Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 10138 (AP)

Chilakamarri Krishnamacharyulu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

CRLP/8011/2026 · 2026-09-09

Maheswara Rao Kuncheam

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

::1:: APHC010476262026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE 10th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8011 OF 2026 Between: 1. ChilakamarriKrishnamacharyulu, /o V. N. Acharyulu, Aged 56 years,Occ Director, Saviour Mines and Minerals Pvt.Ltd.,Manager, Amoda Iron and Steel Pvt.Ltd.,R/o H.No. 1-7-82, Road No. 6, Chaitanyapuri,0pp. Genius Grammar School, Kothapet, Saroornagar, Hyderabad. 2. Upputholla Kondal Rao, S/o Ankallu, Aged about 50 years,Occ Director, Amoda Iron and Steel Pvt.Ltd.,R/o H.No. 6-3- 1119/1/14/202, Flat No. D-204,Aditya Elite, BS Maktha, Begumpet, Hyderabad 3. Shaik Gouse Basha, S/o Masthan, Aged about 43 years,Occ Private Employee, R/o H.No. 8-3-603/1/14/202,2nd Floor, Valley View Apartment,Road No. 10, Banjara Hills,Hyderabad. ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through SHO, RayachotyP.S.,AnnamayyaDistrict,Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. ::2:: 2. Patan Shafi Khan, S/o Sudan Khan, Aged about 59 years,Occ Business ArifullaTransports,R/o D.No. 5/278, Sai Baba Nagar, Rajula Colony,Rayachoty Town, Annamayya District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondents Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtquash the C.C. NO. 1167 of 2026 on the file of the Court of the Hon’ble Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rayachoty, against the Petitioners No. 1 to 3 herein IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased dispense with the filing of the certified copy of C.C. NO. 1167 of 2026 on the file of the Court of the Hon’ble Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rayachoty, Anammayya District for offence under section 420 IPC r/w 34 IPC IA NO: 2 OF 2026 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased stay all proceedings against the Petitioners No. 1 to 3 herein in connection with C.C. NO. 1167 of 2026 on the file of the Court of the Hon’ble Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rayachoty, including their appearance Counsel for the Petitioners: DIVYA DOKKA Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ::3:: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO:8011 of 2026 ORDER:- Instant Criminal Petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023, has been filed on behalf of the petitioners herein (A1 to A3), seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.1167 of 2026 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rayachoty, for the offences registered under section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and Sri K. Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners, after arguing for some time, has confined his argument to the extent of dispensing with the presence of the petitioners (A1 to A3) before the trial Court by submitting petitioners’ practical constraints in attending before the trial Court and states that petitioners shall not dispute their identity at a later stage of proceedings. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that specific accusations have been made as against the petitioners herein and truth or otherwise of the said accusations has ::4:: to be decided during the course of trial, hence, there are no grounds to quash the proceedings at this stage. So far as dispensing with the presence of the petitioners before the trial Court, he has not opposed the same. 5. Since there are specific accusations that have been made as against the petitioners herein, which are all disputed questions of fact, the same can be decided during the course of trial, and this Court, in a petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C., would not be in a position to conduct roving enquiry into the disputed questions of fact and quash the proceedings at this stage. 6. In this context, it is apt to note the dictum held in State of Uttar Pradesh and Another Vs. Akhil Sharda and Others1, by the Apex Court in its vivid terms in the following way: 7. Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court by which the High Court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. As observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court cannot get into 12022 LiveLaw (SC) 594 ::5:: appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein. However, due to ground realities submitted by the counsel for the petitioners, presence of petitioners herein (A1 to A3) before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rayachoty in C.C.No.1167 of 2026is hereby dispensed with, except on those dates when the learned trial Court feels that their presence is necessary. In the event of failure of the petitioners to appear, when the trial Court specifically directs, this Order shall stands automatically revoked, without recourse to this Court. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. 9. Needless to state that the petitioners are at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed. ____________________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 10.09.2026 pvs ::6:: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO:8011 of 2026 10.09.2026 pvs