APHC010372182026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE 19th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6102 OF 2026 Between: 1. Durgasi Vinod Kumar, S/o Ramu, Aged abvout 36 years,Circle Inspector, Now working at Pamuru Police stationPamuru, markapuram District-PIN-523108. 2. Durgasi Ramu,, S/o Appala Suri, Aged about 61 yrs,R/o Voddupeta, Tummakapalli Kothavalsa MandalVizianagaram District. 523108. 3. Durgasi Jayamma, W/o Ramu, Aged about 56 yrs,R/o Voddupeta, Tummakapalli Kothavalasa MandalVizianagaram District. 523108. ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by the Public Prosecutor,High court for the State of Andhra Pradesh,Amaravathi,522237 2. Kunuku Lakshmi Keerthi, ,W/o Durgasi Vinod Kumar, Aged about 24 yrs, R/o penasamvillage, Gantyada mandal, Vizianagaram District ,535215. ...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 2 Courtpleased to to quash the DVC No; 14/2026 on the file of the 1ST ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE- CUM- MOBILE MAGISTRATE VIZIANAGARAM U/s 12(1) r/w sec 18(a)(e)(f) and sec 19(8), 20(1 )(d) and sec 22 of the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act and pass 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 original certified copy of DVC No; 14/2026, dated on the file of 1ST ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-CUM-MOBILE MAGISTRATE VIZIANAGARAM before this Hon’ble Court 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 pleased to stay all the proceedings in the DVC No: 14/2026 on the file of the 1ST ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-CUM-MOBILE MAGISTRATE VIZIANAGARAM U/s 12(1) r/w sec 18(a)(e)(f) and sec 19(8), 20(1 )(d) and sec 22 of the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act and pass Counsel for the Petitioners: SRUNGARAPATI KARTHIK Counsel for the Respondents: BONU RAMA SHANKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6102 of 2026 The Court made the following Order: Instant Criminal Petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of the petitioners herein, seeking to quash the proceedings in DVC No.14 of 2026 on the file of the 1st Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate-cum-Mobile Magistrate, Vizianagaram, for the offences punishable under Section 12(1) read with sections 18(a)(e)(f) and Sections 19(8), 20(1)(d) and Section 22 of The Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-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 their identity at a later stage of proceedings. 4 4. On the other hand, K. Sandeep, 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 petitioner 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 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 594 5 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. In Vishal Shah Vs. Monalisha Gupta & Ors.2, Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that there is no requirement for the personal appearance of any party in the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, because they are quasi-criminal in nature and do not entail any penal consequences, except when there is a breach of a protection order, which is the only offence provided under Section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 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 the petitioners herein before the 1st Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate-cum- Mobile Magistrate, Vizianagaram, in DVC No.14 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 2 2025 Live Law (SC) 240 6 failure of the petitioners to appear when the trial Court specifically directs, this Order shall stands 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. Interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. ____________________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date:19.08.2026 krk 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM 85 CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6102 of 2026 Date: 19.08.2026 krk