Date: 8-6-16, Case: SC 514/2013

The case was, the accused was charged u/section 302, 120(b) and 324 r/w 34 Indian Penal
Code, 1860. The accused and other accused went into deceased farm and picked up a quarrel
regarding their past land issues and in that quarrel while all the other family members were
present at the scene of offence. The A1 lifted an instrument called ‘Gooru Koyya’ (an
agricultural instrument) and hit the deceased on forehead and the deceased fell down. Deceased
died while he was taking to the hospital.
The case was halted with the examination of witnesses and adjourned for the arguments.

Case : Cr.M.P. 122/2012 in Cr. No. 121/2012

Where the accused charged with Sec 147, 148, 302 r/w 511, 115, 118, 120(b) r/w 149 Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and 25(1B)(a)(b) of Arms Act. The petition was filed under section 438 Cr.P.C
for bail. In this case the petitioner who was a son of present M.L.A of Rapthadu Constituency,
Anantapuam, Andhra Pradesh and also his father late. Sri. Paritala Ravindra was also a M.L.A
who was murdered.
The counsel argued that the petitioner was in indirect politics and was humiliating and subjected
to the torture in the hands of respondent. Hence they framed false charges where he had no
connection to the offence.
The bail was granted and the court directed the police to release the petitioner.

Date:9-6-16 , Case: Crl. M.P. 127/2012 in Cr. No. 121/2012

In this case, the accused was charged with sec 147, 148, 302 r/w 511, 115, 118, 120(b) r/w 149
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and 25(1B)(a)(b) of Arms Act. The accused were the followers of the
said M.L.A in the previous case.
The counsel argued that the petitioners were into active politics and they are been followers of
Telugu Desham Party in order to spoil their name and the only they framed false charges
because they were followers of said party and the paritala family hence they were subjected to
the false charges where he has no connection to the offence.
The bail was granted and directed the respondent to release the petitioner.
Case: Cr. M.P. No. 78/2014 in Cr. No. 88/2014
The petition was filed for the bail of the petitioners who charged under section. 379 Indian
Penal Code, 1860.
The petitioners are remanded to the judicial custody by the Hon’ble Addl. Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Anantapuram, Andhra Pradesh. Where the counsel argued that the charges were
falsely implied on petitioner and prayed for the bail
The bail was granted with security.

Date: 10-6-16
No court visit.
Assignment
Sec 41, Cr.P.C- when can police may arrest without warrant?

Date: 12-6-16, Case: Cr. No. 48/2013 of Proddutoor PS, Kadapa district

The accused charged with the section 302 IPC r/w section 34 IPC.
A1 and A2 went to the deceased land and there they picked up a quarrel with deceased for in
land issue. While this was so the accused no.1 hit with the deceased with an axe on the neck
while the accused no.2 holding the deceased and deceased died on the spot.
The case was scheduled for the cross- examination of PW4. This was adjourned for the
further date as the witness is not present.

Case: O.S. No. 79/2013- partition suit

Defendants 1 and 2 were father and brother of plaintiff. The case was filed by the plaintiff who
is divorced lady for the share in the joint family property. Arguments and examination of
witnesses were already done. The judgement was in the favour of plaintiff.
Date: 13-6-16, Case: SC 678/15
The accused in this case was charged with the section 302 and 498 -A Indian Penal Code,
1860.
The accused was working as a driver at different persons and was very addicted to alcohol.
During a festival time accused came to the home drunk and asked for the money from his wife
for alcohol. She denied, due to this the accused got angry and set ablaze on his wife. She was
taken to the hospital by the neighbours while the accused ran away. After 4 days accused was
taken into custody and the victim gave dying declaration before the magistrate at the hospital
and died after 5 days after giving the dying declaration.
Counsel examined the PW 1. Who is the father of the victim and the examination of PW2 was
adjourned for the next day i.e, 14-6-16.

Date: 14-6-16
The cross examination in SC 678/15 was done and the public prosecutor and the counsel
examined the prosecution witness no. 2 who is the mother of the witness. The defence
counsel tried to draw the point that the dying declaration was false and the deceased only
declared after PW2 and PW1 said so. And also he tried to draw the statements to show that
this was a suicide.
The case was adjourned for the further day.

Date: 15-6-16, Case: SC 513/2013

The deceased have 3 brothers A1, A2 and A3. Their family having a land dispute and the
deceased tried to setup a shop in the disputed land which is pending in the court of law.
Regarding the got into quarrel one day, on the next day all the accused went to the house of
deceased while he was in his back yard where the daughter, wife and son of the deceased were
present and the prosecution says that there was an event of birthday of the granddaughter of
deceased. While the A4 to A6 pelting stones on the deceased and A1 to A3 attacked the deceased.
They hit the deceased with an agriculture implement and hit with an iron rod. The stone got hit to
the PW1. After this all the accused ran away and while taking the injured to the hospital he died
in the middle.
Defence counsel argued on the point that hospital intimation was suppressed by the prosecution
to support this the counsel cited 2009 (1) ALD(cri) 720 and put forth that the case has to be
viewed with suspicion. Also argued that there was a inconsistency of evidence in examination
of witnesses to support the counsel contention, cited 2016 1 ALD (cri) 300, genuineness of FIR.
And also argued about the motive of the accused other than the A1 to support this contention
counsel relied on 2008 1 ALD (cri) 124. And also argued about the many inconsistencies of the
examination and facts of the case.
The case was adjourned for the further date for the judgement.

