T.Venkata Rajesh Kumar

1 IV ACMM COURT, VSP

CC No.4419/2021

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE :: VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT : Sri. T.Venkata Rajesh Kumar IV Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

Monday, the 25thday of March, 2024

C.C.No.4419/2021

BETWEEN :

Seelamseeta Mahalakshmi W/o. Narasimha Rao (Late), aged about 61 years, R/o. D.No.1-1-121, Haritha Colony, Ramalakshmi Estates, Pedawaltair, Visakhapatnam.

....COMPLAINANT

AND

Kancharla Siva Rama Krishna S/o. Anjenuyulu, aged about 42 years, R/o. D.No.9-37, Salipeta, Vinayakagudi, Aakiveedu, West Godavari-534235.

....ACCUSED

This case came up before me on 20.03.2024, for final hearing in the presence of Sri.Y.Gurunadha Rao, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri.G.Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the accused, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivers the following :

J U D G M E N T

The present complaint is filed by the complainant against the accused for the offence punishable under section-138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

2 IV ACMM COURT, VSP

CC No.4419/2021

2.The brief facts of the case of the complainant are :

The accused borrowed an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- from the complainant on 12-08-2018 for the purpose of his family expenses and to clear sundry debts and executed a demand promissory note in favour of the complainant, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum. On repeated demands made by the complainant for repayment of pronote debt, the accused issued a cheque bearing

No.767393 on 04.01.2020 in favour of the complainant for Rs.7,00,000/- drawn on

Andhra Bank, Shivajipalem Branch, Main Road, Visakhapatnam towards part payment of the pronote debt and when the cheque was presented for collection through his banker Karur Vysya Bank, Pedawaltair branch, Visakhapatnam, the said cheque was disonoured with an endorsement "Funds Insufficient". Then the complainant intimated the same to the accused and he requested to represent the said cheque after 15 days. Accordingly, the said cheque was represented on 21.01.2020 through her banker and again the said cheque was dishonoured for the same reason i.e., "Funds Insufficient". Then the complainant again intimated the same to the accused and he requested to represent the said cheque after 15 days. Accordingly, the said cheque was represented on 05.02.2020 through her banker and again the said cheque was dishonoured on 06.02.2020 for the same reason i.e., "Funds Insufficient".

The complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused on 04.03.2020, demanding to pay the cheque amount but the accused failed to pay the amount. Hence, this complaint.

3.The complaint was taken on file for the offence under Sec.138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act.

3 IV ACMM COURT, VSP

CC No.4419/2021

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C. The sum and substance of the complaint for the offence U/s.138 of N.I.Act was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, having understood the same, he denied the offence and claimed to be tried.

6.During the trial, to substantiate her case, the complainant herself was examined as P.W.1 and exhibited P1 to P8 documents.

7.After completion of evidence on behalf of the complainant, accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C regarding the incriminating material stood against him from the evidence of PW1, for which he denied the same. During defence evidence, the accused himself was examined as DW1 and Ex.D1 which is letter dated 14-06-2022 of Superintendent, Central Jail,Visakhapatam, annexed with remand report was exhibited.

8.Heard arguments on both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is :

'Whether or not the prosecution proved that the accused has issued

Cheque to the complainant in discharge of a legally enforceable debt on 04.01.2020 and the same was dishonoured thrice with same reason i.e., ‘insufficient funds’ in the account of the accused and that the complainant issued mandatory legal notice and that the accused failed to pay the cheque amount within statutory period and that the complaint is filed within the period of limitation, and as such, the accused is liable for punishment under section-138 N.I.Act, beyond all reasonable doubts' ?

4 IV ACMM COURT, VSP

CC No.4419/2021

10.As already stated, the complainant herself was examined as PW1. PW1 filed her chief-affidavit by reiterating the same version as in the complaint. The chief- affidavit of PW1 discloses that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- from the complainant on 12.08.2018 and on repeated demands, he issued cheque on 04.01.2020 and when presented for collection for three times, the said cheque was dishonoured with same endorsement i.e., ‘funds insufficient’. She also deposed about issuance of Ex.P6-Statutory legal notice to the accused. She also filed all the documents such as Promissory note, Cheque, Cheque return memos, Office copy of legal notice etc., in support of her contention.

