Sri V.Nageswara Rao Naik

CC No.799 of 2020

AJMFC Court, Chirala

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-cum-

I-ADDITIONAL JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: CHIRALA

Present: Sri V.Nageswara Rao Naik

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Parchur.

FAC Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Chirala.

Monday, this the 4 th day of July, 2022.

Calendar Case No.799/2020

Cr. No.224/2020 of Chirala Rural P.S.

Between: State: Inspector of Police, Chirala Rural P.S. …Complainant

And

Nadendla Chinna Vijay @ Thallulu, S/o Sudhakar, 22 years, SC Mala by caste, Veeraiah Nagar, Thotavaripalem, Epurupalem Village, Chriala Mandal. … Accused

This case is coming today for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-complainant and Sri N.Raju, Advocate for the Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Chirala Rural P.S., filed charge sheet in Cr. No.224/2020 against the accused for the offence punishable under

Section 394 of IPC.

02.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:-

(i)Accused is addicted to all bad vices and used to roam in the village without doing any work. He used to threaten the innocent public by saying that his father is working in police department, he can do anything and his father would save him. The accused used to commit petty offences and thefts which are not reported in police station due to fear. The accused got habituated to easy money by committing offence to meet his expenses.

(ii)LW.1 – Yericherla Swamy Dasu is working as a fair price shop dealer at his village and was residing in a rented house situated at weavers

CC No.799 of 2020

AJMFC Court, Chirala

2

colony, Thotavaripalem Village, Chirala. About one month back, LW.1 borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from LWs.3 & 4 for his business. On the night of 18.10.2020, LW.1 – Y.Swamy Dasu parked his scooter in front of his house, kept Rs.5000/- in his table desk and slept.

(iii)On 19.10.2020 at about 00.30 hours, accused came to the house of LW.1, knocked the door. LW.1 awoke from sleep and questioned him, who are you, for which accused replied that he is Vijay. LW.1 identified the accused and opened the door and then accused asked LW.1 for drinking water and at once, he attacked LW.1 with a stone brought alongwith him and beat on his forehead and caused bleeding injury. Further accused stabbed

LW.1 with knife below his right knee and caused bleeding injury. Again accused tried to stab, but he escaped. Later accused went into the house of

LW.1 and robbed a Vivo SI Pro mobile phone, cash of Rs.5000/- from the table desk and further accused took key of LW.1’s Honda Activa scooty bearing no.AP 39 CG 7770 and decamped with the booty. LWs.5 to 7 witnessed the occurrence. LW.1 informed the incident to LWs.3 & 4 through phone and as per the instructions of LWs.3 & 4, LW.2 rushed to the house of LW.1 and shifted him to Area Hospital, Chirala and admitted for treatment.

(iv)On 19.10.2020 at 1.15 AM, on receipt of hospital intimation from

LW.10 – Dr. S.Saradabai, Medical Officer, AGH Chirala, LW.11-Ch.Ram Prasad,

ASI, OPPS, AGH, Chirala, recorded the statement of LW.1 and forwarded the same to LW.12 – P.Hema Chandrudu, HC, Chirala Rural P.S., who in turn registered the same as case in Cr. No.224/2020 U/s.324 IPC and submitted the copies to all concerned and then took up investigation. LW.12 – HC,

Chirala Rural P.S. visited the AGH, Chirala and recorded the statement of

LW.1 U/s.161 CrPC and basing on the statement of LW.1, he altered the section of law from 324 IPC to 394 IPC and submitted the section alter memo

CC No.799 of 2020

AJMFC Court, Chirala

3

to the Court and handed over the entire CD file alongwith section alter memo to LW.13 – M.Rosaiah, Inspector of Police, Chirala Rural Circle, for investigation as the offence is grave in nature.

