Sri.Venkata Seshu Babu

1

IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

VIKARABAD, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

PRESENT: V.V.SESHU BABU,

(FAC) XII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

VIKARABAD, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Dated this the 27 th day of November, 2020.

Crl.Revision No. 4 OF 2020

IN

Crl.M.P.No.118 OF 2020

IN

Crime No.403 OF 2020

Between:

Remesh Ponuganti S/o.Ponuganti Ramaiah, Aged 52 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H. No.4-1-71, Vaddyagudem, Amalapuram, East Godavari - 533201.

....Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana P.S. Shankarpally. .…Respondent.

This Petition is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Gopal Reddy, Counsel for the petitioner and the Addl. P.P. for state and upon perusal of the material papers, on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

1.This petition is filed against the order of Court Below in rejecting to give interim custody of the vehicle bearing No. AP 05 EN 3169.

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Addl. Public

Prosecutor.

3.The petitioner counsel submitted that as per the insurance policy dated 10.09.2020 the cost of vehicle is Rs.19 lakhs and odd. If it is kept in idle in the Police Station damaged a lot; that ready and furnish to security and also ready to produce vehicle as and when ordered by the Court, and so, requested for interim custody.

4.The Addl. Public Prosecutor opposed petition.

2

5.Point: Registration Certificate goes to show that the vehicle belongs to the petitioner. Insurance received insurance policy is also standing in the name of the petitioner. Therefore, he is absolute owner of the property. If the vehicle is kept in the Police Station till the disposal of the case it will damage. In such case the petitioner will suffer a lot even if concerned accused is acquitted. Taking all these aspects of the consideration, I am of the view that the vehicle can be released for interim custody.

6.In the result petition is allowed giving interim custody of the vehicle bearing No. AP 05 EN 3169 on his execution of personal bond for

Rs.20,00,000/- with one surety for like sum and subject to undertaking by the petitioner to produce the vehicle whenever directed by the Court, not to change physical features and physical state of vehicle in any manner and not to alienate the same in any manner in the meanwhile. Hence I am of the considered opinion that the vehicle ISUZI be released with certain conditions which are as follows.

(i). The petitioner shall execute bond with equal value of Rs.20,00,000/- with one surety to the satisfaction of J.F.C.M., Chevella.

(ii). The petitioner shall deposit the original registration certificate of the

ISUZI vehicle bearing No. AP 05 EN 3169 before J.F.C.M. Chevella till the disposal of the case and the learned J.F.C.M. Chevella is directed to issue certificate to that effect.

(iii). The petitioner shall not sell or alienate or pledge or create any 3rd party interest and shall not change the appearance and colour of the vehicle till disposal of the case.

(iv). The petitioner shall produce the vehicle before the J.F.C.M. Chevella as and when required.

Accordingly the revision petition is allowed.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 27 th day of November, 2020.

(FAC) XII Addl District & Sessions Judge, Vikarabad.

IN THE cOURT OF THE XIl ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

VIKARABAD, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

PRESENT:V.V.SESHUBABU

(FAC) XII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

VIKARABAD, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Dated this the 10th day of November, 2020.

Crl.R.P.No.2 of 2020

Crl. M.P. No.93 of 2020

In Cr. No. 119 of 2020

Between:

MOD Ali S/o.Md.Ahmed, Aged: 34 years, Oc: Auto Driver (Auto No: TS 13 UA 1371), R/o.H. No.13-1-610/25/D, Yousuf Nagar,

Tappachabutra, Karwan, Hyderabad.

.Petitioner

AND The State of Telangana., through P.S.Dharuur.

.Respondent.

This Petition is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Raju, Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri G.Narayana, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and upon perusal of the material papers, on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

ORDER

This Crl.R.P. is filed U/s.457 Cr.P.C. by setting aside the orders in Crl. 1. M.P. No.93/2020 dated 21.10.2020 on the file of Principal jMFC, Vikarabad.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Addl. Public 2. Prosecutor.

The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question and he filed 3. Registration Certificate of the vehicle to prove his ownership. The insurance is also standing in the name of the Revision Petitioner. The Court Below dismissed his application for interim custody of the vehicle and aggrieved for It is submitted that if the vehicle the same filed the present revision. remains in the Police Station it will be damaged due to climatic condition, and so, requested for interim custody of the vehicle.

The Addl. Public Prosecutor opposed bail by stating that without any 4. permit the accused was transporting two Calves in the vehicle and taking them to the Slaughter house, and so, requested for dismissal of the petition.

The point for consideration is: 5. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the interim custody of the vehicle?

Point: As per the Registration Certificate the petitioner is owner of the 6. vehicle. As rightly argued by the petitioner counsel the vehicle is damaged if it remains in the Police Station and exposed to the weather condition. Therefore, I am of the view that the vehicle can be returned to the petitioner for interim custody.

In the result, the Revision is allowed and the petitioner is directed to 7. furnish self bond for Rs.2,00,000/- with one surety to the Court Below for the interim custody of the vehicle; that he is directed not to change the colour of the vehicle and the material parts of the vehicle; that the vehicle can be produced as and when ordered by the Court; that petitioner shall not sell the vehicle to anybody till disposal of the same; that he shall continuously pay the insurance premium till disposal of the case.

