MS. Racharla Shalini

II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-X Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, RangaReddy District at Kukatpally

Kukatpally, ADJ-cum-Family Court · Rangareddy · Telangana

MS. Racharla Shalini, II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-X Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, RangaReddy District at Kukatpally, is posted at Kukatpally, ADJ-cum-Family Court, Rangareddy, Telangana, India. 541 court orders on record since 2023. 6 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, DVC cases.

541

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

OS/883/2022

K.Jayashree vs Sk.Ameenuddin

06 Feb 2026

OS No. 883 of 2022Page No. 1 of 8

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM – X ADDL. JUDICIAL

FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, RANGAREDDY DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY

PRESENT: Smt. Racharla Shalini,

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-

X Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate,

R.R. District at Kukatpally

DATED THIS THE 06th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

O.S. No. 883 OF 2022

Between : Smt. Kadiyala Jayashree W/o. Late Dr. M.S. Subrahmanyam, Age: 70 years, Occ: Household, R/o. 202 Jatkar Bhavan, H.No. 1-8-526, Chikkadpally Street No. 7, Hyderabad, T.S.

…..Plaintiff

A N D

Shaik Ameenudin S/o. Shaik Sultan Ahmed Age: 45 years, Occ: Business, Tenant in property Br. H.No. 4-67 on plot No. B-II/67 at B.K. Enclave Mahboobpet village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R. District.

…..Defendant

This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me on 08.12.2025 in the presence of K. David Paul, Counsel for Plaintiff and M. Nagaraju, The counsel for defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The plaintiff filed the present suit for eviction of the defendant from the suit schedule property i.e., all that property Br. H.No. 6-47 on plot No. B-II/67, admeasuring 330 sq. yards in Sy. No. 44/4 (Old No. 44) situated at B.K. Enclave, Maktha

Mahaboobpet village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana (hereinafter referred as suit schedule property) and to pay arrears of rent of Rs.

2,88,000/- and to pay interest on arrears of rent @ 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization and mesne profits @ Rs. 30,000/- per month from 01.08.2022, totaling Rs. 3,18,000/-.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

OS No. 883 of 2022Page No. 2 of 8

The plaintiff submits that her husband had purchased the suit schedule property through a registered sale deed vide Doc. No. 2508/1996, dated 23.04.1996 and her husband was demised on 21.07.2011 as such, she became the owner of the suit schedule property. Later, the defendant approached the plaintiff in the month of

December, 2024 on tenancy for residential purpose as such, the plaintiff let out the same for Rs. 10,000/- per month as rent under a rental deed, dated 24.12.2014 for a period of 11 months and on request of the defendant, the plaintiff reduced the rent amount to Rs. 9,000/- and the said lease period was expired long back and the tenancy became month to month and the plaintiff had never collected the security deposit. The defendant had paid rents till the month of November, 2019 and failed to pay the rents from December, 2019 to till date i.e., 32 months amounting to Rs.

2,88,000/-. Despite the repeated demands and reminders, the defendant protracting the same on one pretext or other and did not chose to pay the arrears amount till date which caused hardship, loss and inconvenience to the plaintiff as such, the plaintiff terminated the tenancy on 05.04.2022 and issued notice on 29.07.2022 and the defendant received the said notice but the defendant failed to give any reply not paid the amounts. Having left with no option, the plaintiff filed the present suit. Hence, the suit.

3.On the other hand, the defendant filed the written statement by denying the material averments and further contended that the plaintiff is having two daughters and one son but she intentionally suppressed the legal heirs of the deceased in the present suit and further submitted that in the year, 2008, basing on the oral terms of lease, the defendant joined as tenant on a monthly basis for Rs. 4,000/- and the lease period was extended time to time orally and the monthly rent was also increased time to time as demanded by the plaintiff. The defendant used to pay the rents regularly

OS No. 883 of 2022Page No. 3 of 8

and at present, the defendant is paying rent of Rs. 9,000/- per month and further submitted that the defendant is a legal tenant but not an illegal occupant. In the year, 2021, the suit schedule property was in dilapidated condition and the defendant had requested the plaintiff for the repairs of suit schedule property, since the plaintiff is in

USA, she permitted him to do the repairs accordingly, the defendant made the said repairs and spent an amount of Rs. 4,90,000/- and the plaintiff promised to pay the said amount but failed to do so after many repeated requests and since the defendant requesting the plaintiff for repayment, the plaintiff with an ulterior motive filed the present suit and in the month of April, 2022, the plaintiff along with her men went to the suit schedule property and obtained signatures of the defendants on no. of white blank paper and also on blank Non Judicial stamp papers and threatened the defendant to evict him and also issued legal notice by false allegations and further submitted that the defendant never executed any alleged declarations in favour of the plaintiff and there are no dues of arrears of rents by the defendant to the plaintiff.

Hence, requested to dismiss the suit.

4.After hearing on both sides, the following issues are framed for trial.

Now the issues for consideration are:

i.Whether the defendant is evicted from the suit schedule property?

ii. Whether the defendant has to pay arrears of rent of Rs. 2,88,000/- with an interest of 24% per annum?

iii. Whether the plaintiff has issued notice U/s. 106 of TP Act?

iv. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of eviction of the suit schedule property against the defendant?

v.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits @ Rs. 30,000/- per month?

OS No. 883 of 2022Page No. 4 of 8

5.During the course of trial, the plaintiff herself examined as PW1 and got marked

Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 and the defendant was examined as DW1 and got marked Ex.B1 to

Ex.B10.

6.Heard both sides.

7.Since the issue No. 1 to 5 are interrelated to each other, all issues are discussed and answered under one head.

8.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued highlighting the plaint averments stating that the plaintiff sent the legal notice before filing the suit and the defendant did not respond to her request and neither cleared the arrears nor vacated the premises and continued in illegal occupation over the property and further submitted that this court passed orders in IA No. 118/2022 directing the defendant to pay the arrears amount of Rs. 2,88,000/- to the petitioner and further directed to pay Rs.

20,000/- per month as enhanced rent and the defendant had paid the arrears amount but failed to pay the enhanced rent which is more than Rs. 7 lakhs as of now and further argued that the plaintiff is the old lady and the defendant is creating mental agony to the plaintiff by not paying rents and also by not vacating the premises.

9.The learned counsel for the defendant argued that the defendant had made repairs in the suit schedule property by spending an amount of Rs. 4,90,000/- and the same amount was agreed to issue to him by the plaintiff but the plaintiff failed to do so and further argued that the defendant has been paying rents regularly and he is not liable for any mesne profits and arrears of rent. The plaintiff with a malafide intention has filed the present suit.