11.During cross-examination, PW1 deposed that her husband is no more and herself and her daughter were present at the time of lending amount to accused and after dishonor of Ex.P2-Cheque, she informed to the accused about the same when he came to her house within two or three days from the date of dishonor and after dishonor of cheque for third time, she approached her advocate. She admitted that her daughter gave report against the accused in MVP PS and police arrested him and he was in remand from 04-01-2020 to 08-01-2020. She denied the suggestions that the accused was in judicial custody on 04-01-2020 and as such her evidence that the accused issued cheque on 04-01-2020 is false and her evidence that after dishonor of cheque for the first time, accused came to her house within two or three days and she informed him about dishonor of cheque is false. She further denied the suggestions that due to disputes between her daughter and accused who is her son-in law, she filed this false case by fabricating the documents which her daughter secured during her stay with accused and she is not having capacity to lend an amount of 5 IV ACMM COURT, VSP

CC No.4419/2021

Rs.9,00,000/- and the accused never borrowed any amount from her and never issued any cheque to her.

12.The accused himself was examined as DW1 and he deposed that the complainant is his mother-in-law and he used to reside along with his wife at the house of complainant from 2009 to 2019 and he kept his cheque books in the house of the complainant during his stay at her house and he used to do real estate business during his stay at the house of complainant and in view of real estate business, he used to put signatures in blank cheques and his wife and the complainant are aware of the place where he used to place his blank signed cheques as well as his cheque books. He further deposed that he never borrowed any amount from the complainant and never executed any promissory note much less EX.P1 in favour of complainant and he never issued any cheque to the complainant much less Ex.P2 and he was arrested by police on 03-01-2020 on the report given by his wife in Cr.No.200/2019

U/s.498-A IPC of MVP PS and produced before the I ACMM court,Visakhapatnam on 04-01-2020 and he was remanded to judicial custody and he was in central jail from 04-01-2020 to 08-01-2020 and released on bail on 08-01-2020. He further deposed that due to disputes between himself and his wife and complainant, the complainant fabricated his blank signed cheque and created promissory note and filed this false case. The accused filed letter dated 14-06-2022 of Superintendent, Central

Jail,Visakhapatam along with remand report, which was marked as EX.D1, wherein it discloses that he was in Central Jail, Visakhapatnam from 04.01.2020 to 08.01.2020 relating to Crime no-200/2019 of MVP PS.

13.During cross-examination, he deposed that he did not file any document to show that he used to do real estate business. He denied the suggestions that his 6 IV ACMM COURT, VSP

CC No.4419/2021

evidence that he used to do real estate business during his stay at the house of complainant is false and he was arrested by police on the evening of 04-01-2020 and he was absconding from 31-12-2019 and police arrested him on 04-01-2020 morning at the house of complainant. He further denied the suggestions that he issued cheque to complainant on the morning of 04.01.2020 and that he borrowed amount from the complainant and issued cheque to complainant and deposing false to avoid his liability.

14.The ld.counsel counsel for the complainant contended that the evidence of PW1 coupled with documentary evidence established that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- from complainant and issued Ex.P2-Cheque towards part payment of said promissory note debt and the same was dishonoured thrice due to insufficient funds in the account of the accused and statutory legal notice was issued and accused did not pay the cheque amount and therefore, he is liable for punishment.

On the other hand, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused is that the complainant filed false case and the accused was in judicial custody on the alleged date of issuance of Ex.P2-Cheque i.e., 04.01.2020 and Ex.D1 proves the same.

15.On perusal of the evidence of PW1, she categorically admitted that her daughter gave report against the accused in MVP PS and police arrested him and he was in remand from 04-01-2020 to 08-01-2020. The ld.counsel for complainant during cross-examination of accused who was examined as DW1, suggested that accused issued Ex.P2-Cheque during morning of 04.01.2020 and he was arrested during evening of 04.01.2020, but DW1 denied the said suggestion. The ld.counsel further suggested DW1 that he (accused) was absconding from 31-12-2019 and 7 IV ACMM COURT, VSP

CC No.4419/2021

police arrested him on 04-01-2020 morning at the house of complainant.

Surprisingly, the above suggestions are quite inconsistent to each other.

16. The general rule of criminal law is that the burden is on the prosecution.

But the said general rule is not strictly applicable to the cases falling under Sec.138 of

N.I.Act in view of statutory safeguard provided under Sec.139 of NI Act.

Section 139 NI Act reads as follows :- “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”. Therefore, from the above section, it is vivid that the statue confers presumption on the holder of the cheque that the cheque referred to in Section 138 is received by him in discharge of the whole or part of any debt or other liability and the burden that the cheque was not issued towards legally enforceable debt or other liability is on the accused. But if the defence of the accused is otherwise, the accused is expected to explain and establish with some cogent, believable and trustworthy evidence that the cheque has not been issued towards any debt or other liability.

