APHC010011672026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: Between: 1. BANDI TARUN KUMAR, S/O BANDI SATYA VARA PRASAD,AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O 2 26/1,SETTIBALIJAPALEM KARUGORUMILLIACHANTA MANDALWEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTORHIGH COURT OF A.P. AMARAVATHI, GURNTUR DISTRICT. 2. BANDI LEELA, W/O BANDI TARUN KUMAR. AGED ABOUT 28 YEARSR/O DOOR NO. 4 CHITTINAGAR,VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R DISTRICT.BASARABOINA LEELA D/O BASARABOINA SRINIVASA RAO 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 to quash the proceedings in CrI.M.P. No.617/2025 Judge-cum - Family Judge's Court, Vijaywada during the pendency of the petition in CrI.547/2025 i.e., to set aside the ex pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 175/2026 BANDI TARUN KUMAR, S/O BANDI SATYA VARA PRASAD,AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O 2 26/1,SETTIBALIJAPALEM KARUGORUMILLIACHANTA MANDALWEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTORHIGH COURT OF A.P. AMARAVATHI, GURNTUR DISTRICT. BANDI LEELA, W/O BANDI TARUN KUMAR. AGED ABOUT 28 YEARSR/O DOOR NO. 4-3-11, SADHU JOHAN STREET, CHITTINAGAR,VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R DISTRICT.BASARABOINA LEELA D/O BASARABOINA SRINIVASA RAO ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): 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 to quash the proceedings in in F.C.O.P.485/2025of the XIV Additional District Family Judge's Court, Vijaywada during the pendency of the petition in CrI.547/2025 i.e., to set aside the ex-parte dated 26-8 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3396] THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA BANDI TARUN KUMAR, S/O BANDI SATYA VARA PRASAD,AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O 2- 26/1,SETTIBALIJAPALEM KARUGORUMILLIACHANTA ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTORHIGH COURT OF A.P. AMARAVATHI, BANDI LEELA, W/O BANDI TARUN KUMAR. AGED ABOUT 28 11, SADHU JOHAN STREET, CHITTINAGAR,VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R DISTRICT.BASARABOINA ONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): 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 to quash the proceedings in in F.C.O.P.485/2025of the XIV Additional District Family Judge's Court, Vijaywada during the pendency of the 8-2025 and 2 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 pleased to grant stay of proceedings in CrI.M.P. No.617/2025 in F.C.O.P.485/2025 including execution of N.B.W dated 4-12-2025 on the file of the XIV Additional District Judge-cum -Family Judge's Court, Vijayawada, during the pendency of the main quash petitionand pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. PECHATHY RANGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings in Crl.M.P. No.617 of 2025 arising out of F.C.O.P. No.485 of 2025 on the file of the Court of the XIV Additional District Judge- cum-Family Judge, Vijayawada, during the pendency of Crl.M.P. No.547 of 2025, which was filed to set aside the ex-parte order dated 26.08.2025. 2. Heard Sri P. Ranga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Ms. K. Lakshmi Priyanka, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the State. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the husband of the second respondent. The second respondent-wife filed F.C.O.P. No.485 of 2025 before the Court of the learned XIV Additional District Judge-cum-Family Judge, Vijayawada, seeking maintenance, the petitioner could not appear before the trial Court, and consequently, the matter was proceeded ex-parte. An ex-parte order dated 26.08.2025 was passed granting maintenance in favour of the second respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P. No.547 of 2025 to set aside the ex-parte order, which is presently pending consideration before the trial Court. During the pendency of the said application, the second respondent initiated execution proceedings by filing Crl.M.P. No.617 of 2025 for recovery of arrears of maintenance. In the said execution petition, the trial Court issued a Non-Bailable Warrant against the petitioner. Learned 4 counsel for the petitioner would further submit that, when an application to set aside the ex-parte order is pending consideration, continuation of execution proceedings would cause irreparable hardship to the petitioner. He would further submit that the second respondent is a teacher and, therefore, issuance of a Non-Bailable Warrant is unwarranted. 4. Per contra, Ms. K. Lakshmi Priyanka, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed the petition and would submit that the maintenance order passed by the trial Court is valid and therefore no interference is warranted at this stage. 5. Considering the submissions made by both learned counsel, it is apposite to dispose of the Criminal Petition at the stage of admission itself. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of. However, the learned XIV Additional District Judge-cum-Family Judge, Vijayawada, is directed to dispose of Crl.M.P. No.549 of 2025 filed by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, without granting any further adjournments. It is made clear that the petitioner is at liberty to move an appropriate application before the trial Court for recall of the Non-Bailable Warrant, and if such an application is filed, the trial Court shall consider the same in accordance with law. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stands closed. ______________________________________________ Dr. VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 08.01.2026 KKV