APHC010514762026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE 29 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8658/2026 Between: 1. KOMMANABOINA MUTTAIAH, S/O. NARAIAH, OCC JR. ASST. ADDANKI MUNICIPALITY, VILLAGE, KARAMCHEDU MANDAL, 2. KOMMANABOINA SRINIVASARAO ALIAS SRINU, S/O. NARAYANA, AGED 59 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, VILLAGE, KARAMCHEDU MANDAL, 3. YERRAKULA RAMAKOTAIAH, S/O. SUBBARAYUDU, YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, KARAMCHEDU MANDAL, 4. KOMMANABOINA ANURADHA, W/O MUTTAIAH, OCC HOUSE WIFE, KARAMCHEDU MANDAL, 5. KOMMANABOINA UMADEVI, W/O ARJUNARAO, OCC HOUSE WIFE, KARAMCHEDU MANDAL BAPATIA DISTRICT. 6. KOMMANABOINA VENKATESWARAMMA AGED 54 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, VILLAGE, KARAMCHEDU MANDAL, 7. YARRAKULA VENKATARATNAM, W/O RAMAKOTAIAH, YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, KARAMCHEDU MANDAL, 8. POLUBOYINA RAJESH, S/O SRINIVASARAO, CULTIVATION, R/O. KUNKALAMARRU VILLAGE, KARAMCHEDU MANDAL BAPATLA DISTRICT. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE 29th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8658/2026 KOMMANABOINA MUTTAIAH, S/O. NARAIAH, AGED 54 YEARS, OCC JR. ASST. ADDANKI MUNICIPALITY, R/O. KUNKALAMARRU VILLAGE, KARAMCHEDU MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT. KOMMANABOINA SRINIVASARAO ALIAS SRINU, S/O. NARAYANA, AGED 59 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. KUNKALAMARRU VILLAGE, KARAMCHEDU MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT. YERRAKULA RAMAKOTAIAH, S/O. SUBBARAYUDU, AGED 72 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. KUNKALAMARRU VILLAGE, KARAMCHEDU MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT. KOMMANABOINA ANURADHA, W/O MUTTAIAH, AGED 53 OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O. KUNKALAMARRU VILLAGE, KARAMCHEDU MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT. KOMMANABOINA UMADEVI, W/O ARJUNARAO, AGED 50 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O. KUNKALAMARRU VILLAGE, KARAMCHEDU MANDAL BAPATIA DISTRICT. KOMMANABOINA VENKATESWARAMMA, W/O SRINIVASARAO AGED 54 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. KUNKALAMARRU VILLAGE, KARAMCHEDU MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT. YARRAKULA VENKATARATNAM, W/O RAMAKOTAIAH, YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O. KUNKALAMARRU VILLAGE, KARAMCHEDU MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT. POLUBOYINA RAJESH, S/O SRINIVASARAO, AGED 21 YEARS, OCC R/O. KUNKALAMARRU VILLAGE, KARAMCHEDU MANDAL BAPATLA DISTRICT. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3504] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM AGED 54 YEARS, R/O. KUNKALAMARRU KOMMANABOINA SRINIVASARAO ALIAS SRINU, S/O. NARAYANA, KUNKALAMARRU AGED 72 R/O. KUNKALAMARRU VILLAGE, AGED 53 YEARS, R/O. KUNKALAMARRU VILLAGE, AGED 50 YEARS, R/O. KUNKALAMARRU VILLAGE, , W/O SRINIVASARAO R/O. KUNKALAMARRU AGED 64 R/O. KUNKALAMARRU VILLAGE, AGED 21 YEARS, OCC R/O. KUNKALAMARRU VILLAGE, KARAMCHEDU 2 MRK,J Crl.P.No.8658 of 2026 9. POLUBOYINA SRINIVASARAO, S/O SUBBARAO, AGED 51 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. KUNKALAMARRU VILLAGE, KARAMCHEDU MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI. 2. KOMMANABOINA PITCHAIAH, S/O RAMULU, AGED 58 YEARS, OCC GOVT. TEACHER, R/O. CHINNA BAZAAR, KUNKALAMARRU VILLAGE, KARAMCHEDU MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT-523168. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): 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 to quash the entire proceedings in C.C. No.357 of 2025 on the file of Court of Learned Judicial First Class Magistrate at Parchur 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 to grant stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the Petitioners in C.C. No. 357 of 2025 on the file of Court of Learned Judicial First Class Magistrate at Parchur, pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. THARIGOPULA SURYA CHAITANYA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 MRK,J Crl.P.No.8658 of 2026 The Court made the following 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 A9), seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.357 of 2025 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Parchur, wherein they were charged with the offences punishable under Sections 115(2) and 118(1) read with Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 1st petitioner herein (A1) is working as an employee in the Municipality and petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 7 (A2, A3 and A7) are senior citizens and are suffering with various ailments. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, after arguing for some time, has confined his argument to the extent of dispensing with the presence of the petitioners (A1 to A9) 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. 5. 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. 4 MRK,J Crl.P.No.8658 of 2026 So far as dispensing with the presence of the petitioners herein, before the trial Court, he has not opposed the same. 6. 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. 7. 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. 12022 LiveLaw (SC) 594 5 MRK,J Crl.P.No.8658 of 2026 8. 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 A9) before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Parchur, in C.C.No.357 of 2025 is 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 stand automatically revoked, without recourse to this Court. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. 10. Needless to state that the petitioners are at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Dated: 29.09.2026 MDP