1 APHC010619952023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9589/2023 Between: 1. PUNE VENKATA RAO @ VENKATA RAO, S/O.NARASIMHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O.WARD.NO.2, KONDAPATURU VILLAGE, KAKUMANU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. MADDIBOINA @ PUNE MOUNIKA,, W/O.VENKATA RAO, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O.KONDAPATURU VILLAGE, KAKUMANU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. PUNNESESHAMMA,, W/O.NARASIMHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/ O.KONDAPATURU VILLAGE, KAKUMANU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. DABBAKUTIJAYALAKSHMI,, W/O.GOPI RAJU, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O.GAVINIVARIPALEM, CHIRALA, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 5. DABBAKUTIGOPIRAJU, , S/O.RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O.GAVINIVARIPALEM, CHIRALA, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 6. GAVININAGARAJU, , S/O.KANTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O.ANUMALLIPET VILLAGE, VETAPALEM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 7. GAVINIRAJYALAKSHMI,, W/O.NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O.ANUMALLIPET VILLAGE, VETAPALEM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 8. MADDIBOINARAMU,, S/O.VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O.OLDCHIRALA, CHIRALA TOWN, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2 9. PEMMANIALLURISEETHARAJU,, S/O. CHINNABALAALLURAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O.MADALAVURIPALEM VILLAGE, PODILI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 10. GONABOINARAMBABU,, S/O.SUBBA RAO, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O.YADAVAPALEM, CHERUVUJAMMULAPALEM, BAPATLA, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 11. GAVINIVENKATARATTAMMA,, W/O.SRINIVASA RAO, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O.JANDRAPET, CHIRALA, PRAKASAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY IT'S PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. PERUPOGUJYOTHI, , D/O.YACOB, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O.KUGLAR HOSPITAL AREA, OLD CLUB ROAD, KOTHAPET, GUNTUR MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. VIJAYA LAKSHMI PITTU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9589/2023 ORDER: The instant criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C)/under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 11, seeking quashment of the proceedings pending against them in Spl.S.C.No.129 of 2019 on the file of Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur District for the offences punishable under Sections 496, 420, 354, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) & (s) of SCs & STs (POA) Act. 2. Heard Smt. Vijaya Lakshmi Pittu, learned counsel for the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 11 and Ms. K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there is a delay of four (4) days in giving complaint to the Police against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that a false case has been lodged against the petitioners. There are no ingredients to attract the offences under the provisions of SCs & STs (POA) Act, since there are no witnesses watching the alleged incident. Learned counsel finally prays for quashment of the case. 4 4. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that prima facie allegations are there to maintain the case against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 496, 420, 354, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) & (s) of SCs & STs (POA) Act. After due investigation, the police filed the charge sheet. The Court has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 496, 420, 354, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) & (s) of SCs & STs (POA) Act against the petitioners. The matter is of the year 2019. It is pending before the Court in Spl.S.C.No.129 of 2019. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor finally prays for dismissal of the petition. 5. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed on record, the contentions raised in the present petition are a matter of defense. This Court cannot conduct a mini trial to decide the truth or otherwise of such contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners challenging the case registered against them. Needless to say that, if the complainant is able to give a plausible explanation for the delay, the delay cannot go into the root of the case. In that view, this is not a fit case for quashment, as verifiable material is there against the petitioners, which requires investigation at full length of trial. This Court is not inclined to quash the case against the petitioners. 6. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the presence of the petitioners before the Trial Court may be dispensed with. 5 7. In the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. However, the presence of the petitioners/A2 to A11 before the Trial Court is dispensed with, unless their presence is specifically directed by the Trial Court. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 25.07.2025 UPS 6 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9589/2023 Dated.25.07.2025 UPS 242