no reasons to grant bail at this stage.

(c)In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the .th day of February, 2013.

PRL. SESSIONS

JUDGE,

ONGOLE Copy to:

1. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur

2. The S.H.O., Giddalur P.S.

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS: PRAKASAM DIVISION:

ONGOLE

(Before the Principal Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole]

Present: Sri G.Chakradhara Rao, B.com., B.L.,

Principal Sessions Judge, Ongole

Wednesday, this the sixth day of February, 2013

CRL.MP.No.127/2013

(in Cr.No.1/2013 of Chirala II town P.S.] Between:

1.Dara Samson s/o.Kotaiah, aged 27 years, Mala by caste, Mariyampeta, Perala, Chirala (A.1).

2.Kaki Annadora s/o.Sarangam, aged 27 years, Mala by caste, Mariyampeta, Perala, Chirala (A.2)… Petitioners/Accused

AND

State: SHO, Chirala II town Police Station, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent

This petition coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Y.Sunil Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners/Accused and Sri I.Venkateswarlu, Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent and upon hearing the counsel of both parties and upon perusal of the material on record, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

1.This second bail application has been fled by the petitioners/A.1 & A.2 under Section 439 Cr.P.C.to grant bail, concerned in Crime No.1/2013 of Chirala II town P.S. for the offence punishable under Sections 447, 354, 50. r/w.34 IPC.

2.Notice is given to the Public Prosecutor, who opposed to grant bail to the petitioners/accused.

3.Heard both sides.

4.Pont for consideration is:

Whether the petitioners/A.1 & A.2 can be enlarged

on bail as prayed for?

5.POINT:

(a) As seen from the material on record, it shows that the petitioners are high handed nature and they used to roam in their locality without any job and that the 1st petitioner used to follow the defacto complainant Shaik Khasim Bee and was visiting her house for no cause in the temporary absence of inmates and brought pressure on her to fulfll his lust and when she denied, the 1st petitioner threatened her with dire consequences, and on 04.01.2013, at about 3 PM, when the defacto complainant was at her house, both the petitioners entered into her house, misbehaved with her and tried to catch and on hearing her cries, when the neighbours came there, the petitioners escaped from the house of the defacto complainant.

Basing on the complaint of the defacto complainant, the case was registered.

(b) As seen from the material available on record and as per the contents of the Xerox copy of the charge sheet fled by the petitioner along with a memo, the entire investigation was completed and charge sheet has been fled. Hence, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

..In the result, the petition is allowed and the petitioner/accused shall be released on bail on his executing personal bond for Rs.5,000/- with two sureties for like sum each to the satisfaction of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Chirala with a further condition that he shall not cause any coercion, threat or promise to the witnesses connection to this case.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the .th day of February, 2013

PRL.SESSIONS JUDGE,

ONGOLE. Copy to

1. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chirala

2. The Station House Ofcer, Chirala II town Police Station. // t.c.f.b.o.//

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

DISTRICT COURT, ONGOLE

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS: PRAKASAM DIVISION:

ONGOLE

(Before the Principal Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole]

Present: Sri G.Chakradhara Rao, B.com., B.L.,

Principal Sessions Judge, Ongole

Wednesday, this the sixth day of February, 2013

CRL.MP.No.125/2013

(in Cr.No.247/2012 of Maddipadu P.S.) Between:

1. Muchha @ Mutchu Anil s/o.Srinivasa Rao, aged 25 years, Auto driver, Vellampalli village, Maddipadu Mandal, Prakasam District. (A.2).

2. Kondepi Nagarjuna s/o.Subba Rao, aged 21 years, Auto driver, Vellampalli village, Maddipadu Mandal, Prakasam District (A.3).… Petitioners/A.2 & A.3

AND

State: SHO, Maddipadu Police Station, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent

This petition coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Jr.P.Srinivasulu, Advocate for the petitioners/A.2 & A.3 and Sri I.Venkateswarlu, Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent and upon hearing the counsel of both parties and upon perusal of the material on record, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

1. This second bail application has been fled by the petitioners/A.2 & A.3 under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C. to grant bail, concerned in Crime No.247/2012 of Maddipadu P.S. for the offence punishable under Sections 3.. & 37. (iii)(g) r/w.511 & 201 IPC.