OS No. 883 of 2022Page No. 5 of 8

10.In support of plaintiff case, the plaintiff herself examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A7. PW1 deposed reiterating plaint averments and relied on Ex.A1 to Ex.A7. Ex.A1 is the Declaration cum undertaking, dated 05.04.2022. Ex.A2 is the bank statement of the plaintiff pertaining to Kotak Mahindra Bank from 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2021. Ex.A3 is the certified copy of sale deed vide Doc. No. 2508/1996. Ex.A4 is the certified copy of death certificate of Dr. Subrahmanyam Somasundaram

Madhurachari, dated 21.07.2011. Ex.A5 is the office copy of legal notice, dated 29.07.2022. Ex.A6 is the original postal receipt, dated 29.07.2022. Ex.A7 is the online copy of track consignment report, dated 30.07.2022. Later, the defendant examined himself as DW1 and got marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B10 i.e., Ex.B1 is the original cash bill issued by Kamal Electricals, dated 28.01.2021. Ex.B2 is the original cash bill issued by

Hanuman Enterprises, dated 12.02.2021. Ex.B3 is the original cash bill issued by

Hanuman Enterprises, dated 12.02.2021. Ex.B4 is the original cash bill issued by Sri

Chowdary Building Material, dated 23.01.2021. Ex.B5 is the original cash bill issued by

Sri Chowdary Building Material, dated 26.01.2021. Ex.B6 is the original cash bill issued by Indian Traders, dated 03.02.2021. Ex.B7 is the original cash bill issued by

Indian Traders, dated 24.01.2021. Ex.B8 is the receipt of payment issued by

Kanakadhara Constructions, dated 20.02.2021. Ex.B9 is the bank deposit challans (16 in No.). Ex.B10 is the certified copy of sale deed vide Doc. No. 2508/1996.

11.During the cross-examination of the PW1, no worthwhile substance was derived and it is denied by the PW1 that the defendant is paying rents regularly till date. As can be seen from the Ex.A1/Declaration cum Undertaking, it is established that there is a landlord and tenant relation between the plaintiff and the defendant. Since the defendant failed to pay the rents, the plaintiff got issued legal notice/Ex.A5 calling upon the defendant to vacate the suit schedule property and handover the vacant

OS No. 883 of 2022Page No. 6 of 8

possession of the same. The plaintiff sent Ex.A5/legal notice to the defendant through

Ex.A6/postal receipts. Under Ex.A5/legal notice, the plaintiff demanded the defendant to vacate the suit schedule property accordingly, the defendant executed

Ex.A1/Declaration cum Undertaking agreeing to vacate the suit schedule property.

Hence, the plaintiff complied Sec. 106 of TP Act.

12.As can be seen from the evidence of PW1, she issued notice U/s. 106 of TP Act and the same was served on the defendant as per Ex.A7/Track consignment report.

Even after receiving the same, the defendant failed to give reply to it without any just and sufficient cause as such, the plaintiff rightly served the notice to the defendant as required U/s. 106 of TP Act. Hence, the issue No. 3 is answered in favour of plaintiff.

13.During his cross-examination, no worthwhile substances were derived, the oral and documentary evidence of the PW1 established that the defendant committed default in making rent amount to the plaintiff as per Ex.A1/Declaration cum

Undertaking and also the defendant did not choose to file any document to prove that he has paid rents regularly to the plaintiff either through oral or documentary evidence. As the defendant committed default in paying the rents and in view of the admission in Ex.A1/Declaration cum Undertaking as the plaintiff complied the notice U/ s. 106 of TP Act as such, the defendant is liable to vacate the suit schedule property and handover the vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff within 45 days and also liable to pay arrears of rent of Rs. 2,88,000/- with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of decree and shall also pay mesne profits @ Rs. 30,000/- per month from the date of decree till delivery of possession to the plaintiff failing which the plaintiff can get the possession of the suit schedule property and arrears of amount, mesne profits

OS No. 883 of 2022Page No. 7 of 8

by executing decree. Accordingly, the issue No. i to v are answered in favour of plaintiff.

14.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs and the defendant is directed to vacate the suit schedule property and handover the vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff within 45 days and also liable to pay arrears of rent of Rs. 2,88,000/- with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of decree and shall also pay mesne profits @

Rs. 30,000/- per month from the date of decree till delivery of possession to the plaintiff failing which the plaintiff can get the possession of the suit schedule property and arrears of amount, mesne profits by executing decree.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 06th day of February, 2026)

sd/-

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- X Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate R.R. Dist. at Kukatpally

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant: PW1: Smt. Kadiyala JayashreeDW1: Shaik Ameenudin

1. EXHIBITS MARKED For Plaintiff:

1. Ex.A1 is the Declaration cum undertaking, dated 05.04.2022.

2. Ex.A2 is the bank statement of the plaintiff pertaining to Kotak Mahindra Bank from 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2021.

3. Ex.A3 is the certified copy of sale deed vide Doc. No. 2508/1996.

4. Ex.A4 is the certified copy of death certificate of Dr. Subrahmanyam Somasundaram Madhurachari, dated 21.07.2011.

5. Ex.A5 is the office copy of legal notice, dated 29.07.2022.

6. Ex.A6 is the original postal receipt, dated 29.07.2022.

7. Ex.A7 is the online copy of track consignment report, dated 30.07.2022

For Defendant:

1. Ex.B1 is the original cash bill issued by Kamal Electricals, dated 28.01.2021.

2. Ex.B2 is the original cash bill issued by Hanuman Enterprises, dated 12.02.2021.

OS No. 883 of 2022Page No. 8 of 8

3. Ex.B3 is the original cash bill issued by Hanuman Enterprises, dated 12.02.2021.

4. Ex.B4 is the original cash bill issued by Sri Chowdary Building Material, dated 23.01.2021.

5. Ex.B5 is the original cash bill issued by Sri Chowdary Building Material, dated 26.01.2021.

6. Ex.B6 is the original cash bill issued by Indian Traders, dated 03.02.2021.

7. Ex.B7 is the original cash bill issued by Indian Traders, dated 24.01.2021.

8. Ex.B8 is the receipt of payment issued by Kanakadhara Constructions, dated 20.02.2021.

9. Ex.B9 is the bank deposit challans (16 in No.). 10.Ex.B10 is the certified copy of sale deed vide Doc. No. 2508/1996

sd/-

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-

X Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate

R.R. Dist. at Kukatpally

STC.NI/440/2023

Nagabathini Raj Kumar vs Inuganti Jyothirmayi

06 Feb 2026

STC NI No. 440 of 2023Page No. 1 of 8

IN THE COURT OF THE II AJCJ – CUM – X ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE, RANGAREDDY DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY

PRESENT: Smt. Racharla Shalini,

II AJCJ-Cum-X Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally

DATED THIS THE 06th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

STC. N.I No. 440 OF 2023

Between: Nagabathini Raj Kumar S/o. Mani Age: 30 years, Occ: Business R/o. Kotha mission Bazar, Aswaraopet village and mandal, Badradri Kothagudem District, T.S. 507301

…..Complainant

AND

Inuganti Jyothirmayi W/o. Jammi Babu Age: 45 years, Occ: Anganwadi Teacher, R/o. Kotha Bazar, Aswaraopet village and Mandal, Badradri Kothagudem village, TS 507301.