Date:16-6-16, Case: OS 639/2015

This is a suit is filed by plaintiff for share in the ancestral property. It is said that the father of
the plaintiff got an extent of 6 acres in s. No. 447-2.
Under registered partition deed. It is said that since the date of partition the father and other family
members of the plaintiff were in joint possession and enjoyment of the property excising all
incidents of ownership. It is said that the name of the father of plaintiff is also a mutated in all the
revenue records concerned. The father of plaintiff died about 20 years back and the mother of the
plaintiff, the plaintiff, 4 defendant succeeded to his esatate. The mother of the plaintiff also died
about 10 years back and since then the plaintiff 4 defendant and one dasari narayana continued to
be joint possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule mention property.
Dasari Narayana, the elder brother of plaintiff died leaving behind D1 to D3 to succeed to his
estate. It is said that as the plaintiff is not residing locally, taking the advantage of the same D1
in collusion with D4 got mutated their names in all revenue records and obtained pattadar pass
books and title deeds to the entire extent, as disputes arose in between plaintiff and defendant
since 2 months with regard to the joint possession and enjoyment of plaint scheduled mentioned
property.
The plaintiff filed the above suit for 1/3 share in the plaint scheduled mentioned property. The
case is adjourned for the judgement.

Date: 17-6-16, Case: OP 415/2015

This case was filed for the compensation under the motor vehicles Act. The counsel is for the
plaintiff where the plaintiff was travelling on motor bike number bearing AP 16 TV 0537. A
lorry with no parking lights was parking in the middle of the road at about 11:30 PM. The
plaintiff collided with lorry and sustained severe injuries due which he lost sensing of tastes
capacity.
The case was posted for the next adjournment to file the medical reports and examination of
doctor who attended the injured.
On the same day, I was asked to draft a criminal revision petition.

IN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE: ANANTAPUR

Criminal Revision Petition No. /2016

Between:

1. H.Venkatapathy

2. Jakkaamputi Ramanjineyulu,
… Revision Petitioners/B-Party
 and

1. Mandal Executive Magistrate, (The Tahsildar), Bathalapalli.,

2. Bollineni Venkatesh,
3. Bollineni Adinarayana,
... Respondents

MEMORANDUM OF CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION FILED ON

BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS UNDER SECTION.397 Cr.P.C.

1. REVISION PETITIONERS:

1. Venkatapathy, son of Pedda Venkatesh, aged 55 years,

resident of Gantapuram village, Bathalapalli Mandal.

2. Jakkamputi Ramanjineyulu, son of J.Chinna

Subbarayudu, aged 48 years, resident of Bathalapalli

village and mandal.

Address for Service & C/o

Sri P.Guru Prasad,
Sri P.Sreedhar Reddy,

Advocates, Anantapur.

2.RESPONDENTS : 1. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, ( The Tahsildar),

 Bathalapalli Mandal.
2. Bollineni Venkatesh, son of B.Venkataramappa, aged 51
years, resident of Gantapuram village, Bathalapalli Mandal.

3. Bollineni Adinarayana, son of B.Budenna, aged 47 years,

resident of Gantapuram village, Bathalapalli Mandal.

The petitioners beg to submit the criminal revision petition against the orders dated:

22-01-2013 in M.C.No.3/2013/C passed by the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Bathalapalli on

the following and amongst the other

GROUNDS

I. The order of the learned Mandal Executive Magistrate, Bathalapalli dated: 22-01-2013 in
M.C.No.3/2013/C is against law and in total transgression of the mandatory requirements
enumerated under Sec.145 Cr.P.C.

II. The lower court having referred to the pendency of a civil suit in a competent court with
respect to same subject matter and between the parties should have refrained to initiate
proceedings under Sec.145 Cr.P.C. as the proceedings are not maintainable.

III. The lower court abdicated jurisdiction not vested in it and on this short ground itself the
order is liable to be set aside.

IV. The lower court should have seen that it is the mandatory duty of the Executive
Magistrate to proceed according to procedure laid under Sec. 145 Cr.P.C. and not according to
his own whim and fancy.

V. The order of the lower court exfacie discloses the arbitrary nature of order and so is liable
to be set aside.

VI. The lower court should have seen that the impugned order straight away amounts to
passing of final order where by both parties are prevented from entering into possession until
further orders. As such the order is totally untenable and unsustainable.

VII. The lower court should have seen that it is essential for assumption of jurisdiction to
initiate proceedings under Sec. 145 Cr.P.C. that the Magistrate should satisfy from a report of
police officer and that dispute is likely to cause breach of peace.

VIII. The lower court should have seen that there cannot be any first information report much
less FIR No.9/2013 and that there is absolutely no reference of likelihood of dispute resulting in
breach of peace.

IX. The lower court should have seen that there is no definite finding of existence of dispute
and order is issued on vague and ambiguous allegations.

X. The lower court should have seen that the lower court is not bound to take action on a
police report or expression on opinion of police and the lower court totally failed to apply its
mind and formulate independent opinion.

XI. The lower court should have seen that the suit filed by the predecessors in interest
through whom the respondents No.2 and 3 are claiming is dismissed on 25-01-2012 in O.S.No.
1/2009 and the Hon’ble High Court also passed an interim order of status quo and appeal in
A.S.No. 298/2012 is pending on the file of Hon’ble High Court of A.P.
XII. The lower court should have seen that a perusal of order discloses that there is absolutely
no material at all on which the lower court can come to any finding to initiate proceedings under
Sec. 145 Cr.P.C.

XIII. The lower court should have seen that the lower court has no jurisdiction to issue
promulgate prohibitory order and preventing the revision petitioners to enter into land as already
petitioners are in possession claiming through the defendants in the above suit.

XIV. The lower court should have seen that the suit filed by the predecessors in interest of the

Respondents No.2 and 3 is for partition of their joint 1/3

rd share and as such it is admitted that
the petitioners and their predecessors in interest do have joint possession and enjoyment in
subject matter of the dispute and the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to institute proceedings in
such cases as the dispute was between co-sharers regarding the mode of possession and was not
therefore contemplated under Sec. 145 Cr.P.C.

XV. The lower court totally failed to give reasons in passing the orders and ought not have
passed such orders on the mere requisition of the police.

XVI. The lower court totally failed to give cogent, convincing and tenable reason for passing
the orders.
It is therefore prayed that the Hon’ble court be pleased to call for the records in

M.C.No.3/2013/C on the file of the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Bathalapalli , allow the

revision petition by setting aside the order dated 22-01-2013 in M.C.No. 3/2013/C on the file

of the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Bathalapalli with costs in the interests of justice.
Date: 19-6-16, Case: SC 88/2012- Cr.M.P. no. 3/15
A case of POCSO Act, the accused was charged u/section 354 (d), 366 of Indian Penal Code,
1860 after the statement of LW6 altered to 354(d), 376(2)(1) IPC and 3(a) and Sec 4 of POCSO
Act.
The accused was stalking the victim and wanted her to love him. After that the victim came with
the accused and the parents filed a police complaint on the accused. After that the police took
him to the custody.
In this case all others except PW2 i.e., the mother of victim turned hostile. For the
examination of PW2 the case was adjourned.

Case:SC 61/2016
This case is pending before the Juvenile Court. In this case the accued was charged with sections
302 r/w 34 and 120 (B) of Indian Penal Code, 1860. All the accused were friends of the deceased
but one day there is difference between them then the deceased had posted something wrong
about one of the accused. On this all the accused went to deceased house where he was not there.
The deceased was returning to the home from a movie in the middle the accused stopped and got
into quarrel then then the accused stabbed with a knife. Deceased died while he was taking to the
hospital.
The case was pending for the arguments, the public prosecutor took time for argument
accordingly the case is adjourned.

Date: 20-6-16, Case: SC18/2016.

In this case the accused was charged with section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. In this
case the accused was a driver who was attacked by both the deceased. The accused slit the
throat of the 1st deceased and stabbed the 2nd deceased where they died on the spot. The
counsel examined PW1 and PW2, tried to establish that they are not the eye witness to the
incident and also tried to establish that there is no motive to kill those persons.

Date: 21-6-16, Case: SC18/2016

The examination of the witness no.PW3 was done and the counsel tried to establish the same as
what he wants to establish from the previous witness. The case was adjourned for further date.

Case: SC 514/2013
This case was for the delivery of the judgment and all the accused were acquitted on the
ground that there is no nexus between motive and the scene of offence and also that there is no
consistency in the statements of witnesses

Date:22-6- 16, Case: SC 131/2012

In the court of special sessions additional judge, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh. In this case the accused
were charged u/s 302, 320,120(B), 148, 268 Indian Penal Code, 1860. There was one deceased and
2 grievously injured. On the day of offence the A1 was going on motor bike very fast by seeing
this the deceased stopped and warned the A1. A1 left there and few hours at around 7:00 PM A1
along with A2 to A6 came near the house of the deceased with wepons and picked up a quarrel
when this was happening, PW1 to PW4 came to the scene and tried to stop the quarrel. In mean
time A2 lifted a “pidi baaku(a sharp edged weapon)” and stabbed the deceased and there was a
fight among others in which PW1 and PW2 got injured and soon after all the accused escaped.
The villagers called ambulance and tried the deceased to shift to hospital, in the middle he died.
After this incident there was huge public disturbance in that area because all the accused belong
to one community and the deceased and injured belongs to other community. Where by the
police has to lathi charge the mob to control law and order there.
The counsel examined PW1 only on this day. Adjourned for the next day.

Date: 23-6-16, Case: SC 131/2012

The counsel continued the examination of PW1 and tried to establish that they cannot identify
the accused, the incident was triggered by the deceased group and in the public disturbance the
deceased got injured and died.
The counsel also examined PW2 and tried to establish the same as the previous witness.
Counsel asked for the later adjournment.

Date: 24-6-16
I was asked to draft a divorce petition.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PRODDATUR

MARRIAGE O.P.No. /2016

Between:

Gummireddi Chandra Sekhar Reddy … Petitioner

And
Gummireddi Aruna @ Harini … Respondent

PETTION FILED UNDER SEC. 13 (1)(ia)(ib) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT ON

BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

1. PETITIONER: Gummireddi Chandrasekhar Reddy, son of late.
Vasudeva Reddy, aged about 35 years, Veerapunayanipalli village
and post and Mandal, Kadapa District.

ADDRESS FOR SERVICE AND CARE OF :

SRI. P.GURU PRASAD,

P.SREEDHAR REDDY,

ADVOCATES, ANANTAPURAMU

ADVOCATE, PRODDATUR.

2. RESPONDENT : Gummireddi Aruna @ Harini, wife of

Chandrasekhar Reddy, aged about 36 years, Hindu, House wife,
resident of c/o Chappidi Ramalakshumamma, D.No. 9/486-4,
Yerraballi, Rajampet Town and Mandal, Kadapa District.
3. The petitioner submits that the respondent herein is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner.
The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is solemnized on 24 -08-2005 in
accordance with the Hindu marriage rites and customs prevalent in the community at

TTD Kalyana Mantapam, Yerraguntla, within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. The
marriage between the petitioner and respondent is consummated and out of happy wed lock, the
respondent gave birth to G.Sirisha on 20-06-2006. The petitioner submits that during the
subsistence of valid marriage, the respondent also gave birth to another daughter G.Pujitha.

4. The petitioner submits that the petitioner hails from a respectable and orthodox family
having social status and the petitioner is brought up in such background where the petitioner is
inculcated to the live with decency, decorum and esteem in the society in which the petitioner
moves. The petitioner submits that it is the firm conviction of the petitioner that Hindu marriage
is a sacrament and that the petitioner has got great respect to the institution of marriage.

5. The petitioner submits that the respondent is fostered and adopted daughter of
Chappireddy Bali Reddy and his wife Ramalakshmamma. The adopted parents of the respondent
were in affluent condition and as they have no issues the respondent was brought

up and grown up with carelessness, arrogance and startle conduct. The petitioner submits that as
the adoptive parents of the respondent are distant relatives, the marriage is solemnized without
any discussion of dowry. Infact the petitioner has not received any dowry from the adopted
parents of the respondent.

