Currently Serving

Ms. S.Vaishnavi

I Addl Junior Civil Judge, Vikarabad

Vikarabad, PDJ Court Complex · Vikarabad · Telangana

Ms. S.Vaishnavi, I Addl Junior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, is posted at Vikarabad, PDJ Court Complex, Vikarabad, Telangana, India. 181 court orders on record since 2025. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, JCC cases.

181

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

OS/237/2021

Begari Amrutha vs Kavali Prabhu

04 May 2026

O.S. No. 237 of 2021

Date: 04.05.2026

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

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLAS AT VIKARABAD,

VIKARABAD DISTRICT

Present: Smt. Vaishnavi Sabhapati I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vikarabad, Vikarabad District.

Dated this the 04 th day of May, 2026

O.S. No.237 of 2021

Between: 1.Smt.Begari Amrutha W/o Anjaiah, Aged about:42 years, Occ: house hold, R/o H.No.6-90/1, Nandigama village, Patancheru Mandal, Sanga Reddy District.

2.Smt.Mala Kamsamma W/o Pochaiah, Aged about 30 years, Occ: household, R/o H.no.1-49 Gajulagudem Village, Shankarapally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

.....Plaintiffs

AND

1. Kavali Prabhu S/o Late Kistaiah, (Died per LR’s) Aged about 35 years, Occ; Agriculture, R/o. H.No.2-12, Yavapur Village, Nawabpet Mandal, Vikarabad District.

2. N.Ravindar Reddy S/O Hanmanth Reddy, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.4-1-2/4, Ramkoti, Hyderabad.

3. Pomelo Inpra Projects (Hyderabad) Private Ltd Rep. By its Director Mr. Devapatla Venkata Nagesh, S/o. Raghava Reddy, Aged about 58 years, Occ:business, R/o H.No.1/60/8/C2, Rolling Hills, Gated Community, Gachibowli, Hyderabad.

1 of 9

O.S. No. 237 of 2021

Date: 04.05.2026

4. K. Shobha W/o. Late Prabhu, Aged about 38 years, Occ: Household,

5. K. Rakesh S/o. Late Prabhu, Aged about 12 years, Occ: Student,

6. K. Shiva Teja D/o. Late Prabhu, Aged about 10 years, Occ: Student,

D5 & D6 are minors represented by their natural mother next friend/guardian Smt. K. Shobha W/o. Late Prabhu R/o. H.No.2-12, Yavapur village, Nawabpet Mandal, Vikarabad District.

.….Defendants 1 to 6

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. D. Anandam, Advocate for the plaintiffs and the Defendant No.1 died, Defendants No.2 to 6 were set exparte; upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments of Plaintiff side and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGEMENT

1. This is a suit filed by the Plaintiffs seeking partition and separate possession, praying the Court to pass a preliminary decree directing the division of the suit schedule property into three equal shares and allotment of one such share to the Plaintiffs, Defendant No.1 and seeking the relief of declaration of Sale Deed vide Document No.4066 of 2014 dated 15.10.2014 executed by the Defendant No.2 in favour of the Defendant

No.3 in respect of Suit Scheduled Property as null and void and not binding on the Plaintiffs.

2. The suit schedule lands consist of Agriculture lands in Sy.No.15/A/4, admeasuring Ac.1-19 guntas, situated at Yavapur Village, Nawabpet

Mandal, Vikarabad District, bounded by:

2 of 9

O.S. No. 237 of 2021

Date: 04.05.2026

East: Land of Kavali Vittalaiah

West: Land of Kavali Yellaiah

North: Land of Kothagadi Buchaiah

South Land of Teacher Pochaiah

3. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff:

a) It is the case of the plaintiffs that the Plaintiffs and Defendant no.1 are siblings and they are legal heirs of late Kavali Kistaiah S/o

Pentaiah and they are all joint owners and possessors of agriculture land bearing Sy.No.15/A/4, admeasuring Ac.1-19 guntas, situated at

Yavapur Village, Nawabpet Mandal of Vikarabad District.

b) The plaintiffs submits that originally one Kavali Pentaiah S/o

Pentaiah was original owner and possessor of the above suit lands and he is ancestral one and the same is recoded in the name of

Kavali Kistaiah being an elder of family member, that he had been possession and enjoyment of the suit property on behalf of all family members till he demised on 27-05-2015.

c) The plaintiffs submits that after demise of late Kavali Kistaiah the

Plaintiffs requested for partition of the suit property to the

Defendant No.1 and he postponed the same on one pretext to another and thereafter the Plaintiffs came to know that the

Defendant no.1 trying to sell the suit property in view of that 3 of 9

O.S. No. 237 of 2021

Date: 04.05.2026

Plaintiffs also searched for prospective purchasers and the same was asked to the Defendant no.1 on 30-12-2019 then the Defendant no.1 informed that you are the female members of the family you are not entitled any sort of share in the suit property the Defendant no.1 is only sole member to entitle to enjoy the said property and secretly executed the same in favor of third parties so in view of that he made agreement of sale during the life of their father vide registered

AGP no.4342 of 2007 dated.22-03-2007 in favor of Defendant no.2.

d) The plaintiffs submits that after searched in the SRO of Vikarabad and came to knowledge of that the said Defendant no.2 being an

AGOA Holder he further sold away in favor of the defendant no.3 the same was registered vide document no.4066 of 2014 dated 15- 10-2014 at Serilingampally SRO. Further, the plaintiffs submit that the above said document executed by the Defendant No.l is null and void and the said documents are not binding on plaintiffs. In these circumstances the plaintiffs have filed the present suit seeking

Declaration and Partition and Separate Possession the Suit Property.

Hence, the suit.

4. Despite due service of summons, the defendants failed to appear before this court and were set exparte.

4 of 9

O.S. No. 237 of 2021

Date: 04.05.2026

5. To prove the claim of the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiff got herself examined as

PW-1 and Exhibits A1 to A15 were marked through PW-1.

6. Heard the arguments advanced by the Plaintiffs counsel and perused the material available on record.

7. Now the point for consideration:

Upon consideration the material on record, the points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether the Plaintiffs prove that the suit scheduled properties are ancestral properties of plaintiffs and defendants?

2. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for declaration and partition of suit scheduled properties as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

8. In order to prove their case, the plaintiff has got herself examined as PW-1 and filed her chief-examination affidavit, wherein she deposed in support of all contents of the plaint and reiterated the same as averments made in the plaint. Further filed documents marked as Exhibits A1 to A15. Ex.A1 is the CC Pahani for the year 1954-1955. Ex.A2 is the CC Pahani for the year 1965-1966. Ex.A3 is the CC Pahani for the year 1973-1974. Ex.A4 is the CC Pahani for the year 1980-1981. Ex.A5 is the CC Pahani for the year 1990-1991. Ex.A6 is the CC Pahani for the year 2000-2001. Ex.A7 is 5 of 9

O.S. No. 237 of 2021

Date: 04.05.2026

the CC Pahani for the year 2004-2005. Ex.A8 is the CC Pahani for the year 2007-2008. Ex.A9 is the CC Pahani for the year 2010-2011. Ex.A10 is the CC Pahani for the year 2014-2015. Ex.A11 is the CC Fasli Pahani

dated 16.04.2018. Ex.A12 is the original death certificate of Late Kavali

Kistaiah dated 03.08.2015. Ex.A13 is the Original Family Member

Certificate dated 07.09.2015 issued by the MRO, Nawabpet. Ex.A14 is the certified copy of sale-cum-GPA vides Document No.4342/2007 dated 22.03.2007. Ex.A15 is the certified copy of sale deed vides document no.4066 of 2014 dated 15.10.2014.

9. Upon perusal of the documents, Ex.A1 & Ex.A2 shows that Sy.No.15, admeasuring Ac.15.00 guntas in the name of Yellaiah s/o Pentaiah as pattedar. Ex.A3 shows that Sy.No.15, admeasuring Ac.5.35 guntas in the name of Yellaiah s/o Pentaiah as pattedar. Ex.A4 & A5 shows that

Sy.No.15/A, admeasuring Ac.5.35 guntas in the name of Yellaiah s/o

Pentaiah as pattedar. Ex.A6 to A10 shows that Sy.No.15/A/4 the suit schedule property, admeasuring Ac.1.19 guntas in the name of Kavali

Vithalaiah s/o Pentaiah as pattedar. Ex.A11 pertains to Sy.No.15/A/3, admeasuring Ac.1.19 guntas in the name of Kavali Kistaiah s/o Pentaiah as pattedar. Ex.A13 shows that Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 belong to same family.Ex.A14 shows that a sale-cum-GPA vides Document No.4342/2007

dated 22.03.2007 was executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant

6 of 9

O.S. No. 237 of 2021

Date: 04.05.2026

No.2 with regard of agricultural land under Sy.No 15/A ad measuring Ac.

1-19 guntas Yavapur Village, Nawabpet Mandal, Vikarabad District.

Ex.A15 shows that a sale deed vides document no.4066 of 2014 dated 15.10.2014 was executed by Defendant No.2 in favour of Defendant No.3 with regard of agricultural land among others also under Sy.No 15/A ad measuring Ac. 1-19 guntas Yavapur Village, Nawabpet Mandal,

Vikarabad District.

10.In regard to the first two points for consideration regarding partition, the plaintiffs have failed to establish that the suit schedule property is ancestral in nature or acquired from the funds of joint family properties of Plaintiffs and Defendant no.1. The documentary evidence produced by the plaintiffs, consisting solely of revenue records, demonstrates that the suit schedule land bearing Sy. No. 15/A/4, admeasuring Ac. 1-19 guntas, was in the name of one Kavali Kistaiah s/o Pentaiah. The suit scheduled property was never in the name of Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1’s father as claimed by the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs have failed to establish their title over the suit scheduled properties as joint family property. In this view, the point no.1 and point no.2 are answered a negative.

11. In regard to the third point for consideration, as the plaintiff failed to prove the title or establish their that the suit scheduled property is joint family property, the plaintiffs are not entitled to seek the relief of 7 of 9

O.S. No. 237 of 2021

Date: 04.05.2026

declaration as the said sale deeds as null and void. Also, It is a settled principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court of India in ‘Anathula

Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy’ that a person who is not a party to a sale deed cannot seek cancellation of such document. The proper remedy is to seek declaration of title and consequential relief that the said document is not binding on his rights. In the present case, the plaintiffs, not being executants of the impugned sale deeds, have failed to seek appropriate declaration of title. Hence, the relief sought is not maintainable.

12.In the result, the suit is dismissed with no costs and any miscellaneous applications pending shall stand closed.

Typed to my dictation on computer by Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this 04 th day of May, 2026.

I ADD. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIKARABAD DISTRICT

- Appendix of Evidence-

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiffs: For Defendants:

PW1: Begari Amrutha - Nil - 8 of 9

O.S. No. 237 of 2021

Date: 04.05.2026

Exhibits marked

For Plaintiffs:

Ex.A1 is the CC Pahani for the year 1954-1955.

Ex.A2 is the CC Pahani for the year 1965-1966.

Ex.A3 is the CC Pahani for the year 1973-1974.

Ex.A4 is the CC Pahani for the year 1980-1981.

Ex.A5 is the CC Pahani for the year 1990-1991.

Ex.A6 is the CC Pahani for the year 2000-2001.

Ex.A7 is the CC Pahani for the year 2004-2005.

Ex.A8 is the CC Pahani for the year 2007-2008.

Ex.A9 is the CC Pahani for the year 2010-2011.

Ex.A10 is the CC Pahani for the year 2014-2015.

Ex.A12 is the Original death certificate of LateKavali Kistaiah dated 03.08.2015.

Ex.A13 is the Original Family Member Certificate dated 07.09.2015 issued by the MRO, Nawabpet.

Ex.A14 is the Certified copy of sale-cum-GPA vide Document No.4342/2007

dated 22.03.2007.

Ex.P15 is the Certified copy of sale deed vide document no.4066 of 2014

dated 15.10.20141

For Defendants:

--NIL--

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIKARABAD DISTRICT

9 of 9

JCC/37/2023 Acquitted

STATE OF TELANGANA vs Naddi Hareesh S/o Late Venkataiah

08 May 2026

1 of 8 J.C.C 37 of 2023

Date: 08.05.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD – CUM – I

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

VIKARABAD

Present: Smt. Vaishnavi Sabhapati Chairman-cum-I Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, at Vikarabad.

Board Member: Sri G. Vasu

Friday, this the 08th day of May, 2026

J.C.C 37 of 2023

Between: The State of Telangana,

Through Sub Inspector of Police,

P.S. Kulkacharla.

…....Complainant

A N D

CCL: Naddi Hareesh S/o. Late Venkataiah,

Aged about 17 years, Occ:JCB Operator,

R/o.H.No.4-83/1, Chowdapur Village,

Kulkacharla Mandal, …….CCL

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutorfor the State and of Sri.K.Venkataiah, Advocate for the CCL, upon perusing the material documents on record, on hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following.