…..Accused

This case is coming on this day before me for final hearing on 02.02.2026 in the presence of Sri. M. Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri. S. Ramana Reddy, learned counsel for the accused and upon perusal of the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a private complaint filed by the complainant U/s. 200 Cr.P.C. against the accused for the offence punishable U/s. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

2.The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:

The complainant submits that himself and accused are known to each other since long time and both are neighbours and accused requested him for hand loan of

Rs. 5,00,000/- for her personal needs, accordingly, the complainant gave the said amount in cash on 13.02.2021 and at the time of receiving the hand loan, the accused promised to pay the same within 6 months and to pay 2% interest per month and also executed promissory note in favour of complainant.

STC NI No. 440 of 2023Page No. 2 of 8

3.The complainant further submitted that the accused had paid interest amount for a period of one year and failed to pay the same and also failed to pay the principal amount. The complainant regularly approached the accused several times such as in the month of December and on 15.12.2022 and requested to pay the amount but the accused postponed the same on one pretext or the other. After several repeated requests, the accused accepted to pay the entire amount as such, she issued a cheque

Br. No. 964693 for Rs. 5,00,000/-, dated 16.02.2023 drawn on State Bank of India,

Aswaraopet branch and the same was presented by the complainant in his bank i.e.,

HDFC bank, Botanical garden, Hyderabad but the said cheque was returned with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient” vide cheque return memo, dated 20.02.2023, as such, the complainant issued legal notice, dated 07.03.2023 and the same was received by the accused on 08.03.2023 and the accused issued a reply notice with false allegations. Having no other option, the complainant has filed the present case.

4.The complainant has further averred that the said cheque has been issued towards legally enforceable debt, as such, the accused is liable for conviction U/s. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and requested to punish him according to law and pay the compensation.

5.This court has recorded the sworn statement of the complainant, later considering the same coupled with complaint averments and documents taken cognizance for the offence punishable U/s. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and registered as STC. N.I. No: 440 of 2023 and issued summons to the accused.

STC NI No. 440 of 2023Page No. 3 of 8

6. On after receipt of summons, the accused appeared before this court by engaging the counsel. Copies of all documents furnished to the accused U/s. 207

Cr.P.C.

7.Later, the accused was examined U/s. 251 Cr.P.C. by explaining the substances of the accusation leveled against her in her vernacular language for the offence punishable U/s. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, for which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, case is posted for trial.

8.During the trial, the complainant examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to

Ex.P7 on his behalf.

9.After completion of evidence of complainant, the case is posted for section 313

Cr.P.C. of the accused. Later, the incriminating substance appearing against the accused in the evidence of complainant is explained to the accused, for which she denied completely and reported defence evidence and examined as DW1 and got marked Ex.D1.

10.Heard both sides.

11.The learned counsel for the complainant argued that during the cross- examination of the PW1, the accused has admitted the issuance of cheque and also admitted that the signature on the cheque belongs to her but the contention of the accused is that she has never issued the cheque to the PW1 and further contended that the accused entered into agreement of sale with one Patan Jalal towards the sale of her house and the said Patan Jalal has paid an amount of Rs. 5,00,00/- towards

STC NI No. 440 of 2023Page No. 4 of 8 advance and again demanded the accused to give back an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- as such, the accused issued a blank promissory note and blank signed cheque to the said Patan Jalal and the same is misused by the complainant in filing the present complaint but the said contention is denied by the PW1, as such, the court can draw the presumption U/s. 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act and the accused failed to rebut the said presumption, as such, the accused is liable for conviction for the offence punishable U/s. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

12.The learned counsel for the accused argued that there is no legally enforceable debt or liability in between the complainant and the accused, as such the complainant failed to prove the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability. He further argued that the accused have issued cheque to one Patan Jalal and the same is misused by the complainant in filing the present case, as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

13.Upon hearing on both sides the following points that arose for consideration are:

1. Whether the accused has rebutted the presumptions laid down U/s. 139 of N.I. Act?

2. Whether the accused is liable for the conviction for the offence punishable U/s. 138 of N.I. act?

14 .Upon hearing on both sides, considering the cross-examination of

PW1/complainant, it is the case of the accused that she had issued the blank promissory note and blank signed cheque to one Patan Jala with whom the accused had entered into the agreement of sale and by misusing the same, the complainant has filed the present case and the complainant failed to file any receipt issued by the accused at the time of giving hand loan to the accused and and also failed to mention

STC NI No. 440 of 2023Page No. 5 of 8 the names of the witnesses, who were present at the time of giving amount to the accused.

15.So, it is clear that the accused did not deny her signature in Ex.P1/cheque as such, this court can safely invoke the presumption U/s. 139 of Negotiable Instruments

Act.

Sec. 139 of NI Act reads as follows:

“Presumption in favour of holder.—It shall be presumed, unless the contrary

is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature

referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt

or other liability.”

16.The above said presumption creates that once the accused has admitted her signature in the cheque, the court shall presume that the said cheque has been issued in the discharge of her legal enforceable debt, but the said presumption is rebuttable presumption by way of preponderance of probabilities.

17.It is well settled principle of the law that the presumption U/s. 139 of NI Act is a rebuttable presumption, the accused can rebut the said presumption by way of preponderance of probabilities relying upon the evidence adduced by the complainant and she need not enter into the witness box.

18.Now, this court will scrutinize whether the accused has rebutted the presumption U/s. 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act by way of preponderance of probabilities.

STC NI No. 440 of 2023Page No. 6 of 8

19.The cross-examination of the PW1 discloses that the PW1 has given the money to the accused in cash and the accused executed the promissory note towards acknowledgment and later, on repeated demands, the accused has issued a post dated cheque towards repayment. It is the case of the accused that the

PW1/complainant has failed to file any receipt issued by the accused at the time of receiving hand loan by her and and also failed to mention the names of the witnesses, who were present at the time of giving amount to the accused and further contented that the cheque was issued by her to one Patan Jalal, who entered into an agreement of sale with the accused and he gave an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the accused towards advance and later, the said Patan Jalal demanded the accused to give back amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- as such, the accused issued a blank promissory note and blank signed cheque in the favour of the said Patan Jalal but not in the favour of the complainant but the complainant has misused the same in filing the present complaint and the accused has never issued the cheque to the complainant towards legally enforceable debt or liability.