2. Notice was given to the Public Prosecutor, who strongly opposed to grant bail as sought for by the petitioners.

4.Heard both sides.

5.Points that arise for consideration are:

Whether the petitioners/A.2 & A.3 can be released on bail as prayed for?

..POINT:

(a)As per material on record, it shows that, on 21.12.2012, at about 10 PM, the victim girl by name Palaparthi Sujatha, aged 19 years boarded the auto of the accused at Vellampalli bus stop along with some passengers for going to her house after completion of her duty and after reached Doddavaram village,

A.1, who works in medical shop in Vellampalli village and two other auto drivers kidnapped her and turned the auto towards the felds at the outskirts of Doddavaram and pulled her from the auto, dragged her in the felds and attempted to commit gang rape against her, and the victim girl struggled with them and escaped from the hands of A.1 to A.3, and the petitioners herein, who are A.4 & A.5 advised A.1 to A.3 and gave amount of

Rs.2000/- and sent them to Ongole and instructed them not to return to village till the matter is settled and thereby screened away the occurrence.

(b)The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that A2 and A3 were arrested on 1.1.2013 and the entire material part of the investigation was completed and prayed to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

(c)As seen from the material on record, it further shows that the victim girl Palaparthi Sujatha boarded the auto at Vellampalli bus stop due to missing of Addanki bus and A.1 & A.2 were there, and when the auto reached Doddavaram village, all the passengers got down except A.1 to A.3 and the victim girl and when auto left Doddavaram village and when reached near

Poleramma temple at Doddavaram village, then A.1 to A.3 kidnapped the victim girl by turning the auto towards felds, dragged her into felds, fell down her on the ground and tried to commit gang rape on her. The victim girl with a great struggle with the accused, could escape from their hands, which shows that the accused not only kidnapped the victim girl, but also attempted to commit gang rape on her and the involvement of the petitioners in this crime is very serious one and hence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners in both the petitions.

..I see no changed circumstances from the date of dismissal of the earlier bail application.

7. In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him,

corrected, and pronounced by me in open Court, this the .th day of February 2013.

PRL.SESSIONS JUDGE,

ONGOLE. Copy to

1. The Spl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mobile Court, Ongole

2. The Station House Ofcer, Maddipadu Police Station.

Sd/-G.Chakradhara Rao,

// t.c.f.b.o.//

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,

DISTRICT COURT, ONGOLE

1

 IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS :: PRAKASAM DIVISION : ONGOLE

(Before the Principal Sessions Judge, Ongole)

PRESENT: Sri R.J.Viswanadham, 

I­Additional Sessions Judge, Ongole 

FAC­Principal Sessions Judge, Ongole.

Thursday, this the fourth (4th) day of April, two thousand and nineteen 

Crl.M.P.No.335 of 2019 

 Cr.No. 78/2019 of Chirala I Town P.S. Between:

Modili Srinivas @ Srinu @ Thurpolla Srinu, Son of Nellaiah, aged 42 years, Sriramnagar, Vykuntapuram, Chirala town. … Petitioner/A­1 AND The State SHO, Chirala I Town Police Station, rep. by Public prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/complainant

This application coming on this day 04.04.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Y. Sunil Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner/A­1andthe learned Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/State, upon hearing the Advocates on record and upon perusing of the material on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court made the following: ­

// O R D E R //

1. This petitioner/A1 filed this petition under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure

Code, for grant of regular bail to him in Cr.No.78/2019 for the offences punishable under section 307 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. of Chirala I Town Police Station.

2. Notice to learned Public Prosecutor is given. Case Diary received.

3. Briefly, the averments of the case of the prosecution are as follows:­

 The petitioner/A1 and A2 beat one Boina Naga Sreenu, Son of Yanadi, brother­in­ law of L.W.1­Kotta Venkata Rao, and L.W.1­Kotta Venkata Rao went to PA gate office and questioned the petitioner/A1 and A2 for beating his brother­in­law, Naga Srinu, and the petitioner/A1 and A2 informed L.W.1­Kotta Venkata Rao that they would discuss about the incident at Swarna Gate center and L.W.1­Kotta Venkata Rao, petitioner(A1) and A2 went to

