Allowed

Avula Nagaraju v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Feb 2026CRLP/1690/2024

Download

Case brief

from the order text

What is this about?

COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT…

What the court decided

AI extract

Avula Nagaraju Vs The State of Telangana — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE ELEVENIH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION N O: 1690 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 Avula Nagaraju, S/o saiduru, Aged 32 years, occ. Lab-Technrcian presenfly residing at H. No. 5-8-47, Bottuguda, Nalgonda District

¶9

2 Avula Laxmamma @ Laxmi, W/o Saidulu, Aged 47 years, Occ Agriculture Collie, R/o lndloor Vrttage, Thipparthy Arlandal, Nalgonda District

¶10

Avula Saidulu, S/o Lingaiah, Aged 52 years, Occ. Agriculture Coolie, R/o lndloor Village, Thipparthy tr/andal, Nalgonda District.

¶11

AIli Alivelu, \L//o Veeraswami, Aged 27 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Dandampally Vrllage, Nalgonda t\rlandal and District.

¶12

Alli Veeraswami, S/o l/asaiah, Aged 35 years, Occ. private Employee, R/o Dandampally Village, Nalgonda Mandal and District.

¶13

.,.PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO. 2 TO 6

¶14

AND

¶15

1 The State of Telangana, Represented by its public prosecutor High Court of Telangana through Lallaguda Rural Police Station, Hyderabad.

¶16

2 Smt. Nune Manrsha, D/o Late Venkanna, Aged 21 years, Occ. Coolie, R/o lndloor Village, Thirpparthy Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶17

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶18

Petition under Sectron 482 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to call for the records in sc No. 77 of 2022 on the file of the court of the Hon'ble I Additional District sessrons Judge at Nalgonda and quash the same in the interest of^justice.

¶19

LA. NO: 1OF 2024

¶20

Petition under Sectron 482 of cr p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in sc No. 77 of 2022 on the fiie of the court of the Hon'ble I Additional District sessions Judge at Nalgonda in so far as the petitioners are concerned including appearance pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition in the interest of justice.

¶21

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the lvremorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri P shashi Kiran, Advocate for the Petitioner and sri, t/. Vivekaninda Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1.

¶22

The Gourt made^{the following:ORDER}

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANIT^{AT HYDERABAD}

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKAIIAMJI

¶25

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1690 OF 201!.;

¶26

DATE : 11.02.2026

¶27

Between:

¶28

Avula Nagaraju and Others

¶29

...Petitioners/Ar: :used Nos.2 to 6

¶30

AND

¶31

The State of Telangana and Another

¶32

...Respondents

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 4t 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short,^"Cr P.C^"), seektrl^quashment of the proceedings against the petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 to 3 in S.C. No. 77 of 2022, pending on the file of the learned I Additional Ei;trict and Sessions

¶35

Judge at Nalgonda

¶36

Heard Mr. P. Shashi Kiran, learned counsel for he petitioners, and [tIr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1/State

¶37

The petitioners are arrayed as Accused Nos l to 6 in the above Sessions Case and are facing trial for offences punishable under

¶38

)

¶39

Sections 417,420,376(2)(n), 504 and 506 read with Section 109 of the lrldian Penal Code, 1860 (lPC), and Section 5(t)read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,2012 (pOCSO Act)

¶40

The prosecution case, in brief, is that Accused No. 1 allegedly subjected the de facto complainant to sexual exploitation on the promise of marriage. The present petitioners, who are the parents, siblings and a relative of Accused No.^'1 , are alleged to have abetted him in the commission of the offences. On the basis of the complaint, Crime No. 235 of 2021 was registered for the aforesaid offences, and upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed, culminating in the Sessions Case.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that a plain reading of the complaint and the material collected during investigation does not disclose any prima facie case against the petitioners for the offences alleged. lt is submitted that the allegations are primarily directed against Accused No. 1, and there are no specific overt acts attributed to the petitioners that would constitute abetment within the meaning of law

¶42

It is further contended that even according to the de facto complainant the petitioners on knowing about the affair admonised them and later did not accept any formal marriage with Accused No. 1 Therefore the essential ingredients of cheating under Sections 417 and