6. The petitioner submits that at the time of marriage, the petitioner was working as
Probationary Secondary Grade Teacher at Kattavaripalli. The petitioner submits that the
petitioner completed probation and worked at Kattavaripalli till 20-08-2009 and thereafter the
petitioner is transferred to Muddanur and worked there till 08-02-2012.The petitioner submits
that the petitioner was selected as Assistant Social Officer having passed in Group-II A
examination in APPSC and worked as such from 09-02-2012 at Sathyavedu, Chittoor District.
The petitioner served as Probationary Deputy Tahsildar at Thondur and thereafter transferred to
Proddatur.

7. The petitioner submits that since the date of marriage the respondent has been treating the
petitioner with such cruelty causing a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that
it would be harmful to the petitioner to live with respondent. The conduct of the respondent
towards the petitioner was so wild and abnormal and the respondent used to pick-up quarrels for
no reason and showing gestures coupled with utterances that she will trash the petitioner. The
petitioner submits that taking into account the position of the petitioner in the society and that
too in noble profession as teacher at early days, it was sending shocks to mind the petitioner and
the petitioner suffered the trauma with a fond hope that good counsel will prevail upon the
respondent. The respondent was refusing to the conjugal society at the place of work of the
petitioner or nearby town and the respondent has been commanding the petitioner to come down
to Mannur village where the respondent was residing. The petitioner submits that the respondent
without any reason and expressing disliking has been inflicting the worst form of cruelty against
the petitioner.

8. The petitioner submits that the respondent along with her adopted mother attacked and
caused injuries to one Prabhakar Reddy which is the subject matter of Crime.No.2/2008 of
Mannur Police Station and the Police after investigation filed charge sheet and the case is
numbered in C.C.No. 15/2008. When the petitioner tried to advice the respondent that dispute if
any can be settled amicably without resorting to criminal acts, the respondent grew wild and
stating that if any advice is sought to be rendered the petitioner will also meet the same fate. This
incident caused tremors and the mental trauma suffered by the petitioner has no bounds. The
respondent without any justifiable reason and with full knowledge that the respondent is
subscribing to false allegation lodged first information report in Crime.NO. 112/2010 of Mannur
Police Station against the petitioner and six of his relatives for an offence punishable under Sec.
498-A and 307 IPC.

9. The petitioner submits that the Police after due investigation referred the case as

false. The respondent under the guise of aforesaid case, compelled the petitioner to transfer the
LIC Bonds to a tune of Rs.13,00,000/- in the name of the daughters of the petitioner and 4 cents
of house site in the name of the respondent. The petitioner submits that with an intention to set
right the matrimonial life, on 19-05-2013 the elders conducted a mediation and invited the
petitioner and his relations to the house of one Kalluru Raghunath Reddy at Sangalapalli village.
During the course of mediation, the respondent who came to mediation with a pre-planned
design along with her followers numbering about 11 persons assaulted the petitioner and his
relative Y.Rama Krishna Reddy and caused bleeding injuries. Y.Rama Krishna Reddy, the
relative of the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner submits that a crime in Cr.No.
35/2013 is registered at G.R.Palli Police Station against the respondent and her followers for an
offence punishable under Sec.147,148,324,326,307 r/w 149 IPC. The petitioner submits that the
petitioner and his relatives were brutally assaulted in the hands of the respondent and her
henchman.

10. The petitioner submits that as an retaliation the respondent lodged first information report
which is registered in Cr.NO. 243/2013 of Mannur Police Station against the petitioner, the
mother of the petitioner and Y.Rama Krishna Reddy who is seriously injured in the above said
incident and G.Jayachandra Reddy for offences punishable under Sec.498 -A and 506 IPC and
Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner submits that the petitioner and aforesaid
persons are tried in C.C.No.169/2014 before the Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Sidhout, Kadapa District and the Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate of

First Class acquitted the petitioner and his relatives holding that the respondent is not speaking
truth and she is bent upon speaking exaggerate and aggregate versions. The Hon’ble

Court categorically held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the petitioner and other
accused and acquitted the petitioner and others.

11. The petitioner further submits that the respondent filed M.C.3/2014 on the file of II Addl
Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kadapa. The petitioner submits that the respondent without any
regard to truth made serious allegations touching the character of the petitioner

and attributing illegal intimacy with one M.Bhargavi, who is working as Deputy Tahsildar,
Kadapa. These unsubstantiated allegations caused trauma to the petitioner and the petitioner is
looked down in the minds of his colleagues and M.Bhargavi after coming to know the
allegations leveled by the respondent, abused the petitioner and the petitioner was subjected to
much trauma. The respondent has been visiting the place of work of the petitioner and hurling
obscene and objectionable language in the presence of colleagues and thus the reputation and
prestige of the petitioner is lowered down in the eyes of the colleagues.

12. The petitioner submits that since beginning the conduct of the respondent has been
abnormally aggressive and seriously irresponsible and the petitioner is subjected to physical
assault resulting in injuries. The unethical and unholy allegations leveled by the respondent in
judicial proceedings linking up the character of the petitioner with one of the colleagues who has
come up from respectable orthodox family caused so much of trauma and the petitioner has
suffered psychological depression. The conduct of the respondent all through is grave and
weighty which led to the apprehension on the part of the petitioner to reasonably believe that it is
absolutely not safe to the petitioner to live with the respondent without a threat for his life and
limb. The petitioner submits that the respondent with an intention to put an end to the
matrimonial relationship and with an intention to abandon the petitioner without any justifiable
or reasonable cause, severed all the marital relationship. The respondent with an intention to
permanently forsaking and abandoning the petitioner without the consent or without reasonable
cause deserted the petitioner since 2010. The petitioner submits that there is a total repudiation of
the obligation of the marriage by the respondent. There is absolutely no access between the
petitioner and the respondent for about 5 years.
13. The petitioner submits that the respondent without any justifiable reason or reasonable
excuse the respondent left the matrimonial home without any information along with the children
to her fostered parent’s house.