Swarna Gate center at 4.30 p.m. on 10.03.2012 and L.W.1­Kotta Venkata Rao again questioned the petitioner(A1) and A2 for beating his brother­in­law Naga Srinu. The petitioner(A1) and A2 abused L.W.1­Kotta Venkata Rao in filthy language. The petitioner (A1) picked up an iron rod and beat L.W.1 with iron rod over his head on several times indiscriminately to do away the life of L.W.1­Kotta Venkata Rao and L.W.1­Kotta Venkata

Rao sustained bleeding injuries over his head, back side of head, forehead and at left ear region. A2 also beat L.W.1­Kotta Venkata Rao with wooden piece on his left ear, nose and mouth and caused bleeding injuries. The petitioner (A1) and A2 attempted to kill 2

L.W.1­Kotta Venkata Rao by pushing on the ground and by beating him with hands and legs indiscriminately. L.W.1­Kotta Vernkata Rao sustained injuries on his right elbow.

Neighbours intervened on hearing the cries of L.W.1­Kotta Venkata Rao and the petitioner (A1) and A2 went away from scene of offene. L.W.1­Kotta Venkata Rao was shifted to Area

Hospital, Chirala and the outpost police recorded the statement of L.W.1­Kotta Venkata Rao at 11.00 p.m. on 10.03.2019 and a case in Cr.No.78/2019 under section 307 r/w. 34 of

I.P.C. of Chirala I Town Police Station was registered basing upon the statement of L.W.1­

Kotta Venkata Rao. The petitioner(A1) was arrested by police on 13.03.2019 and he was sent for remand. The petitioner/A1 filed this petition for grant of bail to him. 

 4.Heard the learned counsel for petitioner/ A1 and the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 

5.Now the point for determination is “Whether the petitioner/A1 is entitled to be enlarged on bail as prayed for?

6.POINT:­

Perused the record. The material placed before this Court relied upon by the prosecution clearly shows that The petitioner/A1 and A2 beat one Boina Naga Sreenu, Son of Yanadi, brother­in­law of L.W.1­Kotta Venkata Rao, and L.W.1­Kotta Venkata Rao went to

PA gate office and questioned the petitioner/A1 and A2 for beating his brother­in­law, Naga

Srinu, and the petitioner/A1 and A2 informed L.W.1­Kotta Venkata Rao that they would discuss about the incident at Swarna Gate center and L.W.1­Kotta Venkata Rao, petitioner(A1) and A2 went to Swarna Gate center at 4.30 p.m. on 10.03.2012 and L.W.1­

Kotta Venkata Rao again questioned the petitioner(A1) and A2 for beating his brother­in­law

Naga Srinu. The petitioner(A1) and A2 abused L.W.1­Kotta Venkata Rao in filthy language.

The petitioner (A1) picked up an iron rod and beat L.W.1 with iron rod over his head on several times indiscriminately to do away the life of L.W.1­Kotta Venkata Rao and L.W.1­

Kotta Venkata Rao sustained bleeding injuries over his head, back side of head, forehead and at left ear region. A2 also beat L.W.1­Kotta Venkata Rao with wooden piece on his left ear, nose and mouth and caused bleeding injuries. The petitioner (A1) and A2 attempted to kill L.W.1­Kotta Venkata Rao by pushing on the ground and by beating him with hands and legs indiscriminately. L.W.1­Kotta Vernkata Rao sustained injuries on his right elbow.

Neighbours intervened on hearing the cries of L.W.1­Kotta Venkata Rao and the petitioner (A1) and A2 went away from scene of offene. L.W.1­Kotta Venkata Rao was shifted to Area 3

Hospital, Chirala and the outpost police recorded the statement of L.W.1­Kotta Venkata Rao at 11.00 p.m. on 10.03.2019 and a case in Cr.No.78/2019 under section 307 r/w. 34 of

I.P.C. of Chirala I Town Police Station was registered basing upon the statement of L.W.1­

Kotta Venkata Rao. The investigation appears to be under progress. There is every likelihood of interference by the petitioner/Accused with the investigation and tampering of the prosecution witnesses in case of enlarging the petitioner on bail at this progressive stage of investigation. There are no changed circumstances from the date of dismissal of earlier application in Crl.M.P.No.297/2019 vide orders dated 22.03.2019. This court does not deem fit just to enlarge the petitioner on bail under the above circumstances so also on taking into consideration of gravity of the offence. In view of the above discussion, the point is answered accordingly. 

