APHC010489682025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10120/2025 Between: 1. KOLLA KISHORE, S/O LATE DHARMA RAO, 25 YEARS. CASTE BY DEVANGULA, WORKING AS TECHNICIAN (SAILOR IN INDIAN NAYY), R/O BC STREET, ZINKIBHADRA VILLAGE 85 POST, SOMPETA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI. 2. VICTIM, VICTIM ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. SIMHACHALAM KARUKOLA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10120 of 2025 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 Petitioner/Accused, seeking quashment of the proceedings pending against him in S.C.No.1 of 2018 on the file of the XI Additional District Judge cum Special Court for SC & ST Cases, Visakhapatnam for the offence under Sections 417, 420, 376 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) of SC’s and ST’s (POA) Act, 2015. 2. Heard Sri Simhachalam Karukola, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there are no ingredients to attract the offence under Sections 417, 420, 376 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) of SC’s and ST’s (POA) Act, 2015. Learned counsel would further submit that a false case has been lodged against the petitioner and the petitioner has nothing to do with the present case. Learned counsel would further submit that continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioner is mere abuse of process of law. Learned counsel would further submit that there is no legal proof though there are allegations to attract the offence alleged. 3 4. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that it is not a fit case for quashment. There are specific allegations made against the petitioners to the effect that the petitioner had physical relationship with the defacto complainant under guise of promise of marriage and later, denied to marry her as she belongs to Scheduled Caste. The contentions raised in this petition are a matter of defence. This Court while exercising the Jurisdiction under Section 482 cannot decide the same and conduct a mini trial. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor finally prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. Considering the submissions made and on a fair look at the material placed on record, as rightly put by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, there are clear allegations made against the petitioner. If there is a prima facie verifiable material which requires investigation at the full length of trial as is in the present case, the case cannot be quashed. As rightly put by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, this Court cannot conduct a mini trial. In that view, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 25.09.2025 UPS 4 150 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.10120 of 2025 Dt.25.09.2025 UPS