Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 10548 (AP)

Gunjara Prem Kumar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

CRLP/8005/2026 · 2026-09-09

Maheswara Rao Kuncheam

Transfer Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 APHC010475912026 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: 8005 OF 2026 Between: 1. Gunjara Prem Kumar, S/o KoteswaraRao,aged32 years. Resident of the House in DoorNo.3-1-222/1, Caste by Madiga, Georgpet,Raithu Bazar, Pattabhipuram, Guntur-522 06,District, Andhra Pradesh -524 236. 2. Gunjara Padma, W/o Koteswara Rao, agedaged 32 years. Resident of the House inDoor No.3-1-22/1,Caste by Madiga,Georgpet,Raithu Bazar, Pattabhipuram, Guntur-522 06,District, Andhra Pradesh -524 236. 3. GunjaraKoteswara Rao, S/o Lingaiah,32 years.Resident of the House in Door No.3-1-22/1,Caste by Madiga, Georgpet, RaithuBazar,Pattabhipuram, Guntur-52206, District,Andhra Pradesh -524 236. 4. Pandaraboina Alias Gunjara Swarna Alias Swarna, W/o Sairam, 36 Years, resident of DoorNo.6-107, Ravindra Nagar, VisakhaPatnam-530 040, Visakhapatnam District., A.P. 5. Pandaraboina Sairam, S/o Srihari,aged 32 years.Employee, Pay T M Private Limited, resident ofDoor No.6-107, Ravindra Nagar, VisakhaPatnam- 530 040, Visakhapatnam District., A.P. 6. Bethapudi Alias Gunjara Swarupa Rani Alias Swarupa, W/o Anil Kumar, 33 years. Caste by Madiga,Residentof the House in Door NO.7-17-449/29,4 Line, Ratnapuri Colony, Guntur-522 002,Guntur District, Andhhra Pradesh. ...Petitioners 2 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Amravati. 2. Gunjara Ramadevi, W/o Prem Kumaraged 32 years, Caste by Madiga, 5 Line,Krishna Nagar,Guntur-522 006, Guntur District, ...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 Courtpleased to quash proceedings the in C.C. NO. 2349 of 2026 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, for Excise and Prohibition, Guntur. Guntur District against the Petitioners/Accused 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 stay of all further proceedings in C.C. NO. 2349 of 2026 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, for Excise and Prohibition, Guntur. Guntur District against the Petitioners, in Quash Petition Counsel for the Petitioners: BALA DASTAGIRI P Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO:8005 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 A6), seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.2349 of 2026 on the file of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Prohibition & Excise, Guntur,for the offences registered under section 85 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 & under section3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 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 A6) 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 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. 4 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 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 A6) before the Special Judicial FirstClass Magistrate for Prohibition & Excise, Guntur in C.C.No.2349 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, 5 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: 8005 of 2026 10.09.2026 pvs