17. In the present case, the specific defence of the accused is that he did not issue any cheque much less Ex.P2-Cheque to the complainant on 04.01.2020, as he was in judicial custody as on the said date. In order to substantiate his contention, the accused relied on Ex.D1, which is the letter of Superintendent of Central prison obtained under RTI Act. The documents filed by the accused disclose that the accused was arrested by SI of police, MVP PS on 03.01.2020 in Cr.No-200/2019 of MVP PS for the offence under section-498-A IPC and he was in Central Jail as remand prisoner from 04.01.2020 to 08.01.2020 in Crime no-200/2019 of MVP PS. The complainant did not dispute Ex.D1 document, but vaguely suggested DW1 that he 8 IV ACMM COURT, VSP

CC No.4419/2021

has issued disputed cheque on 04.01.2020, without even trying to explain the circumstances as to how a remand prisoner issued cheque to her by visiting her house. The oral and documentary evidence adduced by the accused discloses that the accused was arrested on 03.01.2020 and he was in judicial custody from 04.01.2020 to 08.01.2020. The ld.counsel for the accused argued that the accused successfully established that the contention of the complainant that the accused has issued Ex.P2-

Cheque to her on 04.01.2020 at her house is nothing but utter false and that the complainant played fraud against the court by filing false complaint and by giving false evidence.

18.On perusal of the evidence available on hand and more particularly

Ex.D1, it is clear that there is no possibility to the accused to visit the house of complainant on 04.01.2020 as he was in custody since 03.01.2020 and it appears that the contention of the complainant that the accused issued Ex.P2-Cheque to her on 04.01.2020 at her house is nothing but false, as he was arrested on 03.01.2020 and he was in judicial custody till 08.01.2020. Further, the evidence of the

Complainant/PW1 that after dishonor of Ex.P2-Cheque, she informed to the accused about the same when he came to her house within two or three days from the date of dishonor also appears to be false.

19.In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the contention of the complainant that the accused issued Ex.P2-Cheque to her on 04.01.2020 at her house is nothing but false and therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Further, the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the complainant prima faciely established that she gave false evidence on oath, stating that the accused has issued Ex.P2-

Cheque to her on 04.01.2020 at her house, by which date the accused was in judicial 9 IV ACMM COURT, VSP

CC No.4419/2021

custody relating to Crime no-200/2019 of MVP PS, which has to be considered as a glaring case of deliberate falsehood.

20.In one of the landmark Judgments relating to chapter-XI of IPC,

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Baban Singh and Anr Vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors, on 8 th

February, 1966 reported in AIR 1967 p-68 held that - “If we consider this matter from the standpoint of section-191 Indian Penal Code, the offence is constituted by swearing falsely when one is bound by oath to state the truth because an affidavit is a declaration made under an oath. The definition of the offence of giving false evidence thus applies to the affidavits. The offence may also fall within section-192. It lays down inter alia that a person is said to fabricate false evidence if he makes a document containing a false statement intending that such false statement may appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding and so appearing in evidence may cause any person who, in such proceeding is to form an opinion upon the evidence to entertain an erroneous opinion touching any point material to the result of such proceeding”.

21.In Santokh Singh vs. Izhar Hussain and Anr., (1973) 2 SCC 406, Hon’ble

Supreme Court held that - “every incorrect or false statement does not make it incumbent on the court to order prosecution. The Court has to exercise judicial discretion in the light of all the relevant circumstances when it determines the question of expediency. The court orders prosecution in the larger interest of the administration of justice and not to gratify the feelings of personal revenge or vindictiveness or to serve the ends of a private party. Too frequent prosecutions for such offences tend to defeat its very object. It is only in glaring cases of deliberate falsehood where conviction is highly likely that the court should direct prosecution”.

10 IV ACMM COURT, VSP

CC No.4419/2021

22.In RE: SUO MOTO PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MR. R, KARUPPAN,

ADVOCATE (Writ Petition (civil) 77 of 2001 DATED:12/05/2001), Hon’ble Supreme

Court held that - “In India, law relating to the Offence of perjury is given a statutory definition under Section-191 and Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code, incorporated to deal with the offences relating to giving false evidence against public justice. The offences incorporated under this Chapter are based upon recognition of the decline of moral values and erosion of sanctity of oath. Unscrupulous litigants are found daily resorting to utter blatant falsehood in the courts which has, to some extent, resulted in polluting the judicial system. It is a fact, though unfortunate, that a general impression is created that most of the witnesses coming in the courts despite taking oath make false statements to suit the interests of the parties calling them.