20.This court relied upon the following decisions:

In a recent decision between M/s. Kalamani Tex. V/s P. Balasubramanyam, the

Hon’ble Supreme court of India held that once the accused have admitted

his signatures on the cheque and the deed, the trial court ought to have

presumed that the cheque was issued as consideration for a legally

enforceable debt.

In a recent decision between P. Rasiya Vs. Abdul Nazeer and another, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that in a cheque-bounce case U/s. 138

of N.I. Act, the complainant is not required to spell out in the complaint, the

nature of transaction or source of fund since the onus is on the accused to

prove that the cheque was issued not towards a debt or liability.

21.During the cross-examination of the PW1, no worthwhile substance is derived to discredit his testimony and to believe the version of the accused that the accused has

STC NI No. 440 of 2023Page No. 7 of 8 issued the cheque to one Patan Jalal and the same is misused by the PW1 in filing the present case but not for the amount received by her from the PW1. The accused did not choose to examine the said Patan Jalal on her behalf to establish that she had issued the cheque to Patan Jalal but not to the complainant towards legally enforceable debt or liability and moreover, the accused has not taken any steps i.e., either civil or criminal proceedings against the said Patan Jalal with the demand of return of promissory note and cheque when the same were used by the complainant in filing the present case, as such, there is no cogent evidence placed by the accused to proof the said contention.

22.In light of the above said decisions and considering the evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.P1 to Ex.P7, this court is of the opinion that the accused has failed to rebut the presumption laid down U/s. 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act as such, the accused is liable for conviction for the offence punishable U/s. 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act. Accordingly, the point is answered.

23.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 06th day of February, 2026)

sd/-

II AJCJ–CUM–X ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

R.R.DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY.

HEARING ON QUANTUM OF SENTENCE:

Heard the accused on quantum of sentence. The accused stated that she will prefer an appeal and requested to take lenient view in imposing sentence. As this is a financial transaction in between the complainant and the accused, it is not appropriate

STC NI No. 440 of 2023Page No. 8 of 8 to initiate the provisions of POA act in favor of the accused. In this case, the cheque amount is for Rs. 5,00,000/-. Having considering the above all circumstances, this court inclined to convict and sentence the accused as follows:

a) The accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 1 year.

b) The accused is also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- i.e., cheque amount to the complainant within 2 months from the date of this Judgment. The accused informed that she is having right to prefer appeal before Hon’ble District and

Sessions court, Ranga Reddy District within 30 days from the date of this Judgment.

True copy of the Judgment is served to the accused under acknowledgment.

sd/-

II AJCJ–CUM–X ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

R.R.DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Complainant: Defence: PW1: Nagabathini Raj KumarDW1: Inuganti Jyothirmayi

Exhibits Marked

Complainant:

1. Ex.P1 is the Original cheque br. No. 964693, dated 16.02.2023

2. Ex.P2 is the Cheque Return Memo, dated 20.02.2023.

3. Ex.P3 is the Original promissory note, dated 13.02.2021

4. Ex.P4 is the Office copy of the Legal Notice, dated 03.03.2023

5. Ex.P5 is the original postal receipt, dated 03.03.2023

6. Ex.P6 is the online copy of track consignment report, dated 07.03.2023

7. Ex.P7 is the reply notice, dated 08.03.2023

Defence:

1. Ex.D1 is the aadhar card of DW1.

sd/-

II AJCJ–CUM–X ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

R.R.DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY.

STC.NI/440/2023

Nagabathini Raj Kumar vs Inuganti Jyothirmayi

06 Feb 2026

STC NI No. 440 of 2023Page No. 1 of 8

IN THE COURT OF THE II AJCJ – CUM – X ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE, RANGAREDDY DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY

PRESENT: Smt. Racharla Shalini,

II AJCJ-Cum-X Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally

DATED THIS THE 06th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

STC. N.I No. 440 OF 2023

Between: Nagabathini Raj Kumar S/o. Mani Age: 30 years, Occ: Business R/o. Kotha mission Bazar, Aswaraopet village and mandal, Badradri Kothagudem District, T.S. 507301

…..Complainant

AND

Inuganti Jyothirmayi W/o. Jammi Babu Age: 45 years, Occ: Anganwadi Teacher, R/o. Kotha Bazar, Aswaraopet village and Mandal, Badradri Kothagudem village, TS 507301.

…..Accused

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a private complaint filed by the complainant U/s. 200 Cr.P.C. against the accused for the offence punishable U/s. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

2.The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:

The complainant submits that himself and accused are known to each other since long time and both are neighbours and accused requested him for hand loan of

STC NI No. 440 of 2023Page No. 2 of 8

Br. No. 964693 for Rs. 5,00,000/-, dated 16.02.2023 drawn on State Bank of India,

Aswaraopet branch and the same was presented by the complainant in his bank i.e.,

STC NI No. 440 of 2023Page No. 3 of 8

6. On after receipt of summons, the accused appeared before this court by engaging the counsel. Copies of all documents furnished to the accused U/s. 207

Cr.P.C.

8.During the trial, the complainant examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to

Ex.P7 on his behalf.

9.After completion of evidence of complainant, the case is posted for section 313

10.Heard both sides.

13.Upon hearing on both sides the following points that arose for consideration are:

1. Whether the accused has rebutted the presumptions laid down U/s. 139 of N.I. Act?

2. Whether the accused is liable for the conviction for the offence punishable U/s. 138 of N.I. act?

14 .Upon hearing on both sides, considering the cross-examination of

STC NI No. 440 of 2023Page No. 5 of 8 the names of the witnesses, who were present at the time of giving amount to the accused.

15.So, it is clear that the accused did not deny her signature in Ex.P1/cheque as such, this court can safely invoke the presumption U/s. 139 of Negotiable Instruments

Act.

Sec. 139 of NI Act reads as follows:

“Presumption in favour of holder.—It shall be presumed, unless the contrary

is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature

referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt

or other liability.”

18.Now, this court will scrutinize whether the accused has rebutted the presumption U/s. 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act by way of preponderance of probabilities.

STC NI No. 440 of 2023Page No. 6 of 8

20.This court relied upon the following decisions:

In a recent decision between M/s. Kalamani Tex. V/s P. Balasubramanyam, the

Hon’ble Supreme court of India held that once the accused have admitted

his signatures on the cheque and the deed, the trial court ought to have

presumed that the cheque was issued as consideration for a legally

enforceable debt.