(v) On receipt of CD file and section alter memo from LW.12, LW.13 took up investigation, visited the scene of offence, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, prepared scene observation report, rough sketch. On 24.10.2020 at 8.00 hours, LW.13 arrested the accused at

Autonagar highway bridge, Epurupalem in the presence of LWs.8 & 9, recorded his confession statement and seized one Vivo SI Pro mobile phone,

Honda Activa Scooty from his possession under the cover of mediator report

duly attested by LWs.8 & 9 and sent the accused for judicial custody. LW.10 issued wound certificate opining that the injuries are simple in nature. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

03. Case was taken on file under section 394 of IPC against the accused.

04.On appearance of Accused, case copies furnished to him U/s.207

Cr.P.C.

05.Accused was examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C, for the offence under

Sec.394 IPC and after framing charge u/s.240 CrPC, read over and explained the to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06.During the course of trial, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 5 and marked Exs.P1 to P13 and got marked MOs.1 to 3.

07.Accused was examined U/s.313 CrPC and stated no defence on his behalf.

CC No.799 of 2020

AJMFC Court, Chirala

4

08.Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for defense. Perused the material available on record.

09.Now the point that arises for consideration is;

1. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 394 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ??”

2. To what finding?”.

10. Point No.1:

To substantiate the case, prosecution got examined

LW.1/Complainant herein as PW.1, LW.3 examined as PW.2, LW.7 examined as PW.3, LW.9 examined as PW.4, LW.13 examined as PW.5 and in order to prove their case, the prosecution need to prove the ingredients contemplated

U/s.394 of IPC, which reads as follows:

Section 394 IPC : Voluntarily causing hurt in committing

robbery – If any person, in committing or in attempting to commit robbery, voluntarily causes hurt, such person, and any other person jointly concerned in committing or attempting to commit such robbery, shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

11.The learned A.P.P submitted his arguments that the allegations made against the accused is that he extorted cash of Rs.5000/-, Vivo mobile phone and Honda Activa scooty from the possession of PW.1. The evidence on record is sufficient to prove the guilt of accused for the offence Under sec.394 of IPC and prays to punish the accused according to law.

12.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that PW.1 who is the complainant-cum-injured not supported the prosecution case. As per the contention of PW.1, he cannot identify the person who beat him with stone and who committed theft of his two wheeler and cell phone and he was declared hostile by the learned A.P.P. PWs.2 and 3 who are independent

CC No.799 of 2020

AJMFC Court, Chirala

5

witnesses also not supported the prosecution case. The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that except the investigating officer evidence, there is no evidence available on record to prove the ingredients of Sec.394 of IPC against the accused and prays to acquit the accused.

12.The evidence of PW.1 shows that, at about 1 ½ year back, during midnight hours, while he was sleeping in his house, some unknown person knocked the door and when he opened the door, the said unknown person beat him with stone on his head. He fell down and that person escaped from there. Neighbours gathered and shifted him to hospital for treatment. At hospital, OPPS police recorded his complaint statement under Ex.P1. He obtained Vivo phone and scooty as interim custody from the Court. He cannot identify the person who beat him and committed theft of his two wheeler and cell phone i.e. MOs.1 & 2. He was declared hostile by the learned A.P.P. He denied his statement under Ex.P2 before police.

13.PW.2 and PW.3 also not supported the prosecution case, they simply stated that they don’t know anything about the case facts.

14.PW.4 is the independent witness who deposed that at about 1 year back, one day, he went to Epurupalem Police station on his personal work, where the police obtained his signature on some written papers. Ex.P5 is the mediatornama, he don’t know its contents. Ex.P6 is his signature on

Ex.P5. The said mediator also declared as hostile.

15.PW.5 investigating officer in this case deposed that on 19.10.2020 at 11.00 AM, LW.12 HC received hospital intimation from AGH,

Chirala, which was recorded by LW.11. Basing on Ex.P1 statement, LW.12 issued Fir U/s.324 IPC and forwarded the copies to concerned. Later LW.12 handed over the case proceedings to him as it is a grave case attracting

CC No.799 of 2020

AJMFC Court, Chirala

6

Sec.394 IPC. During his investigation, he visited the scene of offence, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, prepared rough sketch, scene observation report. On receipt of credible information, on 24.10.2020, he arrested you/accused, prepared arrest mediatornama, seized Mos.1 & 2 and one kitchen knife from you/accused and sent for judicial remand.

