APHC010513832026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE 29 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8649/2026 Between: 1. BEERAM SIVARANI ALIAS SIVAMMA, W/O SUBBARAO, AGED ABOUT 61 YRS, DOOR NO. 17 GUNTUR, GUNTUR. 2. DURGA ALIAS CHEKKA DURGA, A3 W/O SAMBASIVASIVARAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YRS, LINE ANANDPET,OLD GUNTUR 3. KARNESWARI ALIAS GANGULA KARNESWARI, SURENDRABABU AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/O NEAR ANKAMMATHALLI TEMPLE, GUNTUR. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, WOMEN POLICE STATION, 2. BHIRAKA REVATHI ALIAS MYKA REVATHI, W/O RAMESH ALIAS PAUL DANIEL AGED ABOUT 31 YEARSR/O 17 ANANADPET OLD GUNTUR GUNTUR Petition under Section 482 of circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds High Court to quash the proceedings in C.C. learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur against the 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: 8649/2026 BEERAM SIVARANI ALIAS SIVAMMA, W/O SUBBARAO, AGED DOOR NO. 17-2-82, ZERO LINE, ANANDPET, OLD DURGA ALIAS CHEKKA DURGA, A3 W/O SAMBASIVASIVARAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YRS, R/O NEAR ANKAMMATHALLI TEMPLE,U LINE ANANDPET,OLD GUNTUR GUNTUR. SWARI ALIAS GANGULA KARNESWARI, SURENDRABABU AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/O NEAR ANKAMMATHALLI TEMPLE, U LINE ANANDPET, OLD GUNTUR ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE STATION, GUNTUR URBAN BHIRAKA REVATHI ALIAS MYKA REVATHI, W/O RAMESH ALIAS PAUL DANIEL AGED ABOUT 31 YEARSR/O 17-2-82 , ZERO LINE ANANADPET OLD GUNTUR GUNTUR ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): nder Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the d in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.3230 of 2023 on the file rned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur against the petitione IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3504] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM BEERAM SIVARANI ALIAS SIVAMMA, W/O SUBBARAO, AGED ANANDPET, OLD DURGA ALIAS CHEKKA DURGA, A3 W/O SAMBASIVASIVARAO, R/O NEAR ANKAMMATHALLI TEMPLE,U SWARI ALIAS GANGULA KARNESWARI, W/O SURENDRABABU AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/O NEAR OLD GUNTUR ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY SUB INSPECTOR OF BHIRAKA REVATHI ALIAS MYKA REVATHI, W/O RAMESH ALIAS 82 , ZERO LINE ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): and 528 of BNSS praying that in the of Criminal Petition, the of 2023 on the file of petitioners/accused 2 MRK,J Crl.P.No.8649 of 2026 No. 2 to 4 and to pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 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 Dispense with filing of the certified copy of the Order in C.C no. 3230./2023 dated on 23.03.2023 on the file of VI Additional Juniour Civil Judge; Guntur pending disposal of the case and pass 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 to stay all further proceedings including the appearance of the Petitioners/Accused No. 2 to 4 in C.C.No.3230 of 2023 on the file of learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur pending disposal of the main criminal petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. KONDETI RANGA SRINIVAS 2. Kondeti Ranga Srinivas Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 MRK,J Crl.P.No.8649 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 (A2 to A4), seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.3630 of 2023 on the file of the Court of VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, wherein they were charged with the offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 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, after arguing for some time, has confined his argument to the extent of dispensing with the presence of the petitioners (A2 to A4) 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 herein, 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 4 MRK,J Crl.P.No.8649 of 2026 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 (A2 to A4) before the VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, in C.C.No.3630 of 2023 is hereby dispensed with, except on those dates when the learned trial Court feels that their presence is necessary. In 12022 LiveLaw (SC) 594 5 MRK,J Crl.P.No.8649 of 2026 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. 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, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Dated: 29.09.2026 MDP