7.In the result, the petition is dismissed. 

 Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in

open Court, this the 4 th day of April , 2019.  Sd/­ R.J.Viswanadham I­ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE, ONGOLE FAC­PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, ONGOLE. Copy to

1. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chirala 

2. The Station House Officer, Chirala I­Town Police Station

 // t c f b o //

 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, 

DISTRICT COURT, ONGOLE 

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III­ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ONGOLE 

Present:­Sri R.J.Viswanadham, I­Additional District Judge, Ongole FAC III­Additional District Judge, Ongole 

Friday, this the 22 nd Day of March, 2019.

Original Suit No.38/2018

Between:­ Thottempudi Seshaiah, son of Venakaiah, aged 59 years, Hindu, lands, resident of D.No.1/32, Main Road, Sitarampuram village, Maddipadu Mandal, Prakasam District. ­­­Plaintiff

AND 

Kandimalla Ramanjaneyulu, son of Narayana Swamy, aged 50 years, Hindu, business, resident of D.No.34­062­101, 1st Line, Sujatha Ngar, Ongole.­­­Defendant

This suit is coming on 20.03.2019 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Raghava Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendant having remained, ex­parte, on hearing the counsel for plaintiff, upon perusing the material available on record, this Court delivered the following:­ 

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant for recovery of an amount of

Rs.49,94,402/­ being the principal amount and interest due on two promissory notes, dated 16.11.2013 for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/­ each, executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% yearly compoundable and for costs. 

02.Briefly the averments of the plaint are as follows:­ that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.10,00,000/­ from the plaintiff for the purpose of doing business for an interest of rupees 24% per annum on 16.11.2013 and executed suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant paid Rs.500/­ on 15.11.2016 and acknowledged the same on the back of the promissory note. The defendant again borrowed an amount of

Rs.10,00,000/­from one Marella Maruthi Rao for his business purpose on 16.11.2013 for interest of rupees 24% per annum and executed promissory note in favour of said Marella

Maruthi Rao. The defendant made part payment of Rs.1000/­ on 15.11.2016 on the back of the promissory note in favour of said Marella Maruthi Rao. The defendant did not pay any amount in spite of demands by the plaintiff. Said Marella Maruthi Rao transferred the suit promissory note, dated 16.11.2013 in favour of plaintiff on 03.11.2017. The defendant did not pay any amount in spite of demands made by the plaintiff. The plaintiff got issued demand legal notice on dated 15.11.2017. The defendant evaded to receive the legal notice. The plaintiff constrained to file the suit for recovery of the suit amount with costs.

Hence, the plaint.

2

3.The defendant remained, ex­parte.

4.Proof affidavit of PW.1 is filed and Exs.A1 to A8 are marked.

5.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argues that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount together with interest and costs as prayed for.

6.Now, the point for consideration is :­ Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount together with interest as prayed for?

7.POINT:­ Proof affidavit of PW.1 is filed and Exs.A1 to A8 are marked. The evidence of PW.1 proves that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.10,00,000/­ for interest of rupees 24% per annum from the plaintiff under ExA1 and made part payment amount of

Rs.500/­ towards principal and interest under Ex.A2 and the defendant also borrowed an amount of Rs.10,00,000/­ for interest of rupees 24% per annum from one Marella Maruthi

Rao under Ex.A3 and the defendant made part payment of Rs.1000/­ under Ex.A4 and the said Marella Maruthi Rao transferred the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff under

Ex.A5 and the plaintiff got issued demand legal notice to the defendant under Ex.A6 and the postal receipt is marked as Ex.A7 and the defendant got returned the legal notice under

Ex.A8. So the evidence of PW.1 proves the due execution of the promissory notes under

Exs.A1 and A3 and the part payment endorsements under Exs.A2 and A4 and the suit promissory note is duly transferred by one Marella Maruthi Rao in favour of plaintiff under

Ex.A5. So the plaintiff is certainly entitled to recover Rs.20,00,000/­ with subsequent interest of rupees 24% per annum from the date of promissory notes, dated 16.11.2013, till the date of filing of the suit on deducting the part payment amounts of Rs.500/­ and

Rs.1000/­ on 15.11.2016 respectively, rupees 12% per annum from the date of suit, till the date of decree and at 6% per annum thereafter till realisation on principal amount of

Rs.20,00,000/­. In view of above discussion, the point is answered accordingly. 