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

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Kulkacharla has filed

Charge Sheet in Crime No.102 of 2018 against the above 2 of 8 J.C.C 37 of 2023

Date: 08.05.2026

named CCL for the offence under Sections 109 of IPC &

Section 17 of POCSO Act-2012 and Section 3 (2) (va) of

SC/Sts Amendment Act, 2015

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows a. On 23.09.2018 at 16:00 hours, the defacto complainant/LW-01/Chenchu Anjamma, lodged a complaint with PS Kulkacharla stating that her husband had died about 6 back and they are blessed with a daughter and a son and she is attending the labor work for her livelihood. Her daughter Chenchu Narsamma used to work and help complainant in the daily affairs.

On 22-9-2018 in the morning hours, complainant went to Ghanapur village to collect labor amount and returned to the house at about 12:00 hours and found that her daughter is missing. Later she came to know that one person Kethavath Lokya had forcibly taken away her daughter from the house. Hence, she filed the present complainant requested to take necessary action.

b. Basing on the report, LW-20/Sri.E.Shankaraiah, HC 517 of PS Kulkacharla registered a case in Crime

No.102/2018 under Sections 366 of IPC. During the 3 of 8 J.C.C 37 of 2023

Date: 08.05.2026

course of investigation, LW-20 examined and recorded the statements of LW-01/Chenchu Anjamma and LW- 02/ Chenchu Laxmamma and visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of LW-10/Boini Bheemaiah &

LW-11/Katike Narsoji. Further, LW-20/E.Shankaraiah collected the bonafide certificate from of the victim girl and the age of victim girl is 16 years by virtue of the victim is minor.

c. Later, LW-21/M.Chandrakanth took up the case file and seized the cloths of victim girl in the presence of LW- 10/Boini Bheemaiah & LW-11/Katike Narsoji and addressed a letter to the LW-19, accordingly,

LW-19/B.Prameela recorded the statement of victim girl at Bharosa Centre. LW-14/Dr.Rabia Rafath got examined the victim physically and collected vaginal swabs for chemical analysis and report. LW-15/Dr.S.Gautami furnished the FSL vide No.SER/1473/2018 dated 31.12.2018. Basing on the victim statement, LW-21 altered the section 376 (2) (I) (n), 417, 366 (A) r/w 109 of

IPC and Section 5 (l) r/w 6, 17 of POCSO Act, 2012 from 366 of IPC.

4 of 8 J.C.C 37 of 2023

Date: 08.05.2026

d. On receipt of the telephonic information LW-22 took up the case file from LW-21 and found to be on track.

During the investigation, LW-22 and LW-21 proceeded to scene of offence where examined and recorded the statementsofLW-1/ChenchuAnjamma,

LW-2/Laxmamma, LW-4/Chenchu Naveen, LW-5/

Chenchu Yellaiah, LW-6/ Yerukali Chennaiah, LW-7/

Yerukali Bheemamma, LW-08/Jatangi Suvunaiah at scene of offence. LW-16/Dr.Vinod Reddy examined the accused no.1 and conducted potency test. LW-22 has apprehended the Accused no.1 and 2 for judicial custody. The CCL was apprehended on 11.07.2019 by

LW-22 and effected his apprehension against the CCL boy. LW-18/Smt. T.Swapna recorded the 164 statement of victim girl. After completion of investigation, LW-22 filed charge sheet against the accused and CCL for the offences under Section 109 of IPC & Section 17 of

POCSO Act-2012 and Section 3 (2) (va) of SC/STs

Amendment Act, 2015.

3. On perusal of charge sheet and other material on record, this court took cognizance of the offences under 109 of IPC & Section 17 of POCSO Act-2012 and Section 3 (2) (va) of 5 of 8 J.C.C 37 of 2023

Date: 08.05.2026

SC/STs Amendment Act, 2015. On appearance of CCL, copies of documents under Section 207 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure are furnished to him, on which the prosecution is relying and thereafter the CCL was examined under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. by explaining the accusation and particulars of offence alleged

Section 109 of IPC & Section 17 of POCSO Act-2012 and

Section 3 (2) (va) of SC/STs Amendment Act, 2015, charges are framed under Section 109 of IPC & Section 17 of

POCSO Act-2012 and Section 3 (2) (va) of SC/STs

Amendment Act, 2015 against the CCL, read over and explained to him in his vernacular language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution,

PW-01 to PW-03 were examined. The learned Asst. Public

Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW-2, LW-5 to LW-

23. After closure of the prosecution evidence, in view of the absence of any incriminating material on record against the

CCL, the examination of the CCL under Section 313 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure was dispensed with. The CCL did not choose to adduce any defence evidence. Hence, the defence evidence was closed.

6 of 8 J.C.C 37 of 2023

Date: 08.05.2026

5. Heard the arguments of the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused.

6. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of CCL for the

offences punishable U/Sec. 109 of IPC & Section 17 of POCSO

Act-2012 and Section 3 (2) (va) of SC/STs Amendment Act, 2015

beyond all reasonable doubt?

7. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined

P.W-1 to PW-3 as prosecution witnesses. P.W-1/Chenchu

Anjamma, PW-2/Chenchu Naveen, PW-3/ Narsamma, in their chief-examination, deposed that they do not know anything about the case and stated that the police had neither examined them nor recorded their statements,

Exhibit P1 marked through PW1. Thus, P.W-1 to P.W-3 did not support the case of the prosecution and resiled from their earlier statements. Therefore, at the request of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, they were permitted to be cross-examined.

8. In the view of above evidence, the prosecution has not been able to prove that the accused has committed the offence under Section 109 of IPC & Section 17 of POCSO Act-2012 and Section 3 (2) (va) of SC/STs Amendment Act. Hence, 7 of 8 J.C.C 37 of 2023

Date: 08.05.2026

the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of CCL under Section 109 of IPC & Section 17 of POCSO Act-2012 and Section 3 (2) (va) of SC/STs Amendment Act beyond all reasonable doubt and CCL is entitled for benefit of doubt which leads to acquittal. Accordingly, this point is answered.

9. In the result, the CCL is found not guilty for the offence under Section 109 of IPC & Section 17 of POCSO Act-2012 and Section 3 (2) (va) of SC/STs Amendment Act and accordingly the CCL is acquitted for the said offence under

Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of CCL if any shall remain in force for a period of six months so as to bind him to appear before appellate court if any appeal is preferred against the judgment as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. There is no case property deposited before this Court in this case.

Therefore, no specific order is passed in that regard.

