APHC010642922025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12690/2025 Between: 1. PONURI JOEL PRANEETH ALIAS IRFAN, S/O KOTESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,OCC STUDENT, CASTE MADIGA,R/O, H. NO. 19-92, OBAIAH COLONY.VINUKONDA, GUNTUR PALNADU DISTRICT - 522 647. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH,AT AMARAVATHI. 2. BALLANI AADAM, S/O VENKATAIAH,AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS. CASTE YERUKALA OBAIAH COLONY, VINUKONDA TOWN PALNADU DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. K ASAD AHAMED Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. The Court Made the Following Order: The instant petition under Section 528 of the BNSS has been filed by the Petitioner herein/A6, seeking quashment of proceedings against him in S.C.No.325 of 2025 on the file of the learned XIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Narsaraopet. 2. Heard Sri K.Asad Ahamed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State/respondent. 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the police deleted the petitioner’s name from the charge sheet, but the Court has taken cognizance on the protest petition filed by the defacto complainant, and the petitioner has been arrayed as A6 in this matter. Learned counsel would further submit that there are no allegations against the petitioner in the charge sheet. He also submits that the trial may take considerable time, and since the petitioner is only 20 years old, continuing criminal proceedings based on the protest petition amounts to an abuse of the process of law. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition, stating that the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the concerned Magistrate while taking cognizance of the protest petition. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would further submit that LWs. 2, 5, 6, and 7 indicate the presence of the petitioner at the time of the alleged incident, and that the petitioner is also known as Irfan, as referred to in the charge sheet. Hence, it is not a fit case for quashment, and she prays for dismissal of the petition. 5. Considering the submissions made and on a fair perusal of the material placed before this Court, it is the duty of the investigating officer to place all material gathered during the course of investigation before the Court. It is for the concerned Court to take cognizance of the offence. While being such an exercise, the learned Magistrate has three options: to believe the case of the prosecution and issue summons; if the material is insufficient to proceed further, to order further investigation; or, when the material placed 3 before the Court is sufficient to take cognizance of the offence, to proceed with the matter after taking cognizance. 6. In the present case, although the opinion of the police after investigation is that the petitioner was implicated without any role, the Court has taken cognizance on the protest petition, and the said order has not been placed before this Court. In addition, as rightly pointed out by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, there is material placed before the concerned Magistrate regarding the presence of the petitioner at the time of the alleged incident, through the statements of witness Nos. 2, 5, and 7. When there is verifiable material requiring trial, this Court cannot conduct a mini-trial to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the contentions raised. 7. In light of the statements of the witnesses placed on record, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case for quashment, and accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. 8. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a direction may be issued to the Court for speedy disposal of the matter. In that view, the learned trial Judge is directed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date : 09.12.2025 ASR 4 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.12690 of 2025 Dt.09.12.2025 ASR