Received wound certificate, basing on it, LW.12 filed a memo before the

Court to alter the section of law from 324 IPC to 394 IPC. After completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet against you/accused u/s.394 IPC.

16.The evidence of PW.5 proves to the extent that he arrested the accused in this case and seized MOs.1 to 3 from his possession, but, no other material is available on record through the oral evidence of independent witnesses to connect the accused to the case on hand. As PWs.2 and 3 did not support the case of prosecution, the learned A.P.P treated them as hostile and cross examined them, but nothing useful was elicited except denial suggestions. PW.5 deposed that he arrested the accused in the presence of mediators. But contradicting to the said evidence of PW.5, PW.4 mediator categorically deposed that police obtained his signatures on some written papers and he do not know the contents of the said mediatornama. In addition to that, PW.4 also not supported the prosecution case.

17.It is settled law that any confession made by the accused before the police officer is not valid. Further it is settled principal of law that at the time of the alleged seizure, the investigating officer has to invariably secure two independent mediators as required U/s.100 Cr.P.C. In the instant case as admitted by PW.5 he did not secure any independent mediators from the place where he seized MOs.1 to 3 from the possession of accused. Though,

PW.5 deposed that he seized MOs.1 to 3 from the possession of accused in the presence of PW.4 & LW.8, but, PW.4 did not support the evidence of

CC No.799 of 2020

AJMFC Court, Chirala

7

PW.5. As such, the uncorroborated testimony of PW.5 investigating officer is not at all helpful to the case of the prosecution to connect the accused with the alleged offence. In addition to that, PW.1/defacto complainant also did not identify the accused and he categorically deposed that he cannot identify the person who committed theft of his mobile phone, cash and scooty. Apart from that, in the cross examination PW.1 categorically admitted that, he compromised the case with the accused out of the court. So, that might be the reason to all the prosecution witnesses for not supporting the prosecution case. Viewed from any angle there is no legal acceptable evidence to base a conviction against accused for the alleged offence under Sec.394 of IPC and that he is entitled for acquittal.

18.For the above said reasons and discussions, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence under Section 394 of IPC. Hence accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

19.In the result, accused is found not guiltyfor the offence under

Sec.394 of IPC, accordingly, he is acquitted of the same under Sec.248(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds executed by the accused shall be in force for a period of six months under Section 437(a) Cr.P.C.

MOs.1 & 2 which were already given to the complainant for interim custody as per the orders in Crl.M.P.No.2097/2020, Dt:18.11.2020 shall holds good. MO.3 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this 4th day of July, 2022.

Sd/- V.Nageswara Rao Naik/-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Parchur.

FAC Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Chirala.

CC No.799 of 2020

AJMFC Court, Chirala

8

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined on behalf of:

Prosecution: Defence: PW-1: Yericherla Swamy Dasy - None - PW-2: Nandendla Ravi PW-3: Perli Janakamma PW-4: Mothukuri Ramakrishna PW-5: M.Rosaiah, Inspector of Police, Chirala Rural P.S.

Exhibits marked on behalf of

Prosecution: Defence Ex.P1 : Complainant statement NIL Ex.P2 : 161(3) CrPC statement of PW.1 Ex.P3 : 161(3) CrPC statement of PW.2 Ex.P4 : 161(3) CrPC statement of PW.3 Ex.P5 : Signature of PW.4 in scene observation report Ex.P6 : Signature of PW.4 in mediatornama Ex.P7 : Hospital intimation Ex.P8 : Original FIR Ex.P9 : Crime observation report Ex.P10: Rough Sketch Ex.P11: Confession Statement Ex.P12: Wound certificate Ex.P13: Section alteration memo

Material Objects

MO.1 : Vivo SI Pro mobile phone MO.2 : Honda Activa scooty MO.3 : Knife

Sd/- V.NRN

JMFC,Parchur.

