V Pallavi

JMFCC, KPM 1 C.C. No. 382/2019

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS:: KUPPAM

Present: Smt V.PALLAVI.,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kuppam

Monday, this the 17th day of April, 2023

Calendar Case. No. 382 of 2019

Between:

The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Ramakuppam Police Station. … Complainant. And:-

A1: Muddu Krishna, S/o Yellappa, aged 24 years, residing at Palamgattu village H/o Dhandikuppam post, Santhipuram mandal.

A2: Bodemma @ Gangojamma, W/o Venkatesh, aged 48 years, H/o Karlagattu post, Santhipuram mandal.

…. Accused.

This case is coming before me on 10-04-2023 for final hearing, in the presence of Ms. M.Latha, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and

Sri K.C. Chandrappa, Advocate for the Accused and after hearing both sides, and on perusal of relevant material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Prosecution case in brief is as follows:

On 31.05.2019 Complainant – P.Lalitha, who is CDPO Officer,Kuppam lodged a report alleging that Accused No.2 performed child marriage of her minor daughter with Accused No.1. Hence, this case.

2. On the basis of the said report, Ramakuppam P.S Crime

No.56/2019 U/S section 9 and 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act was registered. Investigation was conducted into the case and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the present accused 1 and 2 under section 9 and 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage

Act.

JMFCC, KPM 2 C.C. No. 382/2019

3. On 25.11.2019, this court took cognizance of case against the accused no.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Sections 9 and 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.

4. On 29.12.2020, the case copies were furnished to the accused no1. and 2 as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. On 24.02.2021, The accused no.1 and 2 were examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C in Telugu language by explaining the substance of accusation leveled against them, for the offence punishable under Sections 9 and 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act in Telugu, for which they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for trial (At this stage, as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble Principal Assistant

Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate proceedings in Dis.No.1021

dated.22.11.2022, this case was transferred to this court ) 6. During the course of trial, prosecution has examined LW.1, 3 to 6 as PWs 1 to 5 respectively and got exhibited Exs.P1 to P5. The learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of the LW2 C.Aruna

Kumari, Supervisor, CDPO officer.

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused No. 1 and 2 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., by examining the incriminating portion of prosecution evidence in question form, in Telugu, for which they denied and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard arguments on behalf of the prosecution and Accused 1 and 2.

9. Now the point for determination is, “Whether the prosecution is able to prove that the accused No.1 on 22/23.05.2019 between 04.00 A.M., to 5.00 A.M., at

Sri Vaishnavi Kalyana Mandapam at Vijilapuram village of Ramakuppam Mandal being an adult male above 18 years of age contracted a child marriage and accused No.2 on the same date, time and place performed a child marriage and thereby committed an offences punishable under Sections 9 and 10 of the Child Marriage Act beyond reasonable doubt?“

JMFCC, KPM 3 C.C. No. 382/2019

10. To substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws. 1 to 5 out of 6 listed witnesses and got examined Exs. P1 to P5. P.W.1 the defacto-complainant is the CDPO officer. Ex.P1 is the report given by PW.1.

PW.2 is the Protection Officer Non-institutional care. P.W.3 is the brother-in- law of the victim minor girl. PW.4 is the Victim. Exs.P2 and P3 are Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PWs.3 and 4 respectively. P.W.5 is the then Sub-

Inspector of Police, Ramakuppam police station who filed charge sheet.

Ex.P4 is Original FIR. Ex.P5 is Police proceedings dated.31.05.2019.

11. The stand of Accused no. 1 and Accused no. 2 is of total denial.

12. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of P.W.1, PW.2 and PW.5 coupled with Exs.P1, P4 and P5 establishes that A1 married minor girl and Accused no.2 performed marriage of minor girl and they are liable for conviction for the offence punishable under Sections 9 and 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.

13. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel argued that there is no support of independent witnesses to the version of P.W.1 and

PW.2 and thus, their evidence cannot be relied upon. He further pointed that no document was placed by the prosecution to show that PW.4 was a minor at the relevant time and thus, the accused no.1 and 2 are entitled for benefit of doubt.