In a recent decision between P. Rasiya Vs. Abdul Nazeer and another, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that in a cheque-bounce case U/s. 138

of N.I. Act, the complainant is not required to spell out in the complaint, the

nature of transaction or source of fund since the onus is on the accused to

prove that the cheque was issued not towards a debt or liability.

21.During the cross-examination of the PW1, no worthwhile substance is derived to discredit his testimony and to believe the version of the accused that the accused has

Instruments Act. Accordingly, the point is answered.

23.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 06th day of February, 2026)

sd/-

II AJCJ–CUM–X ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

R.R.DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY.

HEARING ON QUANTUM OF SENTENCE:

a) The accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 1 year.

Sessions court, Ranga Reddy District within 30 days from the date of this Judgment.

True copy of the Judgment is served to the accused under acknowledgment.

sd/-

II AJCJ–CUM–X ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

R.R.DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Complainant: Defence: PW1: Nagabathini Raj KumarDW1: Inuganti Jyothirmayi

Exhibits Marked

Complainant:

1. Ex.P1 is the Original cheque br. No. 964693, dated 16.02.2023

2. Ex.P2 is the Cheque Return Memo, dated 20.02.2023.

3. Ex.P3 is the Original promissory note, dated 13.02.2021

4. Ex.P4 is the Office copy of the Legal Notice, dated 03.03.2023

5. Ex.P5 is the original postal receipt, dated 03.03.2023

6. Ex.P6 is the online copy of track consignment report, dated 07.03.2023

7. Ex.P7 is the reply notice, dated 08.03.2023

Defence:

1. Ex.D1 is the aadhar card of DW1.

sd/-

II AJCJ–CUM–X ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

R.R.DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY.

STC.NI/440/2023

Nagabathini Raj Kumar vs Inuganti Jyothirmayi

06 Feb 2026

STC NI No. 440 of 2023Page No. 1 of 8

IN THE COURT OF THE II AJCJ – CUM – X ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE, RANGAREDDY DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY

PRESENT: Smt. Racharla Shalini,

II AJCJ-Cum-X Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally

DATED THIS THE 06th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

STC. N.I No. 440 OF 2023

Between: Nagabathini Raj Kumar S/o. Mani Age: 30 years, Occ: Business R/o. Kotha mission Bazar, Aswaraopet village and mandal, Badradri Kothagudem District, T.S. 507301

…..Complainant

AND

Inuganti Jyothirmayi W/o. Jammi Babu Age: 45 years, Occ: Anganwadi Teacher, R/o. Kotha Bazar, Aswaraopet village and Mandal, Badradri Kothagudem village, TS 507301.

…..Accused

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a private complaint filed by the complainant U/s. 200 Cr.P.C. against the accused for the offence punishable U/s. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

2.The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:

The complainant submits that himself and accused are known to each other since long time and both are neighbours and accused requested him for hand loan of

STC NI No. 440 of 2023Page No. 2 of 8

Br. No. 964693 for Rs. 5,00,000/-, dated 16.02.2023 drawn on State Bank of India,

Aswaraopet branch and the same was presented by the complainant in his bank i.e.,

STC NI No. 440 of 2023Page No. 3 of 8

6. On after receipt of summons, the accused appeared before this court by engaging the counsel. Copies of all documents furnished to the accused U/s. 207

Cr.P.C.

8.During the trial, the complainant examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to

Ex.P7 on his behalf.

9.After completion of evidence of complainant, the case is posted for section 313

10.Heard both sides.

13.Upon hearing on both sides the following points that arose for consideration are:

1. Whether the accused has rebutted the presumptions laid down U/s. 139 of N.I. Act?

2. Whether the accused is liable for the conviction for the offence punishable U/s. 138 of N.I. act?

14 .Upon hearing on both sides, considering the cross-examination of

STC NI No. 440 of 2023Page No. 5 of 8 the names of the witnesses, who were present at the time of giving amount to the accused.

15.So, it is clear that the accused did not deny her signature in Ex.P1/cheque as such, this court can safely invoke the presumption U/s. 139 of Negotiable Instruments

Act.

Sec. 139 of NI Act reads as follows:

“Presumption in favour of holder.—It shall be presumed, unless the contrary

is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature

referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt

or other liability.”

18.Now, this court will scrutinize whether the accused has rebutted the presumption U/s. 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act by way of preponderance of probabilities.

STC NI No. 440 of 2023Page No. 6 of 8

20.This court relied upon the following decisions:

In a recent decision between M/s. Kalamani Tex. V/s P. Balasubramanyam, the

Hon’ble Supreme court of India held that once the accused have admitted

his signatures on the cheque and the deed, the trial court ought to have

presumed that the cheque was issued as consideration for a legally

enforceable debt.

In a recent decision between P. Rasiya Vs. Abdul Nazeer and another, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that in a cheque-bounce case U/s. 138

of N.I. Act, the complainant is not required to spell out in the complaint, the

nature of transaction or source of fund since the onus is on the accused to

prove that the cheque was issued not towards a debt or liability.

21.During the cross-examination of the PW1, no worthwhile substance is derived to discredit his testimony and to believe the version of the accused that the accused has

Instruments Act. Accordingly, the point is answered.

23.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 06th day of February, 2026)

sd/-

II AJCJ–CUM–X ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

R.R.DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY.

HEARING ON QUANTUM OF SENTENCE:

a) The accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 1 year.

Sessions court, Ranga Reddy District within 30 days from the date of this Judgment.

True copy of the Judgment is served to the accused under acknowledgment.

sd/-

II AJCJ–CUM–X ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

R.R.DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Complainant: Defence: PW1: Nagabathini Raj KumarDW1: Inuganti Jyothirmayi

Exhibits Marked

Complainant:

1. Ex.P1 is the Original cheque br. No. 964693, dated 16.02.2023

2. Ex.P2 is the Cheque Return Memo, dated 20.02.2023.

3. Ex.P3 is the Original promissory note, dated 13.02.2021

4. Ex.P4 is the Office copy of the Legal Notice, dated 03.03.2023

5. Ex.P5 is the original postal receipt, dated 03.03.2023

6. Ex.P6 is the online copy of track consignment report, dated 07.03.2023

7. Ex.P7 is the reply notice, dated 08.03.2023

Defence:

1. Ex.D1 is the aadhar card of DW1.

sd/-

II AJCJ–CUM–X ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

R.R.DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY.