Further Direction:

10.By virtue of Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and

Protection of Children) Act, 2015, CCL shall not suffer any disqualification attached to the finding for the offence. Further, in view of Section 74 (2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and

Protection of Children) Act, 2015, Police shall not disclose any 8 of 8 J.C.C 37 of 2023

Date: 08.05.2026

record of the CCL for the purpose of character certificate or otherwise.

Typed on my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the day of 08 th day of May, 2026.

Chairman-Cum-Addl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Vikarabad, Vikarabad District

Board Members: 1.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1: Chenchu Anjamma -Nil- PW2: Chenchu Naveen PW3:Chencu Narsamma

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1 is the certified copy of 161 statement of PW1. -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

Chairman-Cum-Addl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Vikarabad, Vikarabad District

Board Member: Signatures 1.

CC/429/2022 Acquitted

STATE OF TELANGANA Through Excise PS Marpally vs G. Sudhakar Goud

06 May 2026

1 of 7

CC No. 429 of 2022

Date: 06.05.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

– CUM – I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS AT VIKARABAD

Present: Smt. Vaishnavi Sabhapati I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Vikarabad.

Friday, this the 6th day of May, 2026

Calendar Case No.429 of 2022

Between: The State of Telangana,

Through Sub Inspector of Police,

P.S. Excise Marpally.

…....Complainant

A N D

G.Sudhakar Goud S/o. G.Rachaiah,

Aged 50 years, R/o. H.No.4-242/1, Turmamidi Village,

Bantwaram Mandal, Vikarabad District.

…….Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutorfor the State and of Sri.P.Sampurna Anand,Advocate for the Accused, upon perusing the material documents on record, on hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following.

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

1. The Prohibition & Excise Sub Inspector of Police, PS Excise

Marpally has filed Charge Sheet in Crime No.04 of 2022 for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of Telangana

Excise Act, 1968.

2 of 7

CC No. 429 of 2022

Date: 06.05.2026

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case as follows:

a. On 29.02.2024, the STF, Hyderabad team received on reliable information regarding illegal sale of Toddy at

Mominpet village, Mominpet Mandal, Vikarabad District.

The LW-03/N.Murali, LW-4/K.Shankar and staff proceeded to the place and found possession of 02 plastic tubs containing 2000 liters of toddy at corner side of room built with blue color flakes shed and found 10 kgs of suspected power in the same room, but nobody was found at toddy shop. On enquiry the accused name is G.Sudhakar and he belongs to Turmamidi Village.

LW-4 tested the toddy with prescribed chemicals and found the Toddy free from chloral hydrate and informed to the local people that the illegal possession and sale of

Toddy without any valid license is an offence under

Section 34(a) of Telangana Excise Act, 1968.

b. After the LW-03/N.Murali drawn two samples from each containing 400 ml of toddy and seized the samples and remaining toddy destroyed on the spot and remaining property under cover of panchanama in the presence of

LW-01/D.Sudhakar and LW-02/V.Ramesh. Basing on the Panchanama, LW-3/N.Murali registered a Case Vide 3 of 7

CC No. 429 of 2022

Date: 06.05.2026

COR.No.04/2021, Dated 28.01.2021 under Section 34(a) of A.S.Excise. Act, 1968. During the Course of investigation LW-03 send samples to the Government

Chemical Examiner, Regional Prohibition & Excise Lab

Hyderabad for analysis. The Government Chemical

Examiner, Regional Prohibition & Excise Lab Hyderabad analyzed the sample and reported vide his

C.E.No.0682/2022 dated 31.01.2022 and opined that the sample is fermented toddy free from Chloral Hydrate and Diazepam. After completion of investigation, LW-4 has filed the charge sheet against the accused Section 34(a) of Telangana Excise Act, 1968.

3. On perusal of charge sheet and other material on record, this court took cognizance of the offences under Section 34(a) of Telangana Excise Act, 1968. On appearance of

Accused person, copies of documents under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C are furnished to him, on which the prosecution is relying and thereafter the accused was examined under

Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. by explaining the accusation and particulars of offence alleged Section 34(a) of Telangana

Excise Act, 1968, charges are framed under Section 34(a) of

Telangana Excise Act, 1968 against the Accused, read over 4 of 7

CC No. 429 of 2022

Date: 06.05.2026

and explained to him in their vernacular language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution,

PW-01 & PW-02 were examined and Exhibits P1 & P2 were marked through them. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 of

Cr.P.C., where incriminating material found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, were read over and explained to him to which he denied and not proposed any defence on his behalf. Hence, the defence evidence is closed.

5. Heard the arguments of the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused.

6. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of accused for

the offences punishable U/Sec. 34(a) of Telangana, Excise Act,

1968, beyond all reasonable doubt?

7. On perusal of the record, the prosecution has listed LW-1 to

LW-04 as list of witnesses. The learned APP has given up the evidence of LW-02 & LW-04 and only PW-01 & PW-02 were produced before the court. PW-01, who is shown as panch witness for the panchanama has turned hostile and did not 5 of 7

CC No. 429 of 2022

Date: 06.05.2026

support the case of the prosecution. PW1 stated in his chief examination that he do not know anything about the case and no panchanama was conducted in his presence and he signed on the white papers at the instance of police and he identified his signature. Though PW-01 was cross examined after he is declared as hostile by the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor, nothing could be elucidated from him.

8. PW-2 who was the Prohibition and Excise SI, deposed that on receiving credible information he and LW4 went to the spot and conducted panchanama. Also, deposed that they did not find the accused at the spot. They have only enquired someone through whom they got to know that the offence spot belongs to the accused. However, the independent panch witness/PW1 has failed to support the case of prosecution.

9. There is no corroboration for the evidence of PW2. PW2 is involved in conducting investigation of the case, hence his testimony requisite corroboration. Consequently, there is no material on record to prove the allegations against the accused.

In the absence of any evidence, the prosecution has failed to establish the occurrence of the alleged offences.

6 of 7

CC No. 429 of 2022

Date: 06.05.2026

9. In the view of above evidence, the prosecution has not been able to prove that the accused has committed the offence under

Section 34(a) of Telangana Excise Act, 1968. Hence, the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of Accused under offence under Section 34(a) of Telangana Excise Act, 1968 beyond all reasonable doubt and accused is entitled for benefit of doubt which leads to acquittal. Accordingly, this point is answered accordingly.

10. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 34(a) of Telangana Excise Act, 1968and accordingly the accused is acquitted for the said offence under

Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused if any shall remain in force for a period of six months so as to bind them to appear before appellate court if any appeal is preferred against the judgment as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. There is no case property deposited before this Court in this case. The case property deposited vide CPR No. 40/2022 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal period.