14. In view of rival contentions of both sides, the entire evidence is perused.

POINT NO.1:

15. P.W.1, is the informant. She worked as CDPO of ICDS project at

Kuppam from June, 2017 to 10.07.2019 as FAC 11.07.2019 to 06.01.2022 regular CDPO. She stated that on 20.05.2019 while she was at her office at around 12.00 noon PW3 came to her office and gave a complaint to her that his mother-in-law that is accused no. 2 is performing the marriage of PW4 minor girl and on 21.05.2019 she went to the house of accused no. 2 and took a letter from her not to perform child marriage and on 24.05.2019,

JMFCC, KPM 4 C.C. No. 382/2019

PW3 called her over phone and informed her that accused no.2 performed

M.Lalitha’s (PW4) marriage with accused no.1 and she asked him whether there is any evidence for which he replied no evidence. She further stated that PW3 made a written complaint before the collector and also at their PD office and their director called her and directed to make enquiry and do necessary action and her director forwarded the complainant along with the wedding card, marriage photos, transfer certificate, Ration card and aadhar card to her office. She further stated that she made enquiry and found lalitha with Mangalsutra and her marriage was performed and accused no.2 agreed that she performed child marriage and later she gave complaint to police on 31.05.2019 and police examined her and she handed over the photostat copies of written complaint, wedding card, marriage photos, transfer certificate, Ration card and Aadhar card to police. Ex.P1 is the complaint given by PW.1.

In her cross-examination, P.W.1 stated that she has submitted the first complaint of PW3 to police. She stated that she gave photostat copy of transfer certificate to police. She stated that she did not make any enquiry at Kalyana Mandapam on 24.05.2019 after receiving information from PW3.

She stated that she did not collect the originals of marriage photos, wedding card, transfer certificate, ration card and aadhar card of minor girl. She denied the suggestion that she made a false complaint without making proper verification of original documents to victim minor girl. She admitted that she did not record the confession of Accused no.2 and statement of victim in the presence of mediators. She admitted that she did not enquire any villagers of accused no.2 to ascertain whether they performed child marriage. She denied the suggestion that no such child marriage was performed on the intervening night of 22/23.05.2019.

16. P.W.2, is the Protection officer in District Child Protection unit,

Chittoor. He deposed that PW.3 Singaravelu gave complaint to District

Collector and he inturn gave directions to Project Director and the collector

JMFCC, KPM 5 C.C. No. 382/2019 instructed to him to stop child marriage of PW4 and then, in co-ordination with PW.1 conducted enquiry regarding child marriage of PW4 and ascertained her marriage was performed on 22.05.2019 and gave report to police and he was informed that PW4 is sister-in-law of PW3 and police examined him.

In his cross-examination, he stated that he did not receive any direct complaint from PW3. He stated that they did not record any statement of villagers. He stated that they did not enquire the owner and staff of kalyana mandapam where child marriage was performed. He denied the suggestion that no child marriage took place and PW3 gave a false complaint and basing on that they conducted improper enquiry and lodged police report.

17. PW.3/M.Singaravelu (who gave complaint to District collector and PW.1 about child marriage) deposed that he came to know that PW4 got married in the year 2019 and he never gave complaint to PW.1 and PW.2 regarding child marriage and also to District collector and he does not know anything about this case and police never examined them. PW4 Victim deposed that she got married accused no.1 in the year 2021, but not in the year 2019 and her marriage was not performed while she was a minor and police did not examine her. As PWs. 3 and 4 did not support the prosecution version, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor declared them as hostile and cross examined them with the permission of the court. They denied that they stated before the police as in Exs. P2 and P3 i.e., their respective statements recorded under section 161 (3) Cr.P.C. Nothing was elicited which helps to prove the prosecution case.

18. PW.5 / Sub-Inspector of police, Ramkuppam Police station deposed about registering FIR that is Ex.P4 and seizure of photostat copies of written complaint of Singaravelu (PW.3), wedding card, marriage photos, transfer certificate, Ration card and Aadhar card under police proceedings that is Ex.P5 and filing of charge sheet after completion of investigation.

JMFCC, KPM 6 C.C. No. 382/2019

In his cross-examination, he admitted that PW.3 did not give any direct complaint to him. He stated that he visited marriage hall but its owner did not disclose anything about child marriage. He stated that he went to the village of victim, but no villagers or relatives came forward to state about the child marriage of PW.4. He denied the suggestion that he foisted this case against the accused basing on the false allegations of PW.3 who intends to marry PW.4.