Effective and stern action is required to be taken for preventing the evil of perjury, conceitedly let loose by vested interest and professional litigants. The mere existence of the penal provisions to deal with perjury would be a cruel joke with the society unless the courts stop to take an evasive recourse despite proof of the commission of the offence under Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code. If the system is to survive, effective action is the need of the time”.

23.Hon’ble Supreme Court held in the above rulings that effective and stern action is to be taken against the unscrupulous litigants who are resorting to utter blatant falsehood in the courts with a view to pollute the judicial system. In order to prevent the evil of perjury, effectual, efficacious and stern action is required to be taken.

24.Chapter-XI of IPC deals with “OF FALSE EVIDENCE AND

OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC JUSTICE”, wherein section-191 deals with ‘Giving 11 IV ACMM COURT, VSP

CC No.4419/2021

false evidence’ and section-192 deals with ‘Fabricating false evidence’ and section- 193 describes ‘Punishment for false evidence’. Section-340 Cr.P.C provides the procedure for dealing with false evidence. As already stated above, this court considered the present case as a glaring case of deliberate falsehood by the complainant and therefore, this court is of the opinion that prosecution shall be launched against the complainant. Hence, the Superintendent of this Court is hereby authorized to file a complaint against the complainant herein before II Additional

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Visakhapatnam, having jurisdiction to try the case, for the offence under section-193 of IPC.

25.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section-138 N.I.Act and accordingly, he is acquitted under section-255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months under section-437-A

Cr.P.C., to appear before appellate court, if any appeal is preferred. The Court in the circumstances, direct the Superintendent of this Court to file a complaint against the complainant/Seelamseeta Mahalakshmi before II Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate’s Court, Visakhapatnam for the offence under section-193 of IPC.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 25 th day of March, 2024.

IV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

12 IV ACMM COURT, VSP

CC No.4419/2021

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR COMPLAINANT: FOR ACCUSED:

P.W.1: S.Seethamahalaxmi. D.W.1: K.Sivarama Krishna.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR COMPLAINANT:

Ex.P1-Original promissory note dt.12.08.2018 for Rs.9,00,000/- executed by accused in favour of complainant. Ex.P2-Cheque dt.04.01.2020. Ex.P3-Cheque return memo dt.06.01.2020. Ex.P4-Cheque return memo dt.22.01.2020. Ex.P5-Cheque return memo dt.06.02.2020. Ex.P6-Office copy of legal notice dt.04.03.2020 issued to accused. Ex.P7-Postal acknowledgment addressed to accused. Ex.P8-Reply notice dt.31.03.2020 got issued by accused.

FOR ACCUSED:

Ex.D1-Letter dated 14-06-2022 of Superintendent, Central Jail, Visakhapatnam.

IV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

13 IV ACMM COURT, VSP

CC No.4419/2021

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT - DISTRICT : VISAKHAPATNAM

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

AT VISAKHAPATNAM

CC No.4419/2021

Date of Offence04.01.2020

Date of filing of 25.03.2021 complaint

Date of Appearance25.03.2022

Date of Commencement 31.08.2023 of trial

Date of Close of trial12.02.2024

Date of Sentence/Order25.03.2024

Explanation for delay The delay is due to seeking time by both parties.

RemarksNil

JUDGMENT IN CALENDAR CASE No.4419/2021 on the file of IV

ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, VISAKHAPATNAM.

ComplainantSeelamseeta Mahalakshmi W/o. Narasimha Rao (Late), aged about 61 years, R/o. D.No.1-1-121, Haritha Colony, Ramalakshmi Estates, Pedawaltair, Visakhapatnam. AccusedKancharla Siva Rama Krishna S/o. Anjenuyulu, aged about 42 years, R/o. D.No.9-37, Salipeta, Vinayakagudi, Aakiveedu, West Godavari-534235. OffenceUnder section-138 of N.I.Act

FindingFound not guilty.

Result In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section-138 N.I.Act and accordingly, he is acquitted under section-255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months under section-437-A Cr.P.C., to appear before appellate court, if any appeal is preferred. The Court in the circumstances, direct the Superintendent of this Court to file a complaint against the complainant/Seelamseeta Mahalakshmi before II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Visakhapatnam for the offence under section-193 of IPC.

IV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

14 IV ACMM COURT, VSP

CC No.4419/2021

FORM NO.39 (Section 257, Criminal Procedure Code) Form of Order on withdrawal by complainant. PROCEEDINGS OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ::

VISAKHAPATNAM.