Typed on my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the day of 06 th day of May, 2026.

I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, VIKARABAD DISTRICT

7 of 7

CC No. 429 of 2022

Date: 06.05.2026

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1: G.Sudhkar -None- PW2: N.Murali

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1 is the signature on the Panchanama Ex.P2 is the Panchanama.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS,VIKARABAD DISTRICT

JCC/36/2023 Acquitted

STATE OF TELANGANA vs Pogula Praveen S/o Eerappa

08 May 2026

1 of 7 J.C.C 36 of 2023

Date: 08.05.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD – CUM – I

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

VIKARABAD

Present: Smt. Vaishnavi Sabhapati Chairman-cum-I Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, at Vikarabad.

Board Member: Sri G. Vasu

Friday, this the 08th day of May, 2026

J.C.C 36 of 2023

Between: The State of Telangana,

Through Sub Inspector of Police,

P.S. Tandur.

…....Complainant

A N D

CCL: Pogula Praveen S/o. Earappa

Aged about 17 years, Occ: Labour Work,

R/o.Bopunaram Village, Bantwaram

Vikarabad District.

…….CCL

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutorfor the State and of Sri.E.Ramachander,Advocate for the CCL, upon perusing the material documents on record, on hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following.

2 of 7 J.C.C 36 of 2023

Date: 08.05.2026

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

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Tandur has filed Charge

Sheet in Crime No.72 of 2016 against the above named CCL for the offence under Sections 363, 366 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows a. On 09.04.2016 at 18:00 hours, the defacto complainant/LW-01/Pogula Yesaiah, lodged a complaint with PS Tandur stating that on 02.04.2016 at 7:00 hours, LW1’s daugther/Mounika went to Tandur to write

SSC Examination, but she did not return to home. They searched in the surrounding areas and enquired with their friends, but she did not trace. Hence, he filed the present complainant requested to take necessary action.

b. Basing on the report, LW-08/Sri.M. Venkata Ramaiah,

Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime

No.72/2016 under Missing and entrusted the investigation to LW-09/Sri.P.Nagarjuna, During the course of investigation, LW-08 examined and recorded the statement of LW-01/Pogula Yesaiah, LW-02/ Pogula

Hamsamma,LW-03/PogulaAnanthaiahand

LW-04/Tavva Abraham and visited the scene of crime 3 of 7 J.C.C 36 of 2023

Date: 08.05.2026

and enquired about the missing girl. Further, LW-09 send notices to all concerned with descriptive particulars of missing gilr. After tracing out the missing girl. On 12.04.2016, LW-1 & LW-2 and the victim girl came to LW-09, LW-09 examined and recorded the statement of LW-05/victim girl and also recorded the statement by LW-06/K.Vasantha Laxmi. The victim is a minor girl and her age 15 years and she was under the guardianship of her parents and CCL luring her on the pretext of love of marriage CCL amounts to an act punishable under section 363, 366 of IPC. LW-09 sent a requisition to the Hon’ble Court for altering the section of law from missing to Section 363, 366 of IPC.

c. LW-07 examined the victim and preserved two glass slides with dried smear on each two cotton swabs and hair and the said material send to FSL and opined that sexual contact cannot ruled out. On 26.09.2016 apprehended the CCL and he confessed his guilty. LW-9 issued notice under section 50, 50 (A) Cr.P.C to CCL.

After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences under 363, 366 of

IPC.

4 of 7 J.C.C 36 of 2023

Date: 08.05.2026

3. On perusal of charge sheet and other material on record, this court took cognizance of the offences under 363, 366 of IPC. On appearance of CCL, copies of documents under

Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are furnished to him, on which the prosecution is relying and thereafter the CCL was examined under Section 239 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure. by explaining the accusation and particulars of offence alleged Section 363, 366 of IPC, charges are framed under Section 363, 366 of IPC against the CCL, read over and explained to him in their vernacular language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution,

PW-1 to PW-3 were examined. The learned Asst. Public

Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW-3, LW-4, LW-6 to LW-9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, in view of the absence of any incriminating material on record against the CCL, the examination of the CCL under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was dispensed with.

The CCL did not choose to adduce any defence evidence.

Hence, the defence evidence was closed.

5 of 7 J.C.C 36 of 2023

Date: 08.05.2026

5. Heard the arguments of the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the CCL.

6. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of CCL for the

offences punishable U/Sec. 363, 366 of IPC beyond all reasonable

doubt?

7. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined

P.W-1 to P.W-3 as prosecution witnesses. P.W-1/Pogula

Yesaiah deposed in his chief-examination that his daughter went missing during her examination and he lodged a complaint before PS Tandur, but police did not examined and recorded his statement and in his cross nothing elicited. PW-2/Pogula Hamsamma & PW-3/Kum Mounika deposed in their chief-examination, deposed that they do not know anything about the case and stated that the police had neither examined them nor recorded their statements. Thus, P.W-1 to PW-3 did not support the case of the prosecution and resiled from their earlier statements.

Therefore, at the request of the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor, they were permitted to be cross-examined.

6 of 7 J.C.C 36 of 2023

Date: 08.05.2026

8. In the view of above evidence, the prosecution has not been able to prove that the CCL has committed the offence under

Section 363, 366 of IPC. Hence, the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of CCL under Section 3 363, 366 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and CCL is entitled for benefit of doubt which leads to acquittal. Accordingly, this point is answered.

9. In the result, the CCL is found not guilty for the offence under Section 363, 366 of IPC and accordingly the CCL is acquitted for the said offence under Section 248 (1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of CCL if any shall remain in force for a period of six months so as to bind him to appear

before appellate court if any appeal is preferred against the

judgment as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. There is no case property deposited before this Court in this case.

Therefore, no specific order is passed in that regard.

Further Direction:

10.By virtue of Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and

Protection of Children) Act, 2015, CCL shall not suffer any disqualification attached to the finding for the offence.

Further, in view of Section 74 (2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, Police shall not 7 of 7 J.C.C 36 of 2023

Date: 08.05.2026

disclose any record of the CCL for the purpose of character certificate or otherwise.

Typed on my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the day of 08 th day of May, 2026.

Chairman-Cum-Addl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Vikarabad, Vikarabad District Board Members:

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1: Pogula Yesaiah -Nil- PW2: Pogula Hamsamma PW3:Kum.Mounika

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1 is the certified copy of 161 statement of PW1 -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

Chairman-Cum-Addl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Vikarabad, Vikarabad District

Board Member: Signatures 1.