STC.NI/440/2023

Nagabathini Raj Kumar vs Inuganti Jyothirmayi

06 Feb 2026

STC NI No. 440 of 2023Page No. 1 of 8

IN THE COURT OF THE II AJCJ – CUM – X ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE, RANGAREDDY DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY

PRESENT: Smt. Racharla Shalini,

II AJCJ-Cum-X Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally

DATED THIS THE 06th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

STC. N.I No. 440 OF 2023

Between: Nagabathini Raj Kumar S/o. Mani Age: 30 years, Occ: Business R/o. Kotha mission Bazar, Aswaraopet village and mandal, Badradri Kothagudem District, T.S. 507301

…..Complainant

AND

Inuganti Jyothirmayi W/o. Jammi Babu Age: 45 years, Occ: Anganwadi Teacher, R/o. Kotha Bazar, Aswaraopet village and Mandal, Badradri Kothagudem village, TS 507301.

…..Accused

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a private complaint filed by the complainant U/s. 200 Cr.P.C. against the accused for the offence punishable U/s. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

2.The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:

The complainant submits that himself and accused are known to each other since long time and both are neighbours and accused requested him for hand loan of

STC NI No. 440 of 2023Page No. 2 of 8

Br. No. 964693 for Rs. 5,00,000/-, dated 16.02.2023 drawn on State Bank of India,

Aswaraopet branch and the same was presented by the complainant in his bank i.e.,

STC NI No. 440 of 2023Page No. 3 of 8

6. On after receipt of summons, the accused appeared before this court by engaging the counsel. Copies of all documents furnished to the accused U/s. 207

Cr.P.C.

8.During the trial, the complainant examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to

Ex.P7 on his behalf.

9.After completion of evidence of complainant, the case is posted for section 313

10.Heard both sides.

13.Upon hearing on both sides the following points that arose for consideration are:

1. Whether the accused has rebutted the presumptions laid down U/s. 139 of N.I. Act?

2. Whether the accused is liable for the conviction for the offence punishable U/s. 138 of N.I. act?

14 .Upon hearing on both sides, considering the cross-examination of

STC NI No. 440 of 2023Page No. 5 of 8 the names of the witnesses, who were present at the time of giving amount to the accused.

15.So, it is clear that the accused did not deny her signature in Ex.P1/cheque as such, this court can safely invoke the presumption U/s. 139 of Negotiable Instruments

Act.

Sec. 139 of NI Act reads as follows:

“Presumption in favour of holder.—It shall be presumed, unless the contrary

is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature

referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt

or other liability.”

18.Now, this court will scrutinize whether the accused has rebutted the presumption U/s. 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act by way of preponderance of probabilities.

STC NI No. 440 of 2023Page No. 6 of 8

20.This court relied upon the following decisions:

In a recent decision between M/s. Kalamani Tex. V/s P. Balasubramanyam, the

Hon’ble Supreme court of India held that once the accused have admitted

his signatures on the cheque and the deed, the trial court ought to have

presumed that the cheque was issued as consideration for a legally

enforceable debt.

In a recent decision between P. Rasiya Vs. Abdul Nazeer and another, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that in a cheque-bounce case U/s. 138

of N.I. Act, the complainant is not required to spell out in the complaint, the

nature of transaction or source of fund since the onus is on the accused to

prove that the cheque was issued not towards a debt or liability.

21.During the cross-examination of the PW1, no worthwhile substance is derived to discredit his testimony and to believe the version of the accused that the accused has

Instruments Act. Accordingly, the point is answered.

23.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 06th day of February, 2026)

sd/-

II AJCJ–CUM–X ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

R.R.DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY.

HEARING ON QUANTUM OF SENTENCE:

a) The accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 1 year.

Sessions court, Ranga Reddy District within 30 days from the date of this Judgment.

True copy of the Judgment is served to the accused under acknowledgment.

sd/-

II AJCJ–CUM–X ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

R.R.DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Complainant: Defence: PW1: Nagabathini Raj KumarDW1: Inuganti Jyothirmayi

Exhibits Marked

Complainant:

1. Ex.P1 is the Original cheque br. No. 964693, dated 16.02.2023

2. Ex.P2 is the Cheque Return Memo, dated 20.02.2023.

3. Ex.P3 is the Original promissory note, dated 13.02.2021

4. Ex.P4 is the Office copy of the Legal Notice, dated 03.03.2023

5. Ex.P5 is the original postal receipt, dated 03.03.2023

6. Ex.P6 is the online copy of track consignment report, dated 07.03.2023

7. Ex.P7 is the reply notice, dated 08.03.2023

Defence:

1. Ex.D1 is the aadhar card of DW1.

sd/-

II AJCJ–CUM–X ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

R.R.DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY.