Present : Sri. T. Venkata Rajesh Kumar, IV Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

Saturday, the 16th day of March, 2024

In Calendar Case No.4734/ 2022

Offence: Under Section 138 r/w 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Between:

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Wing (SARW), RACPC-1, Administrative Office, Balaji Nagar, Siripuram Junction, Visakhapatnam, rep. by its Manager (Recovery), Sri. Sakalabaktula Ajith Kumar, S/o. Sankara Narayana, aged 37 years, Manager (SARC), State Bank of India, RACPC-1, Visakhapatnam. …Complainant

And

M/s. Kavya Sri Thanneru, D/o. Hari Prasada Rao, aged 29 years, Employee, R/at. Plot No.82, Road-7, Pavana Giri Colony, Hayathnagar, Hyderabad- 501505. …Accused.

1. Date of Offence21.06.2022

2. Date of Complaint30.08.2022

3. Date of Order16.03.2024

O R D E R

The learned counsel for complainant filed petition

U/Sec.257 Cr.P.C., praying the court to permit him to withdraw the case.

Heard. Permitted to withdraw the case. Hence, the accused is acquitted accordingly U/Sec.257 Cr.P.C.

xxsd/- Sri. T. Venkata Rajesh Kumar IV Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam

FORM NO.39 (Section 257, Criminal Procedure Code) Form of Order on withdrawal by complainant. PROCEEDINGS OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ::

VISAKHAPATNAM.

Present : Sri. T. Venkata Rajesh Kumar, IV Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

Saturday, the 16th day of March, 2024

In Calendar Case No.463/ 2016

Offence: Under Section 138 r/w 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Between:

Nallamilli Venkata Rama Reddy S/o. Late Gani Reddy, aged 33 years, business, R/at D.No.4-9-2/1, Pedawaltair, Visakhapatnam-17. …Complainant

And

Gandiboina Appalanarasamma W/o. Mahalakshmi Naidu, aged about 352 years, R/at. D.No. 31-19-35, II Floor, Yasarapu Nilayam, Venkatesawara Metta, Dabagardens, Viskhapatnam-20. …Accused.

1. Date of Offence31-05-2016

2. Date of Complaint27-07-2016

3. Date of Order16-03-2024

O R D E R

The learned counsel for complainant filed petition

U/Sec.257 Cr.P.C., praying the court to permit him to withdraw the case.

Heard. Permitted to withdraw the case. Hence, the accused is acquitted accordingly U/Sec.257 Cr.P.C.

xxsd/- Sri. T. Venkata Rajesh Kumar IV Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam

FORM NO.39 (Section 257, Criminal Procedure Code) Form of Order on withdrawal by complainant.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE :: VISAKHAPATNAM.

Present : Sri. T. Venkata Rajesh Kumar, IV Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

Saturday, the 16th day of March, 2024

In Calendar Case No.1338/ 2022

Offence: Under Section 138 r/w 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Between:

Tammana Srinivasa Rao S/o. Narayana Rao, aged 35 years, Poorna Market, Visakhapatnam. …Complainant

And

Kosani Ravi Kumar S/o. Visweswara Rao, aged about 37 years, 22-71-11/A, Chavala vari veedhi, Kanakamahalakshmi gudi, Visakhapatnam. …Accused.

1. Date of Offence01.12.2019

2. Date of Complaint18.02.2022

3. Date of Order16.03.2024

O R D E R

The learned counsel for complainant filed petition U/Sec.257

Cr.P.C., praying the court to permit him to withdraw the case. Heard.

Permitted to withdraw the case. Hence, the accused is acquitted accordingly U/Sec.257 Cr.P.C xxsd/- Sri. T. Venkata Rajesh Kumar IV Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam

FORM NO.39 (Section 257, Criminal Procedure Code) Form of Order on withdrawal by complainant. PROCEEDINGS OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ::

VISAKHAPATNAM.

Present : Sri. T. Venkata Rajesh Kumar, IV Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

Saturday, the 16th day of March, 2024

In Calendar Case No.691/ 2022

Offence: Under Section 138 r/w 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Between:

Yerraju Appala Raju S/o. Apparao, R/o. D.No.19-518, Darapalem, Krishnapuram Post, Visakhapatnam rural. …Complainant

And

Uppili Aruna W/o. Bhauravuda, D/o. Pentapalli Chandra Rao, D.No19-392, Pinaple Colony, Krishnapuram Post, Viskhapatnam rural. …Accused.

1. Date of Offence21.06.2022

2. Date of Complaint30.08.2022

3. Date of Order16.03.2024

O R D E R

The learned counsel for complainant filed petition

U/Sec.257 Cr.P.C., praying the court to permit him to withdraw the case.

Heard. Permitted to withdraw the case. Hence, the accused is acquitted accordingly U/Sec.257 Cr.P.C.

xxsd/- Sri. T. Venkata Rajesh Kumar IV Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam