Naredla Alivelu v. The State of Telangana
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-01-09. Naredla Alivelu v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 13375 OF 2025 Between: 1. Naredla Alivelu, Wo. Krishna, Aged about 53 years, Occ Housewife, Rlo 1-10-281232172NP, lt/eenakshi Nagar, Road No. 6, Kushaiguda, Kapra, lr/edchal- Malkajgiri 500062. 2. Naredla Krishna, S/o. Naredla Potaraju Aged about 61 years, Occ. A R. Head Constable, R/o. R/o. 1-10-281232172NP, [t/eenakshi Nagar, Road. No. 6, Kushaiguda, Kapra, Ivledchal- Ivlalkajgiri 500062 3. Naredla Sravanthi, Wo. Someshwar @ Somesh Unnidas, Aged about 35 years, Occ Women Police Constable, R/o. Plot No. 64, D. No. 13, Sai Teka Enclave, lv]eerpet, Moulali, Kapra, Hyderabad. 4. Naredla Usha Usha Sri, D/o. Krishna, Aged about 32 years, Occ @ Household, R/o. Plot No. '16, PI\4R Enclave, Renuka Yellamma Colony, Keesara lt/andal, Medchal District. 5. Someshwar @ [t/. Someshwar Unnidas, S/o.
Nilakantan Mohandas, Aged '13, about 38 years, Occ. Private Employee, R/o. Plot No. 64, D. No- Sai Teka Enclave, Meerpet, Moulali, Kapra, Hyderabad. ... PetitioneriAccused No. 2 to 6 AND '1 , The State of Telangana, Rep. , by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature of Telangana, Hyderabad. 2. Smt. Naredla Parimala, Wo. Srikanth, Aged about 31 years, Occ Household, R/o H. No. 2- 113, CRPF Head Quarters, Palivelpula Village, Hanamkonda, Hanamkonda District. ... Respondents Petition under Section 528 of B. N. S. S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the fVlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased toto i) Quash the proceedings in C. C No. 3758 of 2019, on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge Cum Judicial Magistrate of First '1 Class, Hanumakonda, arising out of Crime No. 1 9 of 201 9 of W. P. S, Warangal City, Warangal, for offenses U/s 498A, 406 and 506 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of D. P.
Act, as against the Petitioners, and ii) To pass such w u other orders or orders, as this Court may deem fit and pr,r,er in the interest of justice. l. A. NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Sectron 528 of B. N. S. S. praying that t the crrcumstances stated rn the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitior the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in C. C. No. 375;t rf 2019 on the file of the on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge- Cum i rdrcial I\/agistrate of First Class, Hanumakonda, at Hanumakonda, including tlr{ appearance of the petitioners, pending drsposal of the present Crrminal Petili )n and further pass such other order or orders as thrs Court may deem fit and yrcper in the interest of justice. This Petition coming on for hearrng upon perusing he Memorandum of Grounds of Crimrnal Petition and upon hearrng he arguments of Sri N lt/ l\/ tt/urthy, Advocate for the Petitioner and I i V.
Jithender Rao, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Responrl, nt No. 1 and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER ,! *w IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 13375 of 2025 Date:09. 01. 2026 Between: Naredla Alivelu and 4 others Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 to 6 And State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and another Respondents ORDER: This criminal petition is frled seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos. 2 to 6 in CC No. 3758 of 2019 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hanumakonda, registered for the offences under Sections 498-4, 406, 506 IPC and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short'DP Act') 2. Heard Sri N. Madan Mohan Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.
Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No. 1 -State Crl. P. No 1:t375 o{ 2025 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has s tbmitted that the petitioners herein are the parents and other fami rnembers of the ; accused No. 1 and that the de facto complainant >ft the society of her husband i. e. the accused No. 1 in 2014 an<l tte complaint is lodged under Section 498-4 IPC in the year 20'1 S vith all false and omnibus allegations. lt is only after the divorce pe i ion that was filed by accused No. 1, that the present complaint has br en lodged by the de facto complainant to counter blast the said case rrrd to harass the petitioners. He, therefore, prayed to quash the prrc:aedings against the petitioners 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor il s submitted that the statement of the de facto complainant p I rts out specific eillegations against the accused and that the petit c r ers-A2 to 6 have to face the trial.
Therefore, he prayed to dismiss ti r petition 5. Perused the record 6. The contents of the complaint do lnt tr,r out specific allegations against the petitioners herein. lt is allc,ed that accused No. 1 used to consume liquor daily and used to rl ,mand additional dowry and threatened to kill the de facto compia nant expressing suspicion over her. He used to beat her and har;;s her physically - EfD,J Crl. P. No. 13375 of 2025 and mentally. Her parents-in-law also threatened her and asked her to bring Rs. 5. 00 lakhs as additional dowry as she has given birth to a grrl and further they used to say that the dowry brought by her is very less and with the additional dowry, accused No. 1 can do business. They further threatened to kill the de facto complarnant. lt is further alleged that the sisters-in-law and their husbands frequently used to visit the place of the de facto complainant and accused No. 1, during festivals and instigated accused No.
1 , and on their instigation, the accused No. 1 used to consume heavy liquor, abused the de facto complainant and beat her without taking any care of the de facto complainant and her daughter. ) ) 7 lt is further alleged that accused No. 1 never used to do any work and whenever the de faclo complainant questioned him, he used to demand additional dowry. He has sold away the gold and clothes of the de facfo complainant given by her parents. When she expressed the inability of her parents to give additional dowry, the petitioners have necked her out Thus, the allegations prima facie point the offences under Sections 498-4, 406, 506 IPC and 3 and 4 of the DP Act against the petitioners. LWs. 4 to 6 are shown to be the panchayat elders. Their evidence need to be tested during the course of trial. The truth or otherwise in the allegations can be culled crr P. No. 1J375 0f 2025 out only after a full-fledged trial.
Therefore, the pr rceedings cannot be quashed at this stage However, it is deerr r c a ppropriate to dispose of the petition by dispensing with the : tendance of the petitioners before the trral court. B Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dispr> ;ed of dispensing with the attendance of the petitioners before the 1r al court provided they are represented by a counsel on every date cf hearing and they shall be present before the trial court as and when their presence is required during the course of trial. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall ;tand closed. SD/- K. AMMAJI I I EPUTY REGISTRAR \ t\ ,TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, . 1 . The Principal Junror Civil Judge Cum- Judicial Magistr:r : of First Class, Hanumakonda, at Hanumakonda, 2. The Station House Officer, WPS Warangal City, Waran ri City. I 3. One CC to Sri. N M M ft/lurthy Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to Publrc Prosecutor, High Court for the State r t Telangana. [OUT] 5. Two CD Copres.
YJR /PSL HIGH COURT DATED:0910112026 -:al ) I . ,4 fitu (f /il/r :r'; [i 2 r t R, o PATC ORDER CRLP. No. 13375 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITI(IN. g $ &
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.