JCC/109/2023 Acquitted

P.S.Peddemul vs SYED SAMEER

08 May 2026

1 of 7 J.C.C 109 of 2023

Date: 08.05.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD – CUM – I

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

VIKARABAD

Present: Smt. Vaishnavi Sabhapati Chairman-cum-I Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, at Vikarabad.

Board Member: Sri G. Vasu

Friday, this the 08th day of May, 2026

J.C.C 109 of 2023

Between: The State of Telangana,

Through Sub Inspector of Police,

P.S.Peddemul.

…....Complainant

A N D

CCL: Syed Sameer S/o. Syed Kaleemulla,

Aged about 16 years, Occ: Student.

…….CCL

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri.P.Sudhakar Reddy,Advocate for the CCL, upon perusing the material documents on record, on hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following.

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

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Peddemul has filed Charge

Sheet in Crime No.141 of 2020 against the above named 2 of 7 J.C.C 109 of 2023

Date: 08.05.2026

CCL for the offences under Sections 323, 504 of IPC,

Section. 3(1) (r) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act-2015.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows a. On 15.11.2020 at 13:30 hours, the defacto complainant/LW-01/Kodi Srinivas, lodged a complaint with PS Peddemul stating that on 14.11.2020 at 15:50 hours, complainant went to Kalimulla Kirana shop to buy beedilu, then the accused persons along with CCL abused in the filthy language in the name of his caste and bet the complainant/LW1. Hence, he filed the present complainant requested to take necessary action.

b. Basing on the report, LW-16/Sri.Chandrashekar, Sub-

Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime

No.141/2020 under Sections 323, 504 of IPC, Section.

3(1) (r) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act-2015 and send

LW1 to Government Hospita, Tandur. LW-17 took up the case file, during the course of investigation, LW-17 visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of LW-12/ Neerati

Srinivas & LW-13/Dorati Anjalaiah. Further, LW17 recorded the statements of LW1/Kodi Sriniva, 3 of 7 J.C.C 109 of 2023

Date: 08.05.2026

LW2/Sandumulla Balaiah, LW3/ Konda Anjilaiah, LW4/

Chetlameedi Raju, LW5/ Bandameedi Ashappa, LW6/

Begari Chendrappa, LW7/ Golluri Maneppa, LW8/ Talari

Balram, LW9/ Yendrikayala Ramulu, LW10/Boda Srinu and LW11/Videographer/Sanam Srinivas.

c. On 23.11.2020 served notices 41A Cr.P.C to the accused persons 2,4 and CCL. After completion of investigation,

LW-14 filed charge sheet against the CCL for the offences under 323, 504 of IPC, Section. 3(1) (r) of SC/ST (POA)

Amendment Act-2015.

3. On perusal of charge sheet and other material on record, this court took cognizance of the offences under 363, 324, 323, 504 of IPC, Section. 3(1) (r) of SC/ST (POA)

Amendment Act-2015. On appearance of CCL, copies of documents under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure are furnished to him, on which the prosecution is relying and thereafter the CCL was examined under

Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. by explaining the accusation and particulars of offence alleged

Section 323, 504 of IPC, Section. 3(1) (r) of SC/ST (POA)

Amendment Act-2015, charges are framed under Section 323, 504 of IPC, Section. 3(1) (r) of SC/ST (POA) 4 of 7 J.C.C 109 of 2023

Date: 08.05.2026

Amendment Act-2015 against the CCL, read over and explained to him in their vernacular language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution,

PW-1/Kodi Srinivas was examined. The learned Asst.

Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW-2 to LW-

17. After closure of the prosecution evidence, in view of the absence of any incriminating material on record against the

CCL, the examination of the CCL under Section 313 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure was dispensed with. The CCL did not choose to adduce any defence evidence. Hence, the defence evidence was closed.

5. Heard the arguments of the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the CCL.

6. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of CCL for the

offences punishable U/Sec. 323, 504 of IPC, Section. 3(1) (r) of

SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act-2015 beyond all reasonable doubt?

7. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined

P.W-1 as prosecution witness. PW1//Kodi Srinivas deposed that he do not know anything about the case and 5 of 7 J.C.C 109 of 2023

Date: 08.05.2026

he did not filed any complaint before the police and stated that the police had neither examined him nor recorded his statement. Thus, P.W-1 did not support the case of the prosecution and resiled from his earlier statements.

Therefore, at the request of the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor, he was permitted to be cross-examined.

8. In the view of above evidence, the prosecution has not been able to prove that the CCL has committed the offence under

Section 323, 504 of IPC, Section. 3(1) (r) of SC/ST (POA)

Amendment Act-2015. Hence, the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of CCL under Section 323, 504 of

IPC, Section. 3(1) (r) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act-2015 beyond all reasonable doubt and CCL is entitled for benefit of doubt which leads to acquittal. Accordingly, this point is answered.

9. In the result, the CCL is found not guilty for the offence under Section 323, 504 of IPC, Section. 3(1) (r) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act-2015 and accordingly the CCL is acquitted for the said offence under Section 248 (1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of CCL if any shall remain in force for a period of six months so as to bind him to appear

before appellate court if any appeal is preferred against the

6 of 7 J.C.C 109 of 2023

Date: 08.05.2026

judgment as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. There is no case property deposited before this Court in this case.

Therefore, no specific order is passed in that regard.

Further Direction:

10.By virtue of Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and

Protection of Children) Act, 2015, CCL shall not suffer any disqualification attached to the finding for the offence.

Further, in view of Section 74 (2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, Police shall not disclose any record of the CCL for the purpose of character certificate or otherwise.

Typed on my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the day of 08 th day of May, 2026.

Chairman-Cum-Addl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Vikarabad, Vikarabad District

Board Members:

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW-1: Kodi Srinivas-Nil- 7 of 7 J.C.C 109 of 2023

Date: 08.05.2026

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

-Nil- -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

Chairman-Cum-Addl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Vikarabad, Vikarabad District

Board Member: Signatures 1.

