APHC010419522026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE 11th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6904 OF 2026 Between: 1. Kanamarlapudi Hymavathi, W/o Babaji Rao, Aged about 58 Years,H.No. 28-1-7, South Street, Enugu Chettu, Gandhi Road, Ongole Town, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. Kanamarlapudi Babaji Rao, S/o. Bala Subbaiah, 65 Years,H.No. 28- 1-7, South Street, Enugu Chettu Gandhi Road, Ongole Town,Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh. 3. Kanamarlapudi Sailaja, W/o. Laxmi Venkateswarlu Divvela,39 Years, Flat No. T03, B2 Block,Mahaveer Varma Apartments,Saibaba Ashram Road, Kannamangalaa Bengulur, Karnataka. ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police,Nuvuvid Rural P.S, Krishna Dist.,Rep by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. 2. Thatikonda Venkata Raga Amrutha Varshini, W/o.Kanamarlapuri Ramesh, Aged about 30 years Kota Veedhi, 3 Lane, Ongole Town,Prakasam 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 2 Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtto quash Charge Sheet vide CC.No.448/2026 the file of II Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Ongle for the Offence U/S.85BNS& Sec.3&4 D.P.Act, against the Petitioners/Accused No.2 to4 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 all further proceedings and any coercive steps in C.C.No.448/2026 in so far as Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4 are concerned, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition and pass such above Counsel for the Petitioners: KUMAR ETUKURI, ETUKURI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6904 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. 448 of 2026 on the file of the learned II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent- State. 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 before the trial Court by submitting petitioners’ practical constraints in attending before the trial Court and states that petitioners shall not dispute his 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 4 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 appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered. 12022 LiveLaw (SC) 594 5 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 A4) before the Court of II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole in C.C. No. 448 of 2026 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 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. Interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. ____________________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 11.08.2026 JAK 6 126 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6904 of 2026 Date: 11.08.2026 JAK