8.In the result, the suit is partly decreed with cots with subsequent interest of rupees 24% per annum from the date of two promissory notes for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/­ each, dated 16.11.2013, till the date of filing of the suit on deducting part payments of

Rs.500/­ and Rs.1000/­, dated 15.11.2016 respectively, with subsequent interest of rupees 12% per annum from the date of suit, till the date of decree and at 6% per annum thereafter till realisation on principal amount of Rs.20,00,000/­.

Dictated to my Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in open Court, this the 22 nd day of March, 2019.

3

I­Additional District Judge, Ongole FAC III­Additional District Judge, Ongole 

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For Plaintiff:­For Defendant:­ PW.1: Thottempudi Seshaiah Ex­parte Documents Marked For Plaintiff:­ 

Ex.A1:Promissory note, dated 16.11.2013 for Rs.10,00,000/- executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff Ex.A2:Part payment endorsement for Rs.500/-, dated 15.11.2016 of defendant on the pronote, dated 16.11.2013 Ex.A3:Promissory note, dated 16.11.2013 for Rs.10,00,000/- executed by defendant in favour of Marella Maruthi Rao Ex.A4:Part payment endorsement for Rs.1000/-, dated 15.11.2016 of defendant on the pronote, dated 16.11.2013 Ex.A5:Transfer endorsement, dated 03.11.2017 of Marella Maruthi Rao on his pronote, dated 16.11.2013 Ex.A6:Office copy of legal notice, dated 15.11.2017 Ex.A7:Postal Receipt, dated 17.11.2017 Ex.A8:Returned RP cover of the defendant, dated 20.11.2017

For Defendant:­ Nil

I­Additional District Judge, Ongole FAC III­Additional District Judge, Ongole 

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS:: PRAKASAM DIVISION : ONGOLE

(Before the VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole)

 Present: Sri R.J.Viswanadham,  VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole. FAC­VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole. Thursday, the 21st day of September, 2017

Crl.M.P.No.675 of 2017

(Cr.No.52/2017 of Karamchedu Police Station)

Between

Nandigala Salmon Raju (A1) S/o.David,Hindu, aged 23 Yrs.,R/o.Nandiguntapalem Village, Karamchedu Mandal, Prakasam District … Petitioner/A1

And

State: State House Officer, Karamchedu P.S.,

Rep. By Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. ...Respondent

This petition coming on 18.09.2017 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nagireddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/Respondent and upon hearing the learned counsel on both sides, and upon perusal of the material on record and having stood over till this day, this Court made the following:

O R D E R // // 

1.The Petitioner/A1 filed this petition under section 439 Cr.P.C for grant of bail for the offence punishable under Section 304 (II) of Indian Penal Code, sections 134 (a) & (b) read with 187, Section 5 read with 180 of MV Act of

Karamchedu Police Station.

2.Briefly the averments of the case of prosecution are that :

The deceased Chatla Kishore was eking out his livelihood by running sweet shop at Kaluva Centre, Karamchedu. The deceased Chatla Kishore on closing his shop at 10.00 p.m. on 07.09.2017, went on his motorcycle TVS XL

Bearing NO.AP 27 A 8849 to the Swarna Road for attending calls of nature and sat on the road side margin. The petitioner/A1 drove his motorcycle bearing No.AP 27 AQ/5860 in a rash and negligent manner without headlight and dashed against the deceased due to which the deceased Chatla Kishore sustained fatal injuries on the back side of Head and sustained injuries over his face and died at the spot. The petitioner/A1 found the deceased Chatla

Kishore as dead and escaped from there by boarding a lorry. L.W.1 Chatla

Rajya Lakshmi informed L.W.3 Muvvala Viswanadh that the deceased did not turn up to the house. L.W.3 Viswanadh found the dead body of the deceased 2 at 01.00 a.m. on 08.09.2017 and also found the crime vehicle motorcycle bearing No. AP27AQ5860 besides the dead body and L.W.3 Viswanadh informed L.W.1 Chatla Rajya Lakshmi by phone. L.W.1 gave report to police and a case in Cr. No.52/2017 for the offence punishable under Section 304 (II) of Indian Penal Code, and under sections 134 (a) & (b) read with 187,

Section 5 read with 180 of MV Act of Karamchedu Police Station was registered against the petitioner/A1. The petitioner/A1 filed this petition to enlarge the petitioner/A1 on bail under section 439 of Cr.P.C., Hence, the petition.