FAC AJMFC, Chirala.

Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble I Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Ongole.

// True Copy //

JMFC,Parchur.

FAC AJMFC, Chirala.

CC No.799 of 2020

AJMFC Court, Chirala

9

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, CHIRALA.

CALENDAR IN C.C.No.799/2020

1.Date of offence19-10-2020

2.Date of Report or complaint19-10-2020

3.Date of taken on file22-12-2020

Date of apprehension of

4.20-06-2022 accused

5.Date of release on bail02-11-2020

6.Date of commencement of trial22-06-2022

7.Date of close of trial27-06-2022

8.Date of Sentence or Order04-07-2022

State, represented by :

9.Complainant Inspector of Police, Chirala Rural P.S. Nadendla Chinna Vijay @ Thallulu, S/o Sudhakar, 22 years, SC Mala by caste, 10Description of accused Veeraiah Nagar, Thotavaripalem, Epurupalem Village, Chriala Mandal. 11Section of Law U/Sec.394 of IPC 12Plea of Accused Pleaded not guilty. 13Finding of Court Found not Guilty.

14. Sentence or Order : In the result, accused is found not guiltyfor the offence under Sec.394 of IPC, accordingly, he is acquitted of the same under Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds executed by the accused shall be in force for a period of six months under Section 437(a) Cr.P.C. MOs.1 & 2 which were already given to the complainant for interim custody as per the orders in Crl.M.P.No.2097/2020, Dt:18.11.2020 shall holds good. MO.3 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

15. Explanation for delay and Remarks : This case was taken on file on 22- 03-2020, copies furnished to the accused on 20-06-2022 and on the same day, accused examined u/s.239 Cr.P.C for the offence u/s.394 IPC, framed charge, read over and explained the accusation to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 5 were examined and marked Exs.P1 to P13 and marked MOs.1 to 3. After closure of prosecution side evidence, on 30-06-2022 accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C by examining the incriminating material against him, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence. Heard arguments. Judgment

pronounced in open Court on 04-07-2022. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- V.Nageswara Rao Naik/-

JMFC,Parchur. Copy submitted to : FAC AJMFC, Chirala. The Hon’ble I Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Ongole.

// True Copy //

JMFC, Parchur

FAC AJMFC, Chirala.

CC No.799 of 2020

AJMFC Court, Chirala

10

C.C.339 of 2022

A.J.C.J.Court, Chirala

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-cum-

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: CHIRALA

Present: Sri V.Nageswara Rao Naik Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Parchur. FAC Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Chirala.

Friday, this the 8th day of July, 2022

Calendar Case No.339 of 2022

Cr. No.113/2018 of Chirala II Town P.S.

Between: State: Inspector of Police, Chirala II Town PS…Complainant

And

1. Shaik Baji, S/o China Mastan, 40 years,

2. Shaik China Mastan, S/o Ismail, 65 years, (Died)

3. Shaik Mahamad Bhee, W/o China Mastan, 60 years, All are Muslims, Pavuluru Village, Inkollu Mandal. … Accused

This case is coming today for hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-complainant and Sri T.Srikanth, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

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

01.The Inspector of Police, Chirala II Town P.S., filed charge sheet in Cr.

No.113/2018 for the offence under Section 498-A r/w.34 of IPC, Sec.3 & 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act against the accused Nos.1 to 3.

02.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:-

Shaik Parveen (LW.1) is a resident of Srinivas Nagar, Perala of Chirala. LW.1’s marriage was performed with the accused at about 11 years ago as per their customs.

