Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 39498 (AP)

Nadipineni gangadhar v. Nadipineri Tulasi Latha

CRLRC/3348/2018 · 2025-07-10

Y Lakshmana Rao

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010914202018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA AT AMARAVATI PRADESH 0ES FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. CRIMINAL revision CASF Kin- Revision filed under Section 397 & 401 of Criminal Procedure Code 1, d nTn °'2017 in MC No.1 of 2017 DisL J d p'^’ ''^"’"y-Cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole. Between: Nadipineni Gangadhar, Chilakapadu Village, Santhanuthalapadu LAKSHMANA RAO 3348 OF 201« S/o. Venkateswarlu, aged about 35 Mandal, Prakasam District. years, R/o. ...petitioner/respondent AND 1- Nadipineri Tulasi R/o.Pernamitta Latha, W/o.Gangadhar, aged about 30 years. Corporation Limits Village, Ongole Municipal Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, Prakasam 2. Nadipeneni Keerthana District. Chowdary, D/o.Gangadhar, aged about 7 rarhan't?"?"' Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. 4 3. Nadipeneni Sri Brahmini Chowdary, D/o.Gangadhar, aged about 4 years, R/o.Pernamitta Village, Ongole Municipal Corporation Limits, Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. (Respondents 2 & 3 are minors being rep by its Guardian 1 respondent mother) St ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS The State of A P, rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court At Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT lA NO: 2 OF 2018 Petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 110 days in filing the above Criminal Revision Case against the Order passed in CrI.MP No. 130 of 2017 in MC No.1 of 2017 dated 02-05-2018, on the file of the Court of the Family- Cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI MADHAVA RAO NALLURI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : SRI GHANTA SRIDHAR Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER : APHC010914202018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] :■[ FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 3348/2018 Between: NADIPINENI GANGADHAR, S/0 VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O.CHILAKAPADU VILLAGE MANUAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT SANTHANUTHALAPADU ...PETITIONER AND 1.NADIPINERI TULASI LATHA, W/0.GANGADHAR. AGED ABOTA 30 YEARS, R/O.PERNAMITTA VILLAGE, ONGOLE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION LIMITS. SANTHANUTHALAPADU MANUAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ^ 2. NADIPINENI KEERTHANA CHOWDARY, D/0.GANGADHAR, AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS, R/O.PERNAMITTA VILLAGE. ONGOLE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION LIMITS PRAKASAM DISTRICT. SANTHANUTHALAPADU MANUAL, 3.NADIPINENI SRI BRAHMINI CHOWDARY, D/0.GANGADHAR, AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS, R/O.PERNAMITTA VILLAGE, ONGOLE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION LIMITS SANTHANUTHALAPADU MANUAL. PRAKASAM DISTRICT. (RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ARE MINORS BEING REP BY ITS GUARDIAR LST RESPONDENT MOTHER) 4.THE STATE OF A P, REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT HYDERABAD ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under . eTcumstanoes stated inTh the High Court m ‘ the present this revision ^ P'^^^ed to above ""C No., Of 20 ZZ/T"' 'he Order "P-Vttt Additiona l,no 9^ounds among Other ' of CrPC support of thepraying that in the passed in CrI.MP No , ^ on the file of the JPdge, Prahasam in to file 130 of 2017 in Court of the Family- tho followin at Ongole, for 9 ue p/eased 2017 In Me Fam/ly-Cum-Vli/ y'-'ic, ana pass Fetition under Sp f ■^“"90. Pra^asatn at Ongoi^aXtr Counsel for the Petihou,^. MADHAVA RAO NALLURI Counsel for the dated Additional District Respondenf(S); 1GHANTASR/DHAR 3-PUBLIC prosecutor the fo/iow/n counsel for (AP) The Court 9 ORDER; Learned respondent Nos. 1 fo 3 submits Family Court-Cum 2017 M.C.No.1 of -V/M Additional District ^as allowed dodge, Ongole cu Ihe file of the 21.10.2024. In view of the above, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. SD/- K.TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Family-Cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Prakasam Ongole. (with records) 2. One CC to SRI. MADHAVA RAO NALLURI Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI. GHANTA SRIDHAR Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. [OUT] 5. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi at t" 6. Two CD Copies Chp TAC HIGH COURT DATED:11/07/2025 ORDER CRLRC NO. 3348 OF 2018 ^2« JUL 2025 jg rrentSectioaxC'^ il DISftflISSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE AS INFRUCTUOUS