Order Record 180 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
JCC/36/2023	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Pogula Praveen S/o Eerappa	08 May 2026	Judgment	Acquitted
JCC/37/2023	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Naddi Hareesh S/o Late Venkataiah	08 May 2026	Judgment	Acquitted
JCC/109/2023	P.S.Peddemul vs SYED SAMEER	08 May 2026	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/429/2022	STATE OF TELANGANA Through Excise PS Marpally vs G. Sudhakar Goud	06 May 2026	Judgment	Acquitted
OS/409/2024	Smt.Sara Muthu Bai vs Smt.Sara Rambai	05 May 2026	Others	—
OS/117/2023	Basapuram Nagamani and another vs Seelam Yadav Reddy and otehrs	04 May 2026	Others	—
OS/237/2021	Begari Amrutha vs Kavali Prabhu	04 May 2026	Judgment	—
OS/322/2025	Gangadhara Reddy Kota vs Sri. Junjuru Ramaiah	01 May 2026	Judgment	—
CC/372/2024	PS of Excise Mominpet (Marpally) vs Boini laloo S/o. B. Maneiah, R/o. patloor (V), Marpally (M), Vikarabad District.	01 May 2026	Judgment	—
JCC/2/2023	Sri Varthiya Kishan vs CCL Ramavath Suresh	01 May 2026	Judgment	—
JCC/6/2024	PS KULKACHERLA vs Paltya Venkat	01 May 2026	Judgment	—
CC/59/2024	STATE OF TELANGANA, PS Mominpet vs Narsimha Reddy Dandu	30 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/548/2024	PS of Mominpet. vs Ravi kumar Kummari	30 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
OS/94/2022	Gunthapally Mallaiah vs Gunthapally Yellamma	29 Apr 2026	Others	—
OS/373/2024	Union Bank of India Vikarabad Branch, Rep. By Its Branch Manager,Sri. Sarfaraz Kazi S/o. Johiroddin, vs Sri. Nyalati Laxmaiah S/o Sayanna,	29 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/539/2020	The State through SHO of PS Marpally vs Tharun Kavali	29 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/573/2024	PS of Mominpet. vs Devaiah Neeraadi	29 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/700/2021	The State through SHO of PS Marpally vs Ashwa Ramesh	29 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
OS/433/2021	Tekulapally Ramulu Goud vs K. Chandra Shekar	28 Apr 2026	Others	—
OS/521/2022	M. Sujatha vs Manemma	28 Apr 2026	Others	—
OS/218/2023	M.Narayan Goud and another vs M.Srinivas Goud and others	27 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/532/2020	The State through SHO of PS Kotepally vs Golla Mahesh	24 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
JCC/128/2023	STATE OF TELANGANA, PS VIKARABAD vs Boini Laxmaiah S/o. Narsimulu	24 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/237/2022	The State through SHO of PS Mominpet vs Megavath Mahesh	23 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/746/2020	The State through SHO of PS Kotepally vs Vsamgoth Motilal	23 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
OS/138/2024	Swaroopa Patlolla, W/o. patlolla Reddy, vs Sri. Patlolla Madhusudan Reddy, S/o. Hanmanth Reddy,	22 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
OS/179/2023	Parveda Ramaiah @ Bantu Ramulu vs Parveda @ Bantu Kistaiah	22 Apr 2026	Others	—
CC/758/2019	The State through SHO of PS Marpally vs Sanam Ravi	22 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
OS/87/2021	Eadgi Chennamma vs Goundlla Shiva Goud rep by his Mother Gaddakindi Swarnalatha	21 Apr 2026	Others	—
OS/143/2022	Erla Manjula vs Manne Pandu	21 Apr 2026	Others	—
OS/362/2022	Uddugelly Sanga Reddy vs Uddugelly Narayan Reddy	21 Apr 2026	Others	—
OS/490/2022	Amgoth Chakri Bai vs Amgoth Kishan	21 Apr 2026	Others	—
OS/43/2023	Master Chetempally Rahul vs Veena Sunder raj	20 Apr 2026	Others	—
OS/122/2020	Vishnu Goud vs Narsimlu Goud	20 Apr 2026	Others	—
OS/134/2021	D. Ratnamma vs G. Pochamma	20 Apr 2026	Others	—
OS/399/2024	Bandigi Ramulu vs Nagadapalli Tejamani	20 Apr 2026	Others	—
OS/142/2025	XXXXX vs Smt. Malkolla Amruthamma	18 Apr 2026	Others	—
OS/217/2021	Ravugari Manik Reddy vs Kummari Mallesham	17 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/515/2023	STATE OF TELANGANA, PS Bantwaram vs Syed Nazeer @ Syed Babu	17 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
JCC/70/2023	P.S.Kulkacherlla vs Kotla Anjankumar	17 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
OS/269/2023	Katikepogu Swathi vs Thokala Srinivas Reddy	15 Apr 2026	Others	—
CC/344/2018	The State through SHO of PS Nawabpet vs MD. Ravoof Khan and 2 others	15 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
JCC/28/2023	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Jogu Srisailam	10 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
JCC/75/2023	The State of Telangana,SHO PS.Kulakcherla vs ETE KRUSHNA s/O aNANTHAIAH	10 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
JCC/94/2023	The State of Telangana,SHO PS Vikarabad vs Thandra Narsimulu	10 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
JCC/113/2023	P.S.Bantwaram vs Paspula Manoj Kumar	10 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
JCC/125/2023	Parigi vs Deshamoni Harikrishna	10 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
OS/130/2025	Hanmakonda Venkataiah vs Malkapuram Ramchandra Reddy	09 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/490/2019	The State through SHO of PS Mominpet vs Mangali Raju	08 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
OS/154/2024	Chakali Karthik S/o Raju, vs Yadamma W/o Late Narsimlulu	06 Apr 2026	Others	—
CC/429/2019	The State through SHO of PS Dharoor vs Mohd. Shakeer	02 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
OS/96/2021	Kavali Srinivas vs Kavali Narsimulu	01 Apr 2026	Others	—
OS/302/2024	Smt. Kavali Krishnaveni W/o. K. Ishwaraiah, vs Sri. Tandra Anthaiah s/o Papaiah	01 Apr 2026	Others	—
OS/721/2022	Dandu Ningamma vs Golla Anjaiah and others	01 Apr 2026	Others	—
CC/32/2018	The State through SHO of PS Nawabpet vs Uradi Chiranjeevi	01 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/371/2024	PS of Excise Mominpet vs Sandra Bagaiah S/o S.Laxmaiah, H.No. Nill, Kaslabad (V), Mominpet (M), vikarabad (D)	01 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/393/2017	The State through SHO of PS Nawabpet vs Pagidiyala Yadagiri and others	01 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/795/2024	SHO Proh.Excise P.S.Mominpet (Marpally) vs Sandra Bagaiah	01 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
OS/139/2020	Kammari Manikanth Chary vs Kammari Yashoda	31 Mar 2026	Others	—
OS/170/2023	T.Rangamma and others vs Whom ever it may concern and The District Collector	31 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
OS/419/2022	Chintakindi Chandrakala vs Chintakindi Venkataiah	31 Mar 2026	Others	—
OS/654/2022	MOhammad Abdul Mukthedeer vs Mohd. Sarvar Ali and others	31 Mar 2026	Others	—
OS/402/2022	Rayipalli Sangeetha vs Rayipalli Sangram	30 Mar 2026	Others	—
OS/526/2021	Myathari Anjaiah vs Myathari Bagaiah	30 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
OS/205/2024	Smt. Dasari Narmada W/o Dasari Balakistaiah, vs Dasari Pandari S/o Dasari Chennaiah,	28 Mar 2026	Others	—
CC/961/2021	The State through SHO of PS Mominpet vs Golla Gopal	26 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
OS/708/2022	Telugu Laxmi vs Bantu Ramachandraiah and others	24 Mar 2026	Others	—
OS/538/2022	Earpula Ratnaiah vs The Tahsildar, Marpally Mandal, RR District.	23 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
OS/72/2025	S.Ramulu vs Bodou Krishna	18 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
OS/200/2024	Smt. Marepally. Kanthamma, W/o M. Gopal Reddy, vs Marepally Ravinder Reddy, S/o Late Sanga Reddy,	18 Mar 2026	Others	—
CC/320/2022	The State through SHO of PS Nawabpet vs Mala Kistaiah	18 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
OS/324/2024	Sri. Ekmamidi Vittalaiah S/o, Mallaiah vs Sri. Manik Reddy S/o, late. Laxshma Reddy	17 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
OS/136/2024	State Bank of India, Mominpet Branch, vs Kavali Manaiah S/o Sayanna,	16 Mar 2026	Others	—
OS/273/2025	State Bank of India vs Mr.Bhanavath Prasad Naik	16 Mar 2026	Others	—
OS/308/2025	Smt. Khursheed Begum-Indrajeet Kaur vs Tahsildar	16 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
JCC/4/2024	STATE OF TELANGANA, PS Doma vs Edigi Prasanna	13 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
JCC/103/2023	P.S.Vikarabad vs Md. Umar @ Omer Khan	13 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/804/2020	The State through SHO of PS Dharoor vs Amgoath Mothilal	12 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
OS/486/2022	Mangali Shivaiah vs Mangali Anjaiah	10 Mar 2026	Others	—
OS/57/2023	V. Sangeetha vs Antharam Bal Raj	09 Mar 2026	Others	—
OS/595/2021	Dasa @ Sale Anthamma vs Sale @ Mula Yadagiri	09 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
OS/623/2022	Male Laxmi vs Kavali Abraham	09 Mar 2026	Others	—
OS/623/2022	Male Laxmi vs Kavali Abraham	09 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
OS/26/2025	Doma Srisailam vs Nenavath Shobha	05 Mar 2026	Others	—
OS/56/2023	ICICI BANK LIMITED a Banking company,N. Srinivas Rao vs Ediga Yellaiah Goud	02 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
OS/134/2023	Mohammed Sadiq vs Gudupally Abdul Ghani	02 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
OS/549/2022	Nagapoor Annapoorna vs Harijan Chandraiah	02 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
OS/148/2025	Allipuram Kavitha vs The Tahasildar	27 Feb 2026	Judgment	—
CC/44/2025	The State through SHO of PS Mominpet vs Sayanna Madaram	27 Feb 2026	Others	—
OS/338/2022	Surekha vs Ravulla Ravi	23 Feb 2026	Judgment	—
CC/35/2023	The State through SHO of PS Dharoor vs Boini Pandu	20 Feb 2026	Others	—
OS/32/2026	Sri. Vengala Karthik vs Sri. Keshavupally Mahender Reddy	18 Feb 2026	Judgment	—
CC/179/2019	The State through SHO of PS Bantaram vs Powar vittal	18 Feb 2026	Judgment	—
CC/388/2022	The State through SHO of PS Nawabpet vs Golla Srishailam	18 Feb 2026	Others	—
CC/200224/2018	The State through SHO of PS Marpally vs MD. Ismail	18 Feb 2026	Others	—
CC/326/2023	STATE OF TELANGANA vs DAPPU RAMULU	13 Feb 2026	Others	—
CC/809/2021	The State through SHO of PS Mominpet vs Nadrega Endra Reddy	13 Feb 2026	Judgment	—
JCC/26/2024	PS of Vikarabad vs Edigi Charan Goud S/o Edigi Datthu,	13 Feb 2026	Judgment	—
OS/36/2023	Thormamidi Basanth Ramu @ Basanth Rai vs Cheeme Alnjappa	12 Feb 2026	Others	—
OS/97/2025	Byagari Bichaiah vs Doma Srishailam	12 Feb 2026	Others	—