At the time of marriage, her parents LW.2-Sk.Shabeer and LW.3-Shaik Kareemu gave

Rs.10,000/- cash, 3 sovereigns gold, one acre land and household items worth Rs.1 lakh to the accused 1 to 3 towards dowry. During their nuptial life, A1 and LW.1 were blessed with one daughter. Since then, A1 to A3 used to harass her both mentally and physically to get additional dowry from her parents. Eventhough she lead her conjugal life with great patiency. Later LW.1-Sk.Parveen went to her parents house for delivery, but the accused did not get back her for want of additional dowry. In this regard, elders

C.C.339 of 2022

A.J.C.J.Court, Chirala

2

compromised the matter and she went to the house of accused to lead marital life.

During the year 2010, she blessed with another daughter and again A1 started to harass her both mentally and physically for additional dowry with the support of A2 and A3. As she could not bear the harassment of accused, she reached to her parents house.

LW.2-Shaik Shabeer sent lawyer notice to the accused to take back LW.1, but in vain.

Later, LW.1 came to know that, A1 got married another lady at Karnataka and they blessed with one daughter too. On knowing the same, her father i.e. LW.2 sent lawyer notices to the accused, but they could not respond. A2 & A3 came to her house and picked up wrangle with them and also abused them. Due to the unbearable harassment of accused, LW.1 turned up to police station and lodged a report against the accused 1 to 3. Basing on the report of LW.1, LW.8 – G.Rama Rao, Inspector of Police, Chirala II

Town P.S registered the case and investigated into. During the course of investigation,

LW.8 visited the scene of offence, examined the witnesses and recorded their detailed statements, drawn rough sketch, served Sec.41-A CrPC notice against the accused and on completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet.

03. Case taken on file under sec.498-A of IPC against the accused 1 to 3.

04.A2 reported died. On appearance of the accused 1 & 3, copies furnished under sec.207 Cr.P.C.

05.Accused 1 & 3 were examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C, read over and explained the accusation in Telugu for the offences under Sec.498-A of IPC and after framing charge under Sec.240 Cr.P.C, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06.During the course of trial, prosecution examined PW.1 and PW.2 and marked

Exs.P1 to P3.

07.As there is no incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the examination of accused 1 & 3 under Sec.313

Cr.P.C was dispensed with.

C.C.339 of 2022

A.J.C.J.Court, Chirala

3

08.Heard arguments of learned A.P.P for the prosecution and the learned counsel

for the accused.

09.Now the point that arose for determination is as follows:

Whether the prosecution has bring home the guilt of accused for the

offence u/s 498-A of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt ?

10. POINT:-

To prove the prosecution case, PW.1 and PW.2 were examined. PW.1 is the defacto complainant who deposed that her marriage was performed with the A1 in the year 2017 in the presence of relatives and elders as per Muslim rites and customs.

Herself and A1 lived happily for a period of 8 years, thereafter some misunderstandings arose in between them and with her in-laws. At the intervention of her community elders, matter settled and she took divorce. At the instance of elders, she signed on white paper, but she do not know the contents of it. Ex.P1 is her report. Police never examined her. Accused never harassed her. In the cross examination, after declaring her as hostile by the learned A.P.P, she clearly deposed that the matter between herself and accused settled out side the Court before elders, as such, PW.1 not supported the prosecution case. PW.2 father of PW.1 also turned hostile and denied the contents of his statement.

11. Because of the non-supporting version of material witness i.e., PWs.1 and 2, the remaining witnesses on record were given up by learned A.P.P. In the absence of incriminating material from prosecution witness, this court dispensed with examination under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. Nothing is available on record to attract the ingredients of

Sec.498-A of IPC against the accused 1 & 3. Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused 1 & 3 beyond all reasonable doubt and they are entitled for acquittal.

12. In the result, A1 & A3 are found not guilty for the offence under sec. 498-A of

IPC,hence they are acquitted of the same under Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds executed by the accused shall be in force for a period of six months under Section 437(a) Cr.P.C. Case against A2 is abated as died.