14. The petitioner submits that the continuous conduct of respondent inflicted such mental pain
and suffering on the petitioner as it would make it not possible for the petitioner to live with the
respondent. The petitioner submits that the respondent intentionally and permanently abandoned
the petitioner without the consent of the petitioner and without any justifiable reason. There is
absolutely no access between the petitioner and the respondent from the year 2010. The marriage
between the petitioner and the respondent is irrecontriviably broken and there are no chances of
reunion. The petitioner submits that
inspite of several panchayats were conducted the respondent bluntly refused to join the
petitioner.

15. The petitioner submits that there are absolutely no chances of reunion. The petitioner
submits that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is irretrievably failed, and
there are absolutely no chances of reunion. Hence the petitioner is constrained to file this
petition.

16. The petitioner submits that there is absolutely no collusion between the petitioner and the
respondent to file the present petition and there is absolutely no impediment to grant the relief as
prayed for.

17. Cause of the action petition arose on 24-08-2005 when the marriage of the petitioner who
is a permanent resident is performed with the respondent at TTD Kalyana Mantapam at
Yerraguntla and when the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty without any justifiable
reason or reasonable excuse and when the respondent refused to conjugal society with the
petitioner at his place of work in Kattavaripalli village, Muddanur, Sathyavedu, Thandur, or at
Proddatur and in the year 2010 when the respondent preferred a complaint against the petitioner
and others in Cr.No. 112/2010 of Mannur Police Station which is referred as false and when the
petitioner transferred the LIC Bonds and house site and on 19-05-2013 when the respondent and
her henchmen assaulted the petitioner and his mother and uncle causing grevious injuries and
when a crime in Cr.No.35/2013 is registered in Cr.No. 35/2013 against the respondent and her
followers and further when a crime in Cr.NO. 243/2013 of Mannur Police Station is registered in
Mannur Police Station and when the petitioner and others faced trial before the Hon’ble Court of
Judicial First Class Magistrate,
Sidhout, and were acquitted from the charges leveled against them and when the respondent filed
an M.C.No. 3/2014 was filed by the respondent against the petitioner claiming maintenance and
when the respondent made serious allegations touching the character of the petitioner and since
year 2010 when the respondent left the conjugal company of the petitioner and there is
absolutely no access between the petitioner and respondent till date and on all subsequent dates
when the respondent refused to join the conjugal society of the petitioner all within the
jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

18. A fixed court fee of Rs.10/- is paid thereon under schedule I (vii), Article II of A.P.C.F. and
S.V. Act.
It is therefore prayed that the Honourable Court be pleased to pass decree and

judgment in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent by dissolving the marriage

between the petitioner and respondent by a decree of divorce and grant such other relief or

relief’s as this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, in the

interest of justice.

Date: 26-6-16, Case: SC 88/2012- Cr.M.P. no. 3/15

The examination of PW2 was to be done which is the case of POCSO Act. Public Prosecutor
completed his chief examination and asked for the adjournment for the next day

Case: SC 61/2016
This case where the juveniles involved in murder case, was pending for the arguments of the
public prosecutor. He requested the court that he will file written arguments for the next
adjournment.

Date: 27-6-16, Case: SC 88/2012

The chief examination of PW2 was done which is the case of POCSO Act. Public Prosecutor
completed his chief examination. The counsel cross examined the witness and tried to establish
that the victim was major at the time of offence and she went with the accused with her will.
The case is adjourned for the arguments.

Case: SC 678/2015
This was the case of 498-A and 302. The examination of PW1 and PW2 was already done.
PW3 is a child witness and the counsel tried to establish that the witness is as per the
instructions of PW1 and Pw2 who were his grand parents. The case is further adhourned

Date:28-6-16, Case: SC 131/2012

The case which was adjourned to this date for the examination of witnesses and the counsel
examined PW3, in which he tried to establish the same as what he want to establish as previous
witnesses. Counsel couldn’t complete his full examination. So, court adjourned the matter for
the next day

Date: 29-6 -16

The counsel continued the examination of the PW3. And completed and asked for the
postponement whole schedule for the month of February.

Date: 30-6-16, Case: SC 18/2016

The case was adjourned to this date for the examination of PW4 to PW9. In which all the witnesses
turned hostile. And the court adjourned the matter for next date for the examination of PW 6 who
absent on this particular date. The is adjourned for the further date.

Date: 31-6-16, Case: SC 426/2013

In the court of the II additional sessions judge, Proddutoor, Kadapa district, Andhra Pradesh.
The investigating agency entered into investigation on the basis of the first information report
lodged by V. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, son of Kesava Reddy on 12-04-2013 at about 9-30 am
which is registered by P.W-11 Bala Maddileti, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Muddanur Police
Station in Crime No. 48/2013 punishable under Sec. 302 r/w 34 IPC. The prosecution submits
that Ex.P-1 is the report given by P.W-1 and Ex.P-7 is the original first information report
submitted to the Hon’ble Court.
All details the material allegations in the first information report is that V.Chandra Sekhar Reddy
is resident of Gangadevipalli village and lives by cultivation. It is submitted that 8 months prior
to the date of the incident the first informant and his brother purchased an extent of Ac.5-00 of
land from one Umadevi and Chennuri Chennamma, the daughters-in-law of Accused No.2 and
one Chennuri Narayana Reddy. Two borewells were drilled in which there is sufficiency of
water. About one month prior to the date of the offence, Accused No.2 drilled a borewell in his
land adjoining to the land of the first informant. But there is no ground water in the borewells
drilled by the Accused.No.2. It is said that accused No.2 trespassed over the land of the family of
the first informant and leveled the land with JCB. As the accused NO.2 was making attempts to
drill a borewell, the first informant and his brother Chenna Kesava Reddy were objecting for the
same. It is said that Accused No.1 and 2 have been threatening that even by seeing the end of the
first informant and his brother they will drill the borewell in the land of the first informant.