19. Here in this case, it is the contention of the prosecution that accused no.2 performed child marriage of PW.4 with accused no.1. Firstly, the prosecution have to prove that PW.4 was a minor at the time of occurrence. No material was placed by the prosecution to prove PW.4 was a minor like filing of date of birth certificate or transfer certificate of PW.4. The oral evidence of PWs. 1, 2 and 5 would not prove the age of victim and their evidence is nomore useful to the case of the prosecution regarding PW.4 was a minor at the time of occurrence. Simply PWs. 1, 2 and 5 stated that they collected photostat copies of Transfer certificate of victim. The said photostat copies of transfer certificate of PW.4 cannot be looked in to as they are unmarked documents and are inadmissible piece of evidence. The investigation officer PW.5 did not make any efforts to collect original documents such as birth certificate and transfer certificate of victim.

Moreover, PW.5 did not cite the villagers and relatives of P.W.4 also cast serious doubt in the investigation. PW.4 stated that she stated that she got married in the year 2021 with A1 but not in 2019. When the prosecution failed to prove that PW.4 was a minor at the time of occurrence the other aspects whether child marriage was performed to PW.4 or not cannot be decided by this court. All these doubtful circumstances, create serious doubt in the present case. Whenever a doubt creeps into the prosecution case, the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt.

JMFCC, KPM 7 C.C. No. 382/2019

20. For the foregoing reasons, the court finds no convincing and satisfactory evidence to hold that accused No.1 being major married minor girl PW.4 and accused no.2 performed child marriage of PW.4 with accused no.1 as alleged. Thus, the Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences punishable under section 9 and 10 of the Prohibition of Child

Marriage Act beyond the reasonable doubt. Hence, accused 1 and 2 are entitled for benefit of doubt. Accordingly, point is answered against the prosecution.

21. In the result, accused Nos. 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under section 9 and 10 of the Prohibition of Child

Marriage Act. Therefore, accused Nos. 1 and 2 are acquitted under Section 255 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code for the said offences and they are set at liberty. The bail bonds of accused Nos. 1 and 2 as well as their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. No property is produced in this case.

Hence, no orders is passed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 17 th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- V. Pallavi,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kuppam.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined on behalf of:

Prosecution: Defence:

PW1: P. Lalitha. - None –

PW2: M. Sivasankar

PW3: M. Singarvelu

PW4: M.Lalitha

PW5: D. Muniswamy

JMFCC, KPM 8 C.C. No. 382/2019

Exhibits marked on behalf of:

Prosecution:

Exhibit P1 is the report given by PW.1.

Exhibit P2 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3.

Exhibit P3 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4.

Exhibit P4 is the Original FIR in Cr. No. 56/2019 dated 31-05-2019.

Exhibit P5 is the Police proceedings dated 31.05.2019.

Material Objects marked: -Nil-

Defence: - Nil –

Id/-V.P., J.M.F.C KPM // True copy//

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Kuppam.

JMFCC, KPM 9 C.C. No. 382/2019

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: KUPPAM.

CALENDAR IN C.C.No. 382/2019.

1. Date of offence 22-05-2019

2. Date of Report or complaint 31-05-2019

3. Date of taken on file 25-11-2019

Date of apprehension of

4. --- accused

5. Date of release on bail ---

Date of commencement of

6. 10-01-2023 trial

7. Date of close of trial 06-04-2023

8. Date of Sentence or Order 17-04-2023

State Sub-Inspector of Police,

9. Complainant Ramakuppam P.S A1: Muddu Krishna, S/o Yellappa, aged 24 years, residing at Palamgattu village H/o Dhandikuppam post,

10. Description of accused Santhipuram mandal.

A2: Bodemma @ Gangojamma, W/o Venkatesh, aged 48 years, H/o Karlagattu post, Santhipuram mandal.

11. Section of Law u/s 9 and 10 of Proh. Of Child Marriage Act

12. Plea of Accused Pleaded not guilty.

13. Finding of Court Found not guilty.

14. Reasons for Delay : Due to non production of witnesses by the prosecution

15. Sentence or Order :

In the result, accused Nos. 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under section 9 and 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act. Therefore, accused Nos. 1 and 2 are acquitted under Section 255 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code for the said offences and they are set at liberty. The bail bonds of accused Nos. 1 and 2 as well as their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. No property is produced in this case. Hence, no orders is passed.