Order Record 466 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/834/2017	PS Gachibowli vs Mohd Katal Ahmed and others	09 Feb 2026	Judgement	Acquitted
OS/883/2022	K.Jayashree vs Sk.Ameenuddin	06 Feb 2026	Decree	—
STC.NI/440/2023	Nagabathini Raj Kumar vs Inuganti Jyothirmayi	06 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/113/2017	VsShaik Abdul Kreem	04 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/1834/2019	ps madhapur vs Vsmd ahmed	04 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
OS/1686/2025	Bala Subramanyam Bulusu vs The Tahasildar, Serilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District.	03 Feb 2026	Decree	—
CC/1648/2019	PS Gachibowli vs K Swarnalatha	03 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/500272/2017	PS Madhapur vs M/s Shivam Videos Rep. by Yoginder Singh	03 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/600/2019	State of Telangana through PS Madhapur vs Mannay Sahadev	02 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/765/2015	PS Madhapur vs Thota Jagadish	02 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
OS/42/2024	Bhaskar Agrochemicals limited rep by Alapati Nageswara Rao vs M/s. Rythu Nestham Agro Traders and another	28 Jan 2026	Decree	—
OS/96/2024	M/s. Lakshmi Finance Pvt Ltd Rep by T. Prabhakar Rao vs M. Sreehari and another	28 Jan 2026	Decree	—
OS/1123/2025	Surapaneni Rajani vs The Tahasildar	28 Jan 2026	Decree	—
OS/64/2024	Bhaskar Agrochemicals Ltd Rep by Alapati Nageshwara Rao vs Sri Hanuman Agro Agencies Rep by Singham Lakshmi Devi and 2 others	27 Jan 2026	Decree	—
CC/1496/2019	PS Gachibowli vs Vasu Sahit Kandepu	27 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC/2100/2020	Adupa Venkateshwarlu vs Syed Abdul Razak	23 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
OS/249/2024	Kolanu Mahesh Srikanth and another vs Dubba Laxminarayana	21 Jan 2026	Decree	—
CC/46/2017	B Ashik vs Vs	21 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC/2031/2019	ps madhapur vs Vsa sreharsha reddy	21 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC/503793/2018	Gachibowli vs Kota Sai Kumar	20 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
OS/347/2025	Welkin Convergence pvt ltd rep by its A.Vijay Bhaskar vs Kanchipuram Murugan Silks pvt ltd rep by its Mr.Anil Kumar and another	19 Jan 2026	Decree	—
CC/3367/2019	PS Madhapur vs D Nagesh	16 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC/359/2019	PS Gachibowli vs Ravi Shankar	12 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC/3443/2019	ps gachibowli vs Vsbblu raj	12 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC/501232/2018	Mayneni Veerendra Sivanath vs Minthu nath	08 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC/6317/2022	State of Telangana Through PS MADHAPUR vs G NARAYANA REDDY	07 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC/504157/2018	PS Gachibowli vs Kummari Srinivas	07 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC/4117/2019	ps gachibowli vs Nenavath Raju	05 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
OS/703/2024	Dudala Uday Shankar and 2 others vs Dudala Bharathamma and 2 others	08 Dec 2025	Decree	—
OS/142/2018	Danthodikar @ Dandhotikar Satyanarayana vs Malturkar Ramachandar	28 Nov 2025	Decree	—
OS/691/2025	Sanapala Mamatha Rao vs The Tahasildar, Serilingampally Mandal	28 Nov 2025	Decree	—
CC/4885/2021	A. Rama Linga Reddy vs K. Muralidhar Reddy	28 Nov 2025	Judgement	—
OS/562/2024	Bhaskar Agrochemicals Limited Rep by Alapati Nageswara Rao vs M/s. Sri Nandi Basava Traders Rep by Siddanna Gouda and Vishwanath and 2 others	27 Nov 2025	Decree	—
STC.NI/300/2022	T.Yadagiri vs A.Karthik	26 Nov 2025	Judgement	—
OS/1400/2025	Reddy Saibabu vs The Tahasildar, Mandal Revenue Officer,	25 Nov 2025	Decree	—
OS/100/2019	Jagdish Prasad Asawa vs Surender Singh	24 Nov 2025	Decree	—
OS/563/2024	Bhaskar Agrochemicals Limited Rep by Alapati Nageswara Rao vs M/s. Sariram Crop Solutions Rep by Matheswarran Rajamani and another	24 Nov 2025	Decree	—
OS/1511/2025	Thampula Yadaiah vs The Tahasildar, Serilingampally Mandal	24 Nov 2025	Decree	—
CC/1095/2015	The state through PS Madhapur vs Pinnapu Rajesh Reddy	24 Nov 2025	Judgement	—
CC/5393/2019	PS MADHAPUR vs REKULA SHIVA	24 Nov 2025	Judgement	—
OS/560/2024	Bhaskar Agrochemicals Limited Rep by Alapati Nageswara Rao vs M/s. Sree Sai Agro Clinic Rep by Ananthakumaran Balakrishnan and another	20 Nov 2025	Decree	—
CC/761/2017	PS Madhapur vs Vsk v r chowdary	19 Nov 2025	Judgement	—
CC/4556/2018	PS Gachibowli vs Khaja Salemuddin	19 Nov 2025	Judgement	—
CC/2859/2019	PS MADHAPUR vs KAILASH AMARANATH	17 Nov 2025	Judgement	—
OS/565/2024	Bhaskar Agrochemicals Limited Rep by Alapati Nageswara Rao vs M/s. Sri Gayathri Fertilizers Rep by Janakiramulu Palagani and another	14 Nov 2025	Decree	—
CC/2115/2025	State of Telangana ThroughPSMADHAPUR vs K. Srinivas Srinivas	14 Nov 2025	Judgement	—
OS/144/2018	N. Srinivasa rao vs Sri Gugoloth Rajanna	13 Nov 2025	Decree	—
CC/808/2025	State of Telangana Through MADHAPUR PS vs Malapati Ravi Teja Teja	13 Nov 2025	Judgement	—
CC/241/2021	K Venkat Reddy vs Manepally Jayamma	11 Nov 2025	Judgement	—
CC/297/2015	ps madhapur vs Bantu Jagadish Talla @ Talla Ravi	10 Nov 2025	Judgement	—
CC/1627/2016	PS Madhapur vs Kandula Chandrasekar	10 Nov 2025	Judgement	—
CC/2138/2018	PS Gachibowli vs Y Sadanandam	06 Nov 2025	Judgement	—
CC/648/2015	VsKN Harish	04 Nov 2025	Judgement	—
CC/2857/2019	PS MADHAPUR vs V CHITTI BABU	03 Nov 2025	Judgement	—
CC/4332/2019	PS MADHAPUR vs C MAHESH	03 Nov 2025	Judgement	—
CC/4924/2021	JOGU SUBHASH vs P NAGA RAMESH	03 Nov 2025	Judgement	—
CC/500025/2018	Ravi Shanker Reddy Alla vs P Vikram	31 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
OS/690/2025	Vijaybalan Shashi Kumar vs The Mandal Revenue Officer	30 Oct 2025	Decree	—
CC/3291/2018	PS Gachibowli vs M Bala Swamy	24 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
CC/502503/2018	Aman Verma vs Madasu Sjanthi Raju @ Sharu	16 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
CC/502504/2018	Vishnu chandra Bhushan vs Madasu Shanthi Raju @ Sharu	16 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
CC/502505/2018	Dogga Ravi Teja vs Madhu Shanthi raju @ Sharu	16 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
CC/502660/2018	Kumar Sheshta vs Madasu Shanthi Raju @ Sharu	16 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
CC/5154/2018	PS Gachibowli, Hyd vs Ganesh Goud	15 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
OS/1037/2025	Musipatla Pradeep Aniruddh vs The Tahasildar	13 Oct 2025	Decree	—
CC/502015/2018	Dharavath swamy vs M.Venkatesh	13 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
CC/2272/2018	PS GACHIBOWLI vs Mohd Zakeer Hussain	10 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
OS/211/2024	Bhaskar Agrochemicals Limited Gowra Fountainhead rep by A. Nageswara Rao vs M/s. Sri Srinivasa Seeds and Pesticides Rep by Rajesh Kumar and another	09 Oct 2025	Decree	—
OS/1135/2024	Bhaskar Agrochemicals Limited Rep by its Authorized representative A. Nageswara Rao vs M/s. Sri Siddarameshwara Agro Traders Rep by its Proprietor U. Kallapura Veerabhadrappa and another	09 Oct 2025	Decree	—
CC/900/2020	PS GACHIBOWLI vs K.VENKATESHWARLU	09 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
OS/47/2025	K.Satyanarayana vs Tahasildar and another	08 Oct 2025	Decree	—
OS/212/2023	Potluri Vijaya Lakshmi and 3 others vs YBK Rao and 5 others	08 Oct 2025	Decree	—
OS/988/2022	Lakshmi Finance Pvt. Ltd Rep by its Authorized Person Tula Prabhakara Rao vs Sankarpalli Sreekanth Reddy	08 Oct 2025	Decree	—
OS/1134/2024	Bhaskar Agrochemicals Limited Rep by its Authorized representative A. Nageswara Rao vs M/s. Vanya Sree Traders Rep by its Proprietor Jaya Prakash Sanem and another	08 Oct 2025	Decree	—
CC/1875/2020	PS GACHIBOWLI vs MAHAVEER AGARVAL	08 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
OS/1130/2024	Bhaskar Agrochemicals Limited Rep by its Authorized representative A. Nageswara Rao vs M/s. Sri Venkata Sai Fertilizers and Pesticides Rep by its Proprietor J. Gopi Krishna and another	07 Oct 2025	Decree	—
CC/4661/2019	PS GACHIBOWLI vs A.MALLESH	07 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
OS/576/2025	Kanapuram Vani vs The Tahasildar, Serilingampally	06 Oct 2025	Decree	—
OS/1129/2024	Bhaskar Agrochemicals Limited Rep by its Authorized representative A. Nageswara Rao vs M/s. Rythu Enterprises Rep by its proprietor P. Sudhakar and another	06 Oct 2025	Decree	—
OS/1136/2024	Bhaskar Agrochemicals Limited Rep by its Authorized representative A. Nageswara Rao vs M/s. Vedhasree Traders Rep by its Proprietor B. Sunitha and another	06 Oct 2025	Decree	—
CC/2179/2019	PS MADHAPUR vs K VENKAT NAGENDRA	06 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
CC/623/2019	PS Gachibowli vs A Yadagiri	26 Sep 2025	Judgement	—
CC/1444/2019	ps madhapur vs Vsk shareef	25 Sep 2025	Judgement	—
OS/649/2024	Varadha Hari Babu vs Potuganti Laxmi	24 Sep 2025	Decree	—
OS/429/2024	M/s. Lakshmi Finance Rep by GPA Holder Tula Prabhakar Rao vs Turekepalli Bharath Sai Chandra and another	23 Sep 2025	Decree	—
STC.NI/453/2023	Chinthakuntla Venkata Konda Reddy vs Mrs. Bommana Rajeswari	23 Sep 2025	Judgement	—
STC.NI/454/2023	Chinthakuntla Venkata Madhav vs Bommana Rama Krishna Reddy	23 Sep 2025	Judgement	—
STC.NI/455/2023	Chinthakuntla Sarada Devi vs Mrs. Bommana Rajeswari	23 Sep 2025	Judgement	—
STC.NI/456/2023	Chinthakuntla Sarada Devi vs Bommana Rama Krishna Reddy	23 Sep 2025	Judgement	—
OS/559/2020	Datla Venkata Subba Lakshmi vs S. Venkatadhry	18 Sep 2025	Decree	—
OS/650/2019	Kurmalahgari Narsinga Rao vs Ranga Rao	18 Sep 2025	Decree	—
CC/978/2016	Mallikarjun vs D.Naresh	18 Sep 2025	Judgement	—
CC/486/2020	ps GACHIBOWLI vs A.VENKATA RAVI TEJA	17 Sep 2025	Judgement	—
CC/315/2024	State of Telangana Through PS GACHIBOWLI vs Nikhil Reddy parupalli	15 Sep 2025	Judgement	—
CC/643/2017	VsMohammed Abdul Faheem	15 Sep 2025	Judgement	—
CC/501710/2018	Laxmi sen vs Pusala Ramesh	15 Sep 2025	Judgement	—
CC/891/2017	State of Telangana through PS Madhapur vs Beri Narisimha	12 Sep 2025	Judgement	—
OS/337/2024	STATE BANK OF INDIA Rep by P.V.L. Pulla Rao vs MOM N BABE DESIGNER ART STUDIO(OPC) PVT LTD Rep by Lakshmi Preethi Ketha	11 Sep 2025	Decree	—
OS/339/2024	STATE BANK OF INDIA Rep by P.V.L. Pulla Rao vs JASHWITHA ENTERPRISES Rep by Peddabala Praveen Kumar Goud	11 Sep 2025	Decree	—
OS/478/2024	Chakali Jangamma and another vs The Tahsildar, Serilingampally Mandal and 2 others	10 Sep 2025	Decree	—