On 11-04-2013 at about 5 pm, an altercation ensued between the accused and the deceased
Chenna Kesava Reddy with regard to the ridge. In that altercation also the accused No.1 and 2
threatened the deceased that in event of any obstruction for drilling the borewell, even by killing
the brother of the first informant they will drill the borewell. On that the first informant and the
deceased went to one Yugandhar Reddy and informed him about the incident. It is said that
Yugandhar Reddy informed that he will convey a panchayat.
In the morning hours of 12-04-2013 the first informant and his brother Chenna Kesava Reddy
went to their field and were pulling electrical wire near their borewell. At that time both the
accused descended into the land and picked up a quarrel. The deceased asserted that it is their
field and that the accused have no claim what so ever and in response the accused No.2 stating
that “ EKKADA VUNDIRA MEE POLAM ANI(where is your field)” caught hold of the
deceased Chenna Kesava Reddy. The accused No.1 stating that he will kill Chenna Kesava
Reddy and drill borewell hacked the deceased with an axe behind the head. On receipt of the
injury the deceased fell down. The first informant ran towards the deceased and both the accused
skulled away. The deceased met with instantaneous death in a pool of blood. The incident
happened at about 7-30 am. The first informant informed to the wife of the deceased and other
relatives and went to the police station and lodged a first information report. The accused faced
the trial for the charges leveled against them and the prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond all reasonable doubt, in all examined 12 witnesses and marked Ex.P-1 to
Ex.P-10 and exhibited M.O’s 1 to 8. The defense marked
Ex.D-1, a portion of the 161 Cr.P.C. Statement in the evidence of P.W-4. And P.W-1 V.Chandra
Sekhar Reddy is the brother of the deceased and testifies about the motive and is a eye-witness to
the offence. P.W-2 V.Venkata Sulochana, wife of the deceased testifies about the motive for the
offence and further testifies that P.W-1 and others proceeding to the police station and P.W-1
lodging complaint. P.W-3 B.Ram Mohan Reddy and P.W-4 B.Jagadeesh Kumar Reddy are the
eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P.W-5 P.Venkata Rami Reddy, is a circumstantial witness and
testifies that he saw Accused No.2 Subbi Reddy going in hurry towards Mangapatnam railway
station. P.W-6 Bandi Eswar Reddy is a circumstantial witness who asserts that he is a
Dharmakartha of Bhanukoteswara Swamy Temple at Bhanukota village and on 12-04-2013
during the afternoon, Accused No.1 attended to have meals at the temple and that he noticed
blood stains on the shirt of the accused No.1, when asked Accused No.1 stated that he is resident
of a village near Tadipatri and an altercation took place in between their brothers and in that his
shirt is stained with blood. P.W-7 Bodeddula Raja Sekhar Reddy is a circumstantial witness who
testifies that on morning of 12-05-2013 he noticed Accused No.1 going towards Bhanukota
village armed with an axe. P.W-8, Karnati Pushpa Raju is panchayatdar and who attested Ex.P-2
Inquest Report and seizure of
The case is pending for the examination of witnesses and further arguments.

Date: 2-7-16

No cases and court visits, I was assigned the following assignment on Warrants.

Warrant of arrest:
To meet the ends of justice, it is critical to produce the accused and other witness or related parties
before the court whenever needed. If the accused is found guilty at the conclusion of the trial, he
must be present in person to receive the sentence. Also, his presence is necessary if imprisonment is
to be enforced. Further, the supremacy of the law will be questionable if there is no formal process
to bring the required persons before the court. For this reason, Chapter VI (Sections 61 to 90)
of CrPC provides two ways for compelling the appearance of any person who is required to be
present in the court, in the court - Summons and Warrant. While Summons is an order of the
court to the person to appear before it, Warrant is an order of the court given to a third person to
bring the person who is required to be present in the court, in the court. Which method is to be
used in a particular situation depends on the judicial officer, who is guided by the provisions of
this code.

The code classifies all criminal cases into summons cases and warrant cases. A case is a warrant
case if the offence is punishable by death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for more than
two years. A summons case is a case that is not a warrant case. Thus, The basis of classification
is the seriousness of the offence. Since summons case contains a lesser sentence, there is less
probability of the accused violating the court order. Therefore, generally, a summons is issued
for a summons case and a warrant is issued for a warrant case. However, when a Summons is not
productive in making a person appear before the court, the count may issue a warrant to a police
officer or any other person to forcibly produce the required person before the court.
Warrant of Arrest
A warrant of arrest is a written authority given by a competent magistrate for the arrest of a
person. It is a more drastic step than the issue of a summons. It is addressed to a person,
usually a police officer, to apprehend and produce the offender in front of the court. Essential
Elements of a valid warrant -

1. The warrant must clearly mention the name and other particulars of the person to be
arrested. As per Section 70(1), every warrant of arrest shall be in writing. It must be signed by
the presiding officer of the court and must bear the seal of the court. As per section 70(2), a
warrant remains in force until it is canceled or is executed. Normally, Form 2 of Second schedule
is used to write a warrant.

2. It must show the person to whom the authority to arrest has been given. As per Section
72, a warrant is normally directed to one or more police officers but, if necessary, the court may
direct it to any other person or persons. Further, section 73 provides that a magistrate may direct
a warrant to any person within his jurisdiction for the arrest of any escaped convict, proclaimed
offender, or of any person who is accused of a non-bailable offence and is evading arrest.

3. It may include a direction that if the person arrested under the warrant executes a bond
and gives security for his attendance in court, he shall be released. Warrant with such a direction
is called as bailable warrant of arrest.

4. It must clearly specify the offence.

Procedure for executing a Warrant

As per section 75, A warrant can be executed by showing the substance of the warrant to the
person being arrest. If required, the warrant must be shown to the person arrested. Section 76
mandates that the person executing the warrant must produce the arrested person before the
magistrate without unnecessary delay and within 24 hours excluding the time taken for travel
from the place of arrest to the magistrate.
As per section 77, a warrant may be executed anywhere in India. Section 78 specifies that if a
warrant is to be executed outside the local jurisdiction of the court issuing it, such court may
send it to the Executive Magistrate or District Superintendent of Police or Commissioner of
Police within the local limits of whose jurisdiction it is to be executed instead of directing it to
the police officer within the jurisdiction of the issuing court.