Sd/- V. Pallavi,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KUPPAM

Copy submitted to :

The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittoor.

// True copy//

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Kuppam.

JMFCC, KPM 10 C.C. No. 382/2019

JMFC, KPM 1C.C. No. 30/2019

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS:: KUPPAM

Present: Smt V.PALLAVI.,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kuppam

Monday, this the 17th day of April, 2023

Calendar Case. No. 30 of 2019

Between:

The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Ramakuppam Police Station. … Complainant. And:-

A1: B. Allabaksha, S/o Baba Saheb, aged 45 years.

A2: B. Fathima, W/o Allabaksha, aged 35 years.

A4: B. Parvin, W/o Allabaksha, aged 30 years.

The above accused are all Muslims, residing at Goolipalli village, H/o Unisiganispalli, Ramakuppam mandal.

…. Accused Nos. 1,2 and 4. Deleted Accused:

A3. B. Siraj, S/o Allabaksha, aged 18 years. A5: B.Noushed, S/o Allabaksha, aged 17 years, Student.

The above accused are residing at Goolipalli village, H/o Unisiganispalli, Ramakuppam mandal

This case is coming before me on 12-04-2023 for final hearing, in the presence of Ms. M. Latha, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and

Sri C. Viswanatha Reddy, Advocate for the Accused and after hearing both sides, and on perusal of relevant material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Ramakuppam Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused No.1, 2 and 4 in Cr. No. 98/2018 of

Ramakuppam Police Station for the offence Under Section 323, 324, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.

02. The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:

On 15-11-2018 at about 7.00 PM, LW5-Azimuddin Aliyash Gulab locked the mosque and went away, but the villagers i.e, the accused no.1 thought that PW2 wantonly locked the mosque, for which, the accused no.1

JMFC, KPM 2C.C. No. 30/2019 his wives i.e., the accused no.2 and 4 all together came in front of house of

PW1 with a motive of criminal intimidation and abused in filthy language and that, the accused no.1 beat PW2 with iron rod on the head and caused blood injury, due to which, total clothes dampened with blood stains. Later, the accused no. 2 and 4 beat PW2 with bricks on the left shoulder and chest region and kicked him with hands and legs, PW1 while questioning, they also beat him with bricks on right eye below part and shoulder, due to enmity.

The neighbours i.e., LW3-Basha Saheb, LW4-Krishnappa and LW5-Azimudin

Aliyash Gulab, rescued PW1 and PW2 from the clutches of the accused nos.

1, 2 and 4 and thereafter, PW1 took PW2 to Government Area Hospital,

Kuppam and admitted for treatment.

Basing on the report of PW1, a case in Crime No. 98/2018 under Sec.

324, 323 and 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code was registered against the accused No. 1 to 5 and later, the Sub-Inspector of police, Ramakuppam police station, visited scene of offence, recorded statements of witnesses, prepared rough sketch of scene of offence, seized blood stained clothes in the presence of mediators.

During the course of investigation, basing on the evidence of PW2,

LW3 to LW5, as the accused no.3 and 5 are not present in the village and they did not involve in this offence, their names were deleted.

The accused no.1 to 5 appeared before the LW8-M. Suresh Babu, Sub-

Inspector of Police, Ramakuppam Police station, they were served with notice under section 41(A)Cr.P.C with an instruction to appear before Station

House officer on the date of intimation. After receipt of wound certificate of

PW2, LW9 D.Muniswamy, Sub-Inspector of Police, Ramakuppam police station filed Charge Sheet against accused No.1, 2 and 4 under Sec.323, 324, 506 r/w Sec 34 of Indian Penal Code

3. This case was taken on file for the offence punishable Under

Section 323, 324 and 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against the accused

No.1, 2 and 4.

JMFC, KPM 3C.C. No. 30/2019

4. On appearance of accused No.1, 2 and 4 in the court, copies of relevant documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused No.1, 2 and 4 were examined under Section 239

Criminal Procedure Code, for which they denied the same. A charge under

Section 323, 324, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code was framed accused

No.1, 2 and 4, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which the accused No.1, 2 and 4 denied and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Thus the case was posted for trial.

6. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined PW 1 and PW2 and marked Exhibits P1 to P3. The evidence of LWs.3 to 9 were given up by the prosecution.

7. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the examination

Under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code was dispensed with as there is no incriminating evidence against the accused No.1, 2 and 4.

8. Heard arguments of the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel.

9. Now the point for determination is : Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of accused No.1, 2 and 4 beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable Under Section 323, 324, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal code ?

10. The main allegation of prosecution against accused No.1, 2 and 4 is that on 15-11-2018 at about 7.00 PM, in front of the house of PW1 the accused No.1, 2 and 4 voluntarily caused hurt to PW2 with iron rod, bricks, hands and legs causing blood injuries to him which is a dangerous weapon and all of them were present with a common intention to voluntarily cause hurt to PW2 and thereby accused No.1, 2 and 4 committed an offence punishable under Section 323, 324, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

11. As it is the burden of prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has examined PW1 and PW2 and got exhibited Exs.P1 to P3. PW1 is said to be the defacto complainant. Ex.P1 is

JMFC, KPM 4C.C. No. 30/2019 the signature of PW1 on report said to be given by him and Ex.P2 is section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1. PW.2 is the injured. Ex.P3 is the section 161

Cr.P.C. statement of PW2.

12. Herein the case, the defacto complainant cum injured i.e. PW1 categorically deposed that at about four years ago, there was a scuffle with unknown persons, but not with the accused and he does not know anything about this case and he never received any injuries. He further deposed that he put his signature on report at the instance of the village elders and he does not know the contents of the same. Though PW1 identified his signature i.e. Ex.P1, he stated that he does not know the contents of the same and subscribed his signature at the instance of his elders.

13. PW2, whose evidence is very crucial and who is injured categorically deposed that he does not know anything of this case and he never received any injuries pertaining to this case and police did not examine him.

14. As the evidence of PW1 and PW2 did not support the prosecution version, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor declared them as hostile and cross examined them with the permission of the court. But nothing was elicited which could help the prosecution case. Since, the material witnesses turned hostile, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor had rightly given up the evidence of remaining immaterial witnesses including the Doctor and investigation officer.

15. In such facts and circumstances, the court finds no incriminating evidence accused No.1, 2 and 4 for the allegations leveled against them.

Therefore, the court holds that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused No.1, 2 and 4 for the charges leveled against them. Accordingly point is answered against the prosecution.

16. In the result, accused No.1, 2 and 4 are found not guilty for offence punishable under Section 323, 324, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal

Code. Therefore, the accused No.1, 2 and 4 are acquitted under Section 248

JMFC, KPM 5C.C. No. 30/2019 (1) Criminal Procedure Code and they are set at liberty. The bail bonds of accused No.1, 2 and 4 as well as their sureties shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months as per section 437-A of Criminal Procedure code. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17 th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- V. Pallavi,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kuppam.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined on behalf of:

Prosecution: Defence:

PW-1: Nabi Sharefulla - None –

PW-2: Hassan Saheb

Exhibits marked on behalf of:

Prosecution:

Exhibit P1 is the signature of PW1 on report.

Exhibit P2 is section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1.

Exhibit P3 is the section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2.

Material Objects marked:

-Nil-

Id/-V.P., J.M.F.C KPM // True copy//

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Kuppam.

JMFC, KPM 6C.C. No. 30/2019

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: KUPPAM.

CALENDAR IN C.C.No. 30/2019.

1. Date of offence 15-11-2018

2. Date of Report or complaint 18-11-2018

3. Date of taken on file 05-02-2019

4. Date of apprehension of accused ---

5. Date of release on bail ---

6. Date of commencement of trial 06-04-2023

7. Date of close of trial 06-04-2023

8. Date of Sentence or Order 17-04-2023

State Sub-Inspector of Police,

9. Complainant Ramakuppam P.S A1: B. Allabaksha, S/o Baba Saheb, aged 45 years. A2: B. Fathima, W/o Allabaksha, aged 35 years.

10. Description of accused A4: B. Parvin, W/o Allabaksha, aged 30 years. The above accused are all Muslims, residing at Goolipalli village, H/o Unisiganispalli, Ramakuppam mandal.