C.C.339 of 2022

A.J.C.J.Court, Chirala

4

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 8 th day of July, 2022.

Sd/- V.Nageswara Rao Naik

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Parchur FAC Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Chirala

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

PW.1 – Shaik Parveen PW.2 – Shaik Shabeer None

// DOCUMENTS MARKED //

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P1 - Report given by PW.1 to police. --NIL-- Ex.P2 - 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1 Ex.P3 - 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2

Sd/- V.NRN

JMFC, Parchur FAC AJMFC, Chirala.

C.C.339 of 2022

A.J.C.J.Court, Chirala

5

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-cum-

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: CHIRALA

CALENDAR IN C.C.No.339 of 2022

Date of offence prior to:07.07.2018 Date of report: 07.07.2018 Date of apprehension of accused: 01.07.2022 Date of release of accused: -- Date of commencement of trial: 04.07.2022 Date of closure of trial: 04.07.2022 Date of Judgment: 08.07.2022

Between: State: Inspector of Police, Chirala II Town PS…Complainant

And

1. Shaik Baji, S/o China Mastan, 40 years,

2. Shaik China Mastan, S/o Ismail, 65 years, (Died)

3. Shaik Mahamad Bhee, W/o China Mastan, 60 years, All are Muslims, Pavuluru Village, Inkollu Mandal. … Accused

Offence:U/Sec.498-A of IPC Plea of accused:Pleaded not guilty Finding of the Court:Found not guilty

Sentence or Order: In the result, A1 & A3 are found not guilty for the offence under sec. 498-A of

IPC,hence they are acquitted of the same under Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds executed by the accused shall be in force for a period of six months under Section 437(a) Cr.P.C. Case against A2 is abated as died.

Explanation for delay:- This case was taken on file for the offence U/Sec.498-A of IPC against the accused 1 to 3. A2 reported died and case against A2 was abated. On appearance of accused 1 & 3

before this court, copies of documents were furnished under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Accused 1

& 3 were examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C read over and explained the accusation in Telugu for the offence under Sec.498-A of IPC, after framing charge under Sec.240 Cr.P.C, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The trial was commenced on 04.07.2022 and concluded on the same day, during trial PWs.1 & 2 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P3 and prosecution evidence was closed. As there is no incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the examination of accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with. On 08.07.2022, Judgment pronounced. Hence the delay.

Sd/- V.NRN

JMFC, Parchur FAC AJMFC, Chirala.

C.C.339 of 2022

A.J.C.J.Court, Chirala

6

I-Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-

I- Additional Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Chirala

1//2

IN THE COURT OF THE I-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-cum-I-ADDL. JUDL.

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: CHIRALA

Present: Sri V.Nageswara Rao Naik,

Junior Civil Judge, Parchur

FAC: I-Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum- I-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chirala.

Wednesday, the 6 th day of July, 2022.

Calendar Case No. 886 of 2019

Between: Kunapareddy Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Mastan Rao, 32 years, Hindu, Business, R/o.Door No.3-11A, Vital Nagar, Chirala, Perala, Chirala Mandal.…Complainant - And -

Jada Samson Prasad, S/o.Not known to the complainant, 45 years, Hindu, Head Constable, H.C.1840, O/o.Traffic Police Station, Ongole Town and Mandal, Prakasam District.… Accused

This case is coming on today for producing sureties before me in the presence of Sri Jasti Sreenath Advocate for Complainant; Sri B.Sreenivasa Rao, Advocate for Accused; and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

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

01. The complainant filed this complaint against the accused for the offence Under

Sec.138 of N.I.Act.

02. Case is advanced from 29.07.2022 to 06.07.2022. Complainant is called present. Learned counsel for complainant filed the instance of elders. Learned counsel for complainant filed the petition Under Sec.257 of Cr.P.C. praying to give permission to withdraw the complaint. The said petition is allowed. The complainant is permitted to withdraw the complaint. Accordingly, the complaint is withdrawn from the file of this Court consequently, the accused is acquitted of the offence.