When can a court issue a Warrant in a case in which it is empowered to issue summons

As per Section 87 a court may issue a warrant even in a case in which it is empowered only to issue
a summons. A court can issue a warrant either before issuing a summons or even after issuing a
summons. It may do so if it has reason to believe that the person has absconded or that the person
will not obey the summons. Further, a court may issue a warrant if the summons was duly served
and still the person fails to appear before it at the required date and time without any reasonable
excuse. The court must record its reasons to do so.

When can a warrant be issued for recovery of a fine

Section 421 - Warrant for levy of fine-
(1) When an offender has been sentenced to pay a fine, the Court passing the sentence may take
action for the recovery of the fine in either or both of the following ways, that is to say, it
may,-
(a) issue a warrant for the levy of the amount by attachment and sale of any movable
property belonging to the offender;
(b) issue a warrant to the Collector of the district, authorizing him to realize the amount as arrears of
land revenue from the movable or immovable property, or both, of the defaulter:
Provided that, if the sentence directs that in default of payment of the fine, the offender shall be
imprisoned, and if such offender has undergone the whole of such imprisonment in default, no
Court shall issue such warrant unless, for special reasons to be recorded in writing, it considers
it necessary so to do, or unless, it has made an order for the payment of expenses or
compensation out of the fine under Section 357.
(2) The State Government may make rules regulating the manner in which warrants under
Clause (a) of sub-section (1) are to be executed, and for the summary determination of any
claims made by any person other than the offender in respect of any property attached in
execution of such warrant.
(3) Where the Court issues a warrant to the Collector under Clause (b) of sub-section (1), the
Collector shall realize the amount in accordance with the law relating to recovery of arrears of
land revenue, as if such warrant were a certificate issued under such law:

Provided that no such warrant shall be executed by the arrest or detention in prison of the
offender.

Date: 3-7-16, Case: OS 35/2012

This is a suit filed for damages to the plaintiff. The plaintiff restricted his claim to Rs.50 lakhs. The
suit is pending before the Hon’ble !st additional district judge. The brief averments of the plaint or
that the plaintiff is a reputed political leader and contestant as MLA for the rapthadu constituency,
Andhra Pradesh. The plaintiff further avered that the defendant no.2 published a news item in its
district edition on 28/2/2011. Under a caption which can be loss fto the plaintiff and her family. It is
said that the defendant no. 1 gave the statement and 2nd defendant published the same. The plaintiff
states that due to publication of aforesaid news item this name and reputation are damaged and in
particular among the friends, relatives and people of the particular constituency. The plaintiff has also
issued a legal notice prior to this institution of the suit.

The same day there was a dispute resolution settlement in a matrimonial case. In which both

the parties have agreed and signed upon a terms of compromise agreement. In which iit is

mentioned that the dispute is resolved and both the parties should respect each other mutually

and also the parents of the both parties. In case of further disputes the parties should try to
solve amicably with the middleman.

Date:4-7-16. Case: SC 678/2015

This was the case of 498-A and 302 adjourned to this date to examine PW4 and PW5. The
examination of PW1 and PW2 was already done. PW3 is a child witness and the counsel tried to
establish that the witness is as per the instructions of PW1 and Pw2 who were his grandparents.
The case is adjourned for the further date due to absence of the both the witnesses.

Case: OP 415/15

This is MVOP case adjourned the matter to this date for the examination of doctor and filing of
the medical reports and medical bills. In the course of examination the doctor have stated that
due to those injuries a person may have permanent damage in function of mouth, taste, eating
and sensitivity.

Date:5-7-16, Case: S.C No. 161/16

On 03-11-11 at 9:45 P.M I received the statement of the defacto complainant along with hospital
intimation, basing on the contents of the report I registered a case u/s 498 and u/s307 of IPC.
Exhibit 1 is the original FIR that I submitted to the court. Later I visited the government hospital
Nandigama where I have recorded the statement of Lw1 Bhargavi and others also. On 04-11-13
I visited the Chintalbandi village i.e house of the accused bearing 5 - 79 number of S.C colony
along with two mediators. I prepared the scene of offence report and drafted a rough scene of the
scene of offence. In the presence of the mediator I obtained signature and details of evidence.
On 07-11-13 at about 8 o’clock I arrested the accused 1 in his house. On 10-11-13 I received death
intimation at 11 P.M along with writing given by Pw1. Then I altered the FIR from S.498A, S.307
IPC to S.498A, S.302 read with S.34 IPC.

Cross – 1
st FIR – it is true in Ex p2 FIR column No.15 was left blank. It is not true to suggest that I
have not written the FIR in accordance with the complaint. It is true in Ex p24 altered FIR column
No.15 was left blank. It is true in the rough sketch I have not disclosed the place of 1,2,3. It is true
that the house of the accused exists on the southern side and adjacent to the road. It is not true to
suggest that the road on which the house was present was a busy road. It is true from the house of
accused the accused there are two lanes one goes towards south and the other towards north. It is true
that the room of the house is small in size and it might not happen that the things inside the house
must fall aside whenever there is a quarrel. It is not true to suggest that the photos taken at the scene
of offence nowhere indicates a fire incident. It is not true to suggest that the patches in the scene in
the photo are not the patches of kerosene rather it is water. It is true that according to exhibit p 22 the
rough sketch there is no door between the two rooms and there is only one curtain between them. It
is not true to suggest that the photos don’t contain any ash on the walls of the house. It is true that the
clothes or the bags that are seen in the picture and not damaged. It is true that whom I considered as
witness is not considered as witness in the rough sketch. It is not true to suggest that on the southern
side of the road there are houses. It is true that houses on the eastern side of the road are not shown
in the rough sketch. After registration of the FIR I have recorded the statement and it is not true to
suggest that it will take 3 hrs to record the statement. I took approximately 11/2 hour. It is true that
the first page of the scene of offence doesn’t contain my signature. Kit is not true to suggest that Pw1
wasn’t present at the hospital. It is true that the papers in which the saare was packed didn’t contain
any signature of the mediator. It is true that the arrest of the accused was a smooth arrest and there
are not previous criminal records of him. It is not true to suggest that I have not visited the scene of
offence and the deceased died due to fire accident and A1 and A2 are not in connection with the
offence.