3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/A1 and the learned Addl.

Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 

4. Now the point for consideration is “Whether the Petitioner/A1 is

entitled to be enlarged on bail under section 439 of Cr.P.C., as prayed

for ?”

5. Point :

Perused the record. The material placed before this court relied upon by the prosecution clearly shows that The deceased Chatla Kishore was eking out his livelihood by running sweet shop at Kaluva Centre, Karamchedu. The deceased Chatla Kishore on closing his shop at 10.00 p.m. on 07.09.2017, went on his motorcycle TVS XL Bearing NO.AP 27 A 8849 to the Swarna Road for attending calls of nature and sat on the road side margin. The petitioner/A1 drove his motorcycle bearing No.AP 27 AQ/5860 in a rash and negligent manner without headlight and dashed against the deceased due to which the deceased Chatla Kishore sustained fatal injuries on the back side of

Head and sustained injuries over his face and died at the spot. The petitioner/A1 found the deceased Chatla Kishore as dead and escaped from there by boarding a lorry. L.W.1 Chatla Rajya Lakshmi informed L.W.3

Muvvala Viswanadh that the deceased did not turn up to the house. L.W.3

Viswanadh found the dead body of the deceased at 01.00 a.m. on 08.09.2017 and also found the crime vehicle motorcycle bearing No. AP27AQ5860 besides the dead body and L.W.3 Viswanadh informed L.W.1 Chatla Rajya Lakshmi by phone. L.W.1 gave report to police and a case in Cr. No.52/2017 for the offence punishable under Section 304 (II) of Indian Penal Code, and under sections 134 (a) & (b) read with 187, Section 5 read with 180 of MV Act of 3

Karamchedu Police Station was registered against the petitioner/A1. The investigation appears to be almost completed. The petitioner/A1 appears to be in remand since 12.09.2017. The petitioner/A1 appears to have fixed place of abode. Hence, this Court deems fit just to enlarge the petitioner/A1 on bail.

In view of the above discussion, this point is answered accordingly.

6.In the result, the petition is allowed by granting bail to the petitioner/A1 on executing a bond for Rs.10,000/­ (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Parchur, with a condition that the petitioner/A1 shall

report before Station House Officer, Karamchedu P.S on every Saturday between 10.00 a.m and 01.00 p.m for a period of one month or till filing of charge sheet, whichever is earlier.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in Open Court, this the 21 st day of September, 2017.

Sd/- R.J.Viswanadham,

FAC ­ VII Addl. Sessions Judge, Ongole.

FAC ­ VIII Addl. & Sessions Judge, Ongole.

Copy to : 

1.The Judicial Magistrate of First Class,Parchur 2.Station House Officer, Karamchedu P.S., 3.Counsel for the petitioner/A1 // true copy //

Administrative Officer, VIII Addl.District Judge's Court, Ongole.

1

 IN THE COURT OF FAMILY­CUM­VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE:

PRAKASAM AT ONGOLE

Present: Sri R.J.Viswanadham, VII Additional District Judge, Ongole, FAC­Judge, Family Court­cum­VIII Additional District Judge, Ongole. Thursday, this the 21st day of September, 2017.

F.C.O.P. No.81/2017

Between:

Thotapalli Nandini W/o.Rajesh,aged 20 Yrs, Hindu, D/o.Aluri Sreenivasa Rao,House Wife,R/o.Swarna Village,

Karamchedu Mandal, Prakasam District.. Petitioner

And

Thotapalli Rajesh S/o.Venkateswara Rao,Hindu, aged 30 Yrs., Business, R/o.D.No.2­1­17(A), Near Marrichettu,

Gaddalagunta, Ongole... Respondent

This petition coming on this day before me for final hearing, in the presence of the petitioner in­person and having the respondent been set ex­ parte, on hearing the petitioner, upon perusal of material available on record, this court delivered the following : ­

// O R D E R //

01.This is a petition filed by the petitioner/wife against the respondent/ husband under section 13 (1) (1a) (1b) of Hindu Marriage Act for dissolving their marriage, solemnised on 12.02.2015 on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. 