Dictated to the Stenographer on cell phone, transcribed and sent to him through

mail by him, corrected and pronounced by me through virtual Court on this the 10h day of November, 2020.

UV:S em joli020

(FAC) XII Addl District & Sessions Judge, Vikrabad

IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

AT VIKARABAD, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT: V.V.Seshu Babu, II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, At L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. (FAC) XII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, R.R. District.

DATED THIS THE 07 th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020.

M.V.O.P. No. 42 OF 2017

Between:

1. Cheguri Balamani, W/o Late. C.Satyanarayanagoud, Age: 50 years, Occ: House wife,

2. Cheguri Prabhakar Goud, S/o C. Satyanarayana goud, Age: 37 years, Occ: Employee,

3. Cheguri Ramesh Goud, S/o C.Satyanarayana Goud, Age: 35 years, Occ: Agriculture,

4. Cheguri Mahesh Goud, S/o. C. Satyanarayana Goud, Age: 31 years, Occ: Advocate,

5. Cheguri Vishnu Goud, S/o. C.Satyanarayan Goud, All R/o Surangal Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Temporary Residing at Vikarabad.

6. Cheguri Sathyamma S/o. Late Cheguri Anjaiah Goud, Age : 82 years, Occ: House wife, R/o H.No. 1-83, Surangal Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. [ Petitioner. No.6 impleaded on Dated: 13.03.2018 through IA. NO.3 of 2018] …Petitioners

A N D

1. Pathlavath Shivaraj S/o Kishan, Age: 19 years, Occ: Driver of Crime Vehicle, R/o Hythabad tanda H/o. Hythabad Village, Shabad Mandal,

2. Putta Ramesh S/o Ramulu, Age: 26 years, Occ: Auto Driver, H.No. 2-15, Maddur Village, Shabad mandal,

3. Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd. Rep. By its manager, E-8, EPIP, RICO Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302022 INDIA. …Respondents

CLAIM: Claim petition for compensation under section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988 and Rules 475/1B of A.P.M.V, Rules 1989 R/w section 163-A 140( c) of A.P.M.V Act, 1998.

This petition is coming on this day before me in the presence of Sri.

J.Parthasardhi Rao, Advocate for Petitioners and Sri.E.Janardhan, Sri. K.Jagan and

Sri.P.Mallesh Yadav Advocate for Respondents having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court made the following:

****

A W A R D

NATIONAL LOK ADALATH ON 07-11-2020:-

The petitioners No.1 to 6 and 3rd respondent entered into compromise towards full and final settlement of the claim amount. Respondent No.3 agreed to pay Rs.

6,00,000/- ( Rupees Six lakhs only) and the petitioners agreed for the same.

Out of Rs.6,00,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/- is awarded as compensation to the 1st petitioner. Rs. 75,000/- each is awarded to petitioners No.2 to 5 and Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded to 6th petitioner.

Rs.6,00,000/- shall be deposited within one month from the date of award and in case of failure it will carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the 30th day till the date of deposit.

After such deposit all the petitioners are permitted to withdraw their respective amounts.

(FAC) XII Addl. District & Sessions Judge Vikarabad, R.R. District.

IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT,AT VIKARABAD.

PRESENT: V.V.Seshu Babu, II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, At L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. (FAC) XII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, R.R. District.

DATED THIS THE 07 th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020.

A.S. No. 21 OF 2020

Between:

Smt. Puppalagudem Anthamma, W/o Late Satyanarayana, D/o. Kothapally Buchaiah, Aged about 47 years, Occ: House Hold, R/o. Banoor Village, Patancheru Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. …Appellant

A N D

1. Kothapally Vittal, S/o. Buchaiah, Aged about 60 years, Occ: Service, R/o Sanga Reddy Village, Mandal & District. R/o. Yelwarthy Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Kothapally Buchaiah, S/o. Eedanna, Aged about 77 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Yelwarthy Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

3. Kothapally Ashok, S/o.Late Anjaiah, Aged about Major, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Yelwarthy Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

4. Smt.Bharathamma, W/o. Late Ramaiah, Aged about Major, Occ: Household, R/o. Narengudem Village, Nawabpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

5. Narahari, S/o. Permaiah, Aged about Major, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Yelwarthy Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. …Respondents

CLAIM: On appeal from the preliminary Judgment and Decree dated: 18.03.2010 and final decree dated: 23.01.2017, Passed in O.S.No. 173 of 2006, On the file of Senior Civil

Judge, Ranga Reddy District, At Vikarabad.

This petition is coming on this day before me in the presence of Sri. Kasoju

Yadagiri Advocate for Appellant and Sri.S.N.Chary, Advocate for Respondents having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court made the following:

A W A R D

LOK ADALATH ON 07-11-2020:-

Appellant, Respondents No.1, 3 and 4 are present. Joint memo filed to refer the matter before the Lok Adalath.

The appellant filed memo not pressing the appeal against R5 stating that she is no way connected to the join t family and not having any interest over the same.

Award is passed before Lok Adalath as per the terms of compromise.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed as per the terms of compromise.

(FAC) XII Addl. District & Sessions Judge Vikarabad, R.R. District.