Date: 6-7-16, Case: OP 174/14

This is the case of MVOP Act. The counsel was marking the exhibits. Ex. A1 to A6 were
marked. Ex. A2 is a copy of FIR nd A3 is the post-mortem report and A6 is a bunch of scan and
blood reports.

Date: 7-7-16

No court visits, I was given an assignment on bailable and non bailable offences
BAILABLE AND NON-BAILABLE OFFENCES
Bail is an instrument which is used to ensure the presence of an accused whenever required by the
court. CrPC does not define the term Bail, but essentially, Bail is an agreement in which a person
makes a written undertaking to the court to appear before it whenever required and comply with
any conditions set out in the agreement. He/she also assures to forfeit a specified sum of money
if the person fails to comply with any terms and conditions of the agreement.

BAILABLE OFFENCE
In case of bailable offence, the grant of bail is a matter of right. It may be either given by a
police officer who is having the custody of Accused or by the court. The accused may be
released on bail, on executing a “bail bond", with or without furnishing sureties.
The "bail Bond" may contain certain terms and conditions, such as:
The accused will not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the state without permission of court or
police officer. The Accused shall give his presence before police officer every time, he is
required to do so. The Accused will not tamper with any evidence whatsoever, considered by
police in the investigation.

EXAMPLES OF BAILABLE OFFENCE

Being a member of an unlawful Assembly
Rioting, armed with deadly weapon

Public servant disobeying a direction of the law with intent to cause injury to any person.

Wearing Garb or carrying token used by public servant with fraudulent intents.

Bribery in relation to elections

False statement in connection with elections

Refusing oath when duly required to take oath by a public servant

Obstructing public Servant in discharge of his public functions

Giving or fabricating false evidence in a judicial proceeding
 Selling any food or drink as food and drink, knowing the same to be noxious

Causing a disturbance to an assembly engaged in religious worship

NON BAILABLE OFFENCE

A non-bailable offence is one in which the grant of Bail is not a matter of right. Here the
Accused will have to apply to the court, and it will be the discretion of the court to grant Bail or
not.

The court may generally refuse the Bail, if:

“ Bail Bond" has not been duly executed, or if the offence committed is one, which imposes
punishment of death or Life imprisonment, such as "Murder " or "Rape" or the accused has
attempted to abscond, and his credentials are doubtful.
The application for bail shall be filed before the Magistrate, who is conducting the trial. The
application after being filed is usually listed on the next day. On such day, the application will be
heard, and the police shall also present the accused in court. The magistrate may pass
such orders, as he thinks fit.

EXAMPLE OF NON BAILABLE OFFENCE

Murder (S.302) IPC

Dowry Death (S.304-B) IPC

Attempt to murder (S.307) IPC

Voluntary causing grievous hurt. (S.326) IPC

Kidnapping (S. 363) IPC

Rape (S. 376) etc.
Section 437 of CrPc says When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence.
(1) When any person accused of, or suspected of, the commission of any non-bailable offence is
arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station or appears or is
brought before a Court other than the High Court or Court of Session, he may be released on
bail, but—
(I) such person shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing

That he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life;

(ii) Such person shall not be so released if such offence is a cognizable offence and he had

Been previously convicted of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or

Imprisonment for seven years or more, or he had been previously convicted on two or

More occasions of a non-bailable and cognizable offence:

Provided that the Court may direct that a person referred to in clause (I) or clause (ii) be
released on bail if such person is under the age of sixteen years or is a woman or is sick or
infirm:

Provided further that the Court may also direct that a person referred to in clause

(ii) Be released on bail if it is satisfied that it is just and proper so to do for any other special

Reason:

Provided also that the mere fact that an accused person may be required for being

identified by witnesses during investigation shall not be sufficient ground for refusing to grant
bail if he is otherwise entitled to be released on bail and gives an undertaking that the shall
comply with such directions as may be given by the Court.
(2) If it appears to such officer or Court at any stage of the investigation, inquiry or trial as the
case may be, that there are not reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed
a non-bailable offence, but that there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt, the
accused shall, subject to the provisions of section 446A and pending such inquiry, be released on
bail, or, at the discretion of such officer or Court on the execution by him of a bond without
sureties for his appearance as hereinafter provided.

(3) When a person accused or suspected of the commission of an offence punishable with

Imprisonment which may extend to seven years or more or of an offence under Chapter VI,

Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or abetment

of, conspiracy or attempt to commit, any such offence, is released on bail under sub-section
(1) the Court may impose any condition which the Court considers necessary—

(a) In order to ensure that such person shall attend in accordance with the conditions of

The bond executed under this Chapter, or

(b) In order to ensure that such person shall not commit an offence similar to the offence

Of which he is accused or of the commission of which he is suspected, or

(c) Otherwise in the interests of justice.

(4) An officer or a Court releasing any person on bail under sub-section (1), or sub-section
(2), shall record in writing his or its reasons or special reasons for so doing.
(5) Any Court which has released a person on bail under sub-section (1), or sub-section (2),
may, if it considers it necessary so to do, direct that such person be arrested and commit him to
custody.

(6) If, in any case tried by a Magistrate, the trial of a person accused of any non-bailable Offence is
not concluded within a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case,
such person shall, if he is in custody during the whole of the period, be

released on bail to the satisfaction of the Magistrate, unless for reasons to be recorded in
writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs.

(7) If, at any time after the conclusion of the trial of a person accused of a non-bailable
offence and before judgment is delivered the Court is of opinion that there are reasonable
grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of any such offence, it shall release the
accused, if he is in custody, on the execution by him of a bond without sureties for his
appearance to hear judgment delivered.