11. Section of Law Section 323, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC

12. Plea of Accused Pleaded not guilty.

13. Finding of Court Found not guilty.

14. Reasons for Delay: Summons issued to LW1 to LW3 on 22-7-2022, PW1 and PW2 were examined on 6-4-2023. Heard arguments on 12-4-2023. Hence, no delay

15. Sentence or Order :

In the result, accused No.1, 2 and 4 are found not guilty for offence punishable under Section 323, 324, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the accused No.1, 2 and 4 are acquitted under Section 248 (1) Criminal Procedure Code and they are set at liberty. The bail bonds of accused No.1, 2 and 4 as well as their sureties shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months as per section 437-A of Criminal Procedure code. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- V. Pallavi,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KUPPAM Copy submitted to :

The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittoor.

// True copy//

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Kuppam.

PJCJC, KPM 1 O.S. No. 54/2022

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: KUPPAM

PRESENT : Smt V.PALLAVI.,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kuppam

Monday, this the 10th day of April, 2023

ORIGINAL SUIT No.54 of 2022

Between:-

E. Subramani @ Subramanyam, S/o M. Eswarappa, aged 39 years, residing at D. No. 3-362, Jedu Kothur village, Nachikuppam post, Vepanapalli via Krishnagiri Taluk and District, Tamilnadu. … Plaintiff. And:-

1.Papammal, W/o Late M. Venkatesh, aged 55 years, residing at B.C. Puthur village, Mekkalachinpalli post, Krishnagiri Taluk and District.

2.Subramanyam, S/o V.Velu, aged 22 years.

3.V. Shanthi, W/o V. Velu, aged 45 years.

4.V. Velu, S/o late Veeran, aged 55 years.

The above defendants are residing at D. No. 16-70, Kurmayapuram, Kuppam town, post and mandal, Chittoor District. … Defendants.

The suit is coming before me on 17.02.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. A.S. Natarajan, Advocate for the Plaintiff and

Sri S. Murugan, Advocate for the 1st defendant and Sri B.R. Amarnath,

Advocate for the defendants 2 to 4 and later, the defendants 1 to 4 did not choose to file the written statement within stipulated time and remained exparte, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this

Court delivers the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The suit is filed for partition by plaintiff for allotment of half share to the plaintiff and separate possession thereof and for other reliefs.

02. The brief averments of the plaint are that:

The 1st defendant is the own sister of the plaintiff and they both purchased jointly the suit schedule site with foundation under a Registered sale deed dated.15.03.2008 vide document no.737/2008 and both of them are joint owners of suit schedule property and has been enjoying the same without divisions. The plaintiff with an understanding with the 1st defendant has put up a temporary sheet shed with hollow bricks in major portion of the

PJCJC, KPM 2 O.S. No. 54/2022 suit schedule site. The original sale deed is with the custody of the 1st defendant and therefore, he filed certified copy of the same. Due to misunderstandings between the wife of plaintiff and the 1st defendant, some petty quarrels arose and the 1st defendant developed enmity against the plaintiff and his family and has been trying to sell the suit schedule site to the defendants 2 to 4, who are residing at Kuppam and they are trying to create nominal documents in order to deprive his legitimate share. The plaintiff and the 1st defendant are having equal share in the suit schedule site and the defendants 2 to 4 are no way concerned with the same. The plaintiff convened a panchayath at Kuppam, called the 1st defendant on sivarathri festival on 01.03.2022 and demanded her to cooperate for amicable division of the suit schedule property, but the 1st defendant refused to do so. In such circumstances, the plaintiff demanded the 1st defendant for his ½ share in the suit schedule site and filed the suit.

3. After receipts of summons, the defendants 1 to 4 appeared

before this court through their counsel, but failed to file written statement

within the stipulated period and remained exparte to the suit proceedings on 26.08.2022.

4. On behalf of the plaintiff, he got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs. A1 to A3.

5. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for plaintiff. Perused the entire record.

6. Now the point for consideration is, “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of suit schedule properties into two equal shares and for allotment of one such share with separate possession of the same?”

7. POINT: -

In order to claim the relief of partition, the plaintiff has to establish that the suit schedule property is liable for partition, and that the plaintiff is entitled for claiming share in it.