Showing 100 of 180 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

May 2026		11
Apr 2026		48
Mar 2026		29
Feb 2026		16
Jan 2026		10
Dec 2025		67

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Ms. S.Vaishnavi handled?

Ms. S.Vaishnavi has handled 181 court orders since 2025 at Vikarabad, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 20 orders per month.

What types of cases does Ms. S.Vaishnavi hear?

Based on available records, Ms. S.Vaishnavi primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits) at Vikarabad, PDJ Court Complex.

Where is Ms. S.Vaishnavi currently posted?

Ms. S.Vaishnavi is posted as I Addl Junior Civil Judge, Vikarabad at Vikarabad, PDJ Court Complex, Vikarabad, Telangana.

Are judgments by Ms. S.Vaishnavi available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by Ms. S.Vaishnavi are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Ms. S.Vaishnavi dispose cases?

Ms. S.Vaishnavi disposes approximately 20 cases per month, based on 181 orders handled over their tenure at Vikarabad, PDJ Court Complex.

Since when is Ms. S.Vaishnavi serving?

Ms. S.Vaishnavi has been serving at Vikarabad, PDJ Court Complex since 2025. and is currently posted there.

Case Types

CC 57%

OS 34%

JCC 8%

MC 1%

Posting History

Dec 2025 — Present

I Addl Junior Civil Judge, Vikarabad · 181 orders
Aug 2025 — Aug 2025

I Addl Junior Civil Judge, Vikarabad

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 4

Other Judges at this Court

Sri M.Naga Raju

Principal District and Sessions Judge,Vikarabad

1 orders

Sri P.Pradeep Naik

I Addl District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Ses...

0 orders

Rallabandi Santhi Latha

Principal Junior Civil Judge

351 orders

Sri. M. Venkateswarlu

Senior Civil Judge,Vikarabad

403 orders

← View all judges at Vikarabad, PDJ Court Complex