02.Briefly, the averments of the petition are as follows:­

The respondent Thotapalli Rajesh married the petitioner Thotapalli

Nandini as per their caste customs and religious rites at Sankara Narayana

Kalyana Mantapam, Ongole on 12.02.2015. The parents of the petitioner gave

Rs.1,60,000/­ as dowry, Rs.30,000/­ as Adapaduchu Lamchanam and 4 sovereigns of gold to the respondent Rajesh at the time of the marriage. The petitioner Nandini joined with the respondent Rajesh after attaining puberty.

The petitioner Nandini lived with the respondent Rajesh for one week. The respondent Rajesh developed dislike towards the petitioner Nandini without any fault on her part. The petitioner Nandini bore the ill­treatment of the respondent Rajesh with the hope that the respondent Rajesh would change his 2 attitude. The respondent Rajesh began to give mental torture and mental agony to the petitioner Nandini. The petitioner/Nandini informed the attitude of the respondent Rajesh to her parents. The respondent Rajesh did not provide any amenities to the petitioner Nandini and the respondent Rajesh ill­ treated the petitioner Nandini both mentally and physically. The respondent

Rajesh began to demand additional dowry amount for which the petitioner

Nandini expressed her inability. The respondent Rajesh behaved brutally towards the petitioner Nandini on 15.04.2015 and sent her away from his house and the petitioner Nandini went away to her parents’ house as she has no other alternative. The parents, elders requested the respondent Rajesh to take the petitioner Nandini to his conjugal fold but the respondent Rajesh did not hear their words. The respondent did not take the petitioner Nandini to his conjugal fold in spite of the efforts by the petitioner Nandini. Hence, the petitioner constrained to file this petition for dissolution of marriage that was solemnised on 12.02.2015 in between herself and the respondent Suresh by way of granting decree of divorce. Hence, this petition.

03. The respondent Thotapalli Rajesh remained ex parte.

04. The petitioner Thotapalli Nandini chose to file proof affidavit and

Ex.A1 is marked.

05.Heard the petitioner.

06.Now the point for consideration is :

“Whether the petitioner Thotapalli Nandini is entitled for dissolution of marriage that was solemnised on 12.02.2015 in between herself and the respondent Thotapalli Rajesh by way of granting decree of divorce as prayed for?”

07.Petitioner Thotapalli Nandini chose to examine herself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1 Wedding Card. The evidence of P.W.1 proves Ex.A1. The evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.A1 clinchingly proves that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. P.W.1 Thotapalli Nandini categorically deposes that the respondent subjected the petitioner to cruelty both mentally 3 and physically and the respondent Thotapalli Rajesh drove away the petitioner Thotapalli Nandini from her matrimonial home and the respondent

Rajesh did not take back the petitioner Nandini to his conjugal fold, in spite of efforts by the petitioner Nandini. So, it is clear that the respondent Thotapalli

Rajesh deserted the petitioner Nandini and subjected her to cruelty and so the petitioner Nandini is certainly entitled for dissolution of the marriage that was solemnized on 12.02.2015 in between the petitioner and the respondent by way of granting decree of divorce as prayed for. In view of the above discussion, the point is answered accordingly.

08.In the result, the petition is allowed for dissolution of the marriage in between the petitioner and the respondent that was performed on 12.02.2015 by way of granting decree of divorce against the respondent as prayed for. No costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant of this Court, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 21 st day of September, 2017.

VII­Additional District Judge, Ongole, FAC­Judge, Family Court­cum­ VIII­Additional District Judge, Ongole.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For petitioner: For Respondent

P.W.1 : T.Nandini ­ Ex parte ­

Documents marked:

Ex.A1 / ­: Wedding Card

VII A.D.J.,Ongole, FAC­VIII ADJ.,Ongole.