Showing 100 of 466 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Feb 2026		13
Jan 2026		21
Dec 2025		1
Nov 2025		46
Oct 2025		27
Sep 2025		24
Aug 2025		30
Jul 2025		22
Jun 2025		23
May 2025		16
Apr 2025		34
Mar 2025		24

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has MS. Racharla Shalini handled?

MS. Racharla Shalini has handled 541 court orders since 2023 at Kukatpally, ADJ-cum-Family Court. The average disposal rate is 19 orders per month.

What types of cases does MS. Racharla Shalini hear?

Based on available records, MS. Racharla Shalini primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Domestic Violence Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Kukatpally, ADJ-cum-Family Court.

Where is MS. Racharla Shalini currently posted?

MS. Racharla Shalini is posted as II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-X Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, RangaReddy District at Kukatpally at Kukatpally, ADJ-cum-Family Court, Rangareddy, Telangana.

Are judgments by MS. Racharla Shalini available online?

Yes. 6 judgments by MS. Racharla Shalini are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does MS. Racharla Shalini dispose cases?

MS. Racharla Shalini disposes approximately 19 cases per month, based on 541 orders handled over their tenure at Kukatpally, ADJ-cum-Family Court.

Since when is MS. Racharla Shalini serving?

MS. Racharla Shalini has been serving at Kukatpally, ADJ-cum-Family Court since 2023.

Case Types

CC 56%

OS 33%

DVC 5%

STC 5%

MC 1%

EP 1%

Posting History

Sep 2023 — Feb 2026

II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-X Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, RangaReddy District at Kukatpally · 541 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 1

Other Judges at this Court

Sri D. Ram Prasada Rao

VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, RangaRe...

1 orders

J Syam Kumar

Senior Civil Judge-cum-V Additional Chief Judicial...

36 orders

Mr. Shridhar Mandhani

II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-X Addl. Judic...

0 orders

Ms. Kavya Jada

I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-IX Addl. Judic...

0 orders

← View all judges at Kukatpally, ADJ-cum-Family Court