Pronounced by me in open Court, this the 6th day of July, 2022.

Sd/- V.NRN

Junior Civil Judge, Parchur FAC: I- Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-

I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Chirala

2//2

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined:

For Plaintiff: NILFor Accused: NIL

Documents marked:

For Plaintiff: NILFor Accused:NIL

Sd/- V.NRN

Junior Civil Judge, Parchur FAC: I- Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-

I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Chirala

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-cum-

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: CHIRALA

Present: Sri V.Nageswara Rao Naik Junior Civil Judge, Parchur. FAC Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala.

Friday, the 8 th day of July, 2022

Calendar Case No.468 of 2016

Between: Dakkumalla Vamsi, S/o Sudarsanam, 32 years, Hindu, R/o 6-73, Prasad Nagar, Kothapeta, Vetapalem Mandal.…Complainant

And

Koppolu Chiranjeevi, S/o Lakshmi Narasaiah, 39 years, R/o D.No.1-24-5(B), Vykuntapuram, Near Water Tank, Chirala.… Accused

This case is coming today for cross examination of petitioner before me in the presence of Sri A.S.N.V.V.Prasad, Advocate for Complainant and Sri M.Taraka Ramarao, Advocate for Accused; and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

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

01. The complainant filed this complaint against the accused for the offence Under Sec.138 of N.I.Act.

02. Both parties present. Learned counsel for complainant filed the petition u/s.257 CrPC praying to give permission to withdraw the complaint. The said petition is allowed. The complainant is permitted to withdraw the complaint. Accordingly, the complaint is withdrawn from the file of this court, consequently, the accused is acquitted of the offence.

Pronounced by me in open Court, this the 8th day of July, 2021

Sd/- V.Nageswara Rao Naik

Junior Civil Judge, Parchur

FAC Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined

For Plaintiff: For Accused: PW.1 : Dakkumalla Vamsi None

Documents marked:

For Plaintiff: For Accused: NIL

Ex.P1 – Original cheque bearing No.014834, dt.22-03-2016 for Rs.2 lakhs. Ex.P2 – Office copy of legal notice issued to the accused, dt.13-04-2016 Ex.P3 – Postal receipt, dt.13-04-2016 Ex.P4 – Served postal acknowledgement

Sd/- VNRN

JCJ, Parchur FAC AJCJ, Chirala.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-cum-

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: CHIRALA

Present: Sri V.Nageswara Rao Naik

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Parchur.

FAC Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Chirala.

Friday, the 1 st day of July, 2022.

Calendar Case No.52 of 2018

Between Chinthalapudi Radha Krishna, S/o Ranganayakulu, Hindu, 67 years, R/o H.No.21-1-180, Beside Vegetable Market, Perala, Chirala. …Complainant

And

Bapanapalli Satyanarayana, S/o Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, R/o D.No.10-27, Library Road, Vetapalem.… Accused

This case is coming today before me in the presence of Sri B.Ramesh Babu, Advocate for the complainant and Sri A.S.K.Prasad, Advocate for Accused; and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

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

01.The complainant filed this complaint against the accused for the offence under

Section 138 of N.I.Act.

02. Accused called present. Complainant called absent. No representation. On perusal of the docket, it shows that, the complainant is died long back i.e. on 16.11.2021. Sincethen, the matter is coming for steps on behalf of complainant. Steps not taken from the complainant side, eventhough ample opportunities have been given. So case is abated accordingly.

Pronounced by me in open Court, this the 1st day of July, 2022.

Sd/- V.Nageswara Rao Naik

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Parchur. FAC Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Chirala

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined

For Plaintiff: NIL For Accused: NIL

Documents marked:

For Plaintiff: NIL For Accused: NIL

Sd/- VNRN

JMFC, Parchur. FAC AJMFC, Chirala.