¶43

¶44

42O IPC are not attracted as against the^petitioners. lt i^; argued^{that the} charge sheet merely reproduces the contents of the^, omplaint^without independent material demonstrating active instigatic t , conspiracy,^or intentional aid by the petitioners. The implication of farr ily members, it is contended, is motivated and amounts to misuse oi :riminal^process. Hence, continuance of^prosecution against the^petitiott >rs would amount to abuse of process of Court and warrants interferer ce under Section 482Cr.P.C

¶45

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits l at the^petitioners, being close family members of Accused No. 1, are sp€ cifically referred to in the complaint and witness statements. lt is conte,r Jed that when the relationship between Accused No. 1 and the de facto complainant came to light, the petitioners initially agreed to the propo:; rl of marriage and later retracted with mala fide intention. lt is further submitted that the investigation has resulted in a charge sheet indicati r ; their involvement in abetment, and that the truthfulness of the allegat rns is a matter for trial. lnterference at this stage, it is argued, vr ruld prejudice the prosecution Accordingly, dismissal of the petition is r; rught

¶46

I have perused the material available on recorrl

¶47

The de facto complainant, in her written comp aint, has referred to the petitioners by name and stated that when they r ame to know of the

¶48

¶49

relationship, they reprimanded Accused No. 1. lt is arso aileged that subsequently they agreed to the marriage proposar and sought time of three months, and that an assurance was alos promised to be reduced into writing. Later, when it came to light that Accused No. .l intended to marry another person, he aflegedly threatened the comprainant. rn these circumstance, the petitioners are alleged to have abetted Accused No. 1 in the commission of the offences.

¶50

Section 107 IPC defines "abetment', as including (i) instigation of a person to do an act, (ii) engagement in a conspiracy to commit an act, or (iii) intentional aid by any act or illegal omission in the commission of that act. To attract section 109 lpc, there must be prima facie material showing active participation or intentional assistance in the commission of the principal offence.

¶51

on careful scrutiny of the material placed on record, the allegations against the petitioners are confined to (i) reprimanding Accused No. 1 at one stage, (ii) subsequently agreeing to a proposal of marriage, and (iii) seeking time for solemnization and later retracted and supported for another marriage for the accused No.1. Even if these allegations are taken at face value, they do not prima facie disclose instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid in the commission of sexual offences or cheating by Accused No. 1

,tll i

)

Similarly, for the offence of cheating^{under Sect tns 417 and 420} lPC, the essential ingredient is dishonest or fraudulerl^{intentionat the} inception of the transaction. No material is^{pleaded,r uchlesssecured} during investigation to show that the^{petitionershad any such intention or} that they induced the complainant to act to her detrimett^.

¶56

12 With respect to offences under Sections 504^{ar d 506 lPC,there} are no specific and distinct allegations attributing^{irt entionalinsult or} criminal intimidation to the^petitioners. The statementr^{, are generaland} omnibus in nature, without^particulars as to time,^{place,or specific acts}

¶57

13 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Harye na v^BhaianLal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, has delineated the categori rs of cases^where inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be rr; ercised to^prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of^{justice, in<;l} tding cases^where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not c() lstttute the offence alleged

¶58

Applying the principles laid down thereitr and taking the prosecution material at its highest value, this C r urt flnds that the essential ingredients of abetment or other alleged off, :nces are not made out against the petitioners. The continuation of^r; iminal^proceedihgs against them would therefore amount to abuse of 1 rocess of Court. ln view of the above factual and legal position, this Cour t is satisfied that the

¶59

¶60

petitioners have made out a case for exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.p.C.

¶61

15 Accordingly, the proceedings against the petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 to 6 in S.C. No 77 of 2022, pending on the file of the learned I Additional District and sessions Judge at Nargonda, are hereby quashed.

¶62

'16. The criminar Petition is accordingry aflowed As a sequer, pending

¶63

miscellaneous applications , it any , shall stand closed

¶64

SD/. A.H.S.GOWRI SH ASSISTANT RE RAR

//TRUE COPYII

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 The lAdditional District and Sessions Judge at Nalgonda

¶69

2 The Station House Officer, Thipparthy polrce Statio"n, Nalgonda District. 3 Two CCs to the public prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. tOUTI

¶70