PJCJC, KPM 3 O.S. No. 54/2022

8. To prove the same, the plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs. A1 to A3. Ex. A1 is Certified copy of Registered sale deed dated.15.03.2008 stands in the name of plaintiff and the 1st defendant.

It discloses that the plaintiff and the 1st defendant jointly purchased the suit schedule site from D.Mahesh for valuable consideration of Rs.1,90,000/- and obtained possession of the same. Ex.A2 is encumbrance certificate dated.08.02.2022. Ex.A3 is Photograph of the suit schedule site.

9. The oral evidence of P.W.1 goes to show that the suit schedule property is jointly purchased by the plaintiff and the 1st defendant and now due to petty issues the 1st defendant is trying to alienate the suit schedule site to defendants 2 to 4 in order to deprive his legitimate share and thus, he is entitled for half share in the suit schedule property.

10. Since the evidence of P.W.1 as well as documentary evidence remains unchallenged, the court finds no reason to disbelieve the same.

Since, it is proved that the plaintiff also has share in the suit schedule property, the first defendant had no absolute right to convey the suit schedule property to the defendants 2 to 4 and similarly, the defendants 2 to 4 cannot get absolute and valid right under the said nominal documents.

11. In view of the above discussion, the court holds that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of partition of suit schedule properties into two equal shares and for allotment of one such share and separate possession thereof.

Accordingly, point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

12. In the result, the suit is preliminarily decreed with costs and suit schedule property shall be divided into two equal shares and allot one share to plaintiff, and one share to the 1st defendant with metes and bounds.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of April, 2023.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KUPPAM.

PJCJC, KPM 4 O.S. No. 54/2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff : For Defendants :

PW.1 : E. Subramani Exparte.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff :

Exhibit A1 is the certified copy of Registered sale deed dated.15.03.2008.

Exhibit A2 is the encumbrance certificate dated 08.02.2022.

Exhibit A3 is the Photograph of the suit schedule site.

For Defendants : - NIL-

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KUPPAM.

PJCJC, KPM OS.No. 242/2022

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: KUPPAM.

Present: Smt V Pallavi

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kuppam

Monday, the 24th day of April, 2023

O.S.No. 242 of 2022

Between:-

Union Bank of India, Kuppam Branch

...Plaintiff.

And:-

1.J.M. Lakshmi Ram

2.J. Pavanakumari

3.J.M. Prabhakar

... Defendants

This Original suit coming before me on 24-04-2023 in the presence of

Sri P.V. Madhusudhan, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the defendants remained exparte the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following :-

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff bank for directing the defendants do pay the sum sued for Rs. 4,30,920/- to the plaintiff bank for the loan obtained by the defendants under simple mortgage deed with future interest at 10.65% p.a., from the date of suit till the date of realization and for costs of the suit.

The learned counsel for the plaintiff bank filed a memo stating that the suit can be dismissed as settled out of court. Memo recorded. Hence, the suit is dismissed as settled out of court. No costs.

Pronounced by me in the open court this the 24th day of April, 2023.

Prl. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KUPPAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

-NIL-.

P. J.C.J., KUPPAM

DRAFT / FAIR JUDGMENT

PJCJC, KPM OS.No. 242/2022

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: KUPPAM.

Present: Smt V Pallavi

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kuppam

Monday, the 24th day of April, 2023

O.S.No. 242 of 2022

Between:-

Union Bank of India, Kuppam Branch

...Plaintiff.

And:-

1.J.M. Lakshmi Ram

2.J. Pavanakumari

3.J.M. Prabhakar

... Defendants

This Original suit coming before me on 24-04-2023 in the presence of

Sri P.V. Madhusudhan, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the defendants remained exparte the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following :-

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff bank for directing the defendants do pay the sum sued for Rs. 4,30,920/- to the plaintiff bank for the loan obtained by the defendants under simple mortgage deed with future interest at 10.65% p.a., from the date of suit till the date of realization and for costs of the suit.

The learned counsel for the plaintiff bank filed a memo stating that the suit can be dismissed as settled out of court. Memo recorded. Hence, the suit is dismissed as settled out of court. No costs.

Pronounced by me in the open court this the 24th day of April, 2023.

Prl. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KUPPAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

-NIL-.

P. J.C.J., KUPPAM

DRAFT / FAIR JUDGMENT