APHC010055902024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE 13th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 704 OF 2024 Between: 1. BANDI VEERA PADMA LAXMI PARVATI, shown in DVC as Bandi Veera Padma Lakshmi Parvathi, W/o Appi Reddy, aged about 59 years, R/o D. No. 2-93, Rajapuram Peddireddigudem, AnnapureddipaIIi Mandal, Kothagudem, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District. 2. Jaggavarapu Naga Pushpavathi, Shown in DVC as Jakkavarapu Pushpavathi, W/o Chinna Lakshma Reddy, R/o, Digavalli village,Nuzvid Mandal, Krishna District,Andhra Pradesh- 521213. ...Petitioners AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. 2. Bandi Anuradha, W/o Sreenivasa Reddy, aged about 39 years, Occ House-wife, C/o Guduru Kasthuri of Jayanthi Village, Veerulapadu Mandal, NTR District ...Respondents 2 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 Court pleased to quash the DVC.No.28/2023On the File of the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge Cum Additional Judicial First-Class Magistrate at Nandigama against the petitioners herein and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 against the petitioners in connection with DVC.No.28/2023On the File of the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge Cum' Additional Judicial First-Class Magistrate at Nandigama including their appearance and pass Counsel for the Petitioners: SASANKA BHUVANAGIRI Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 704 of 2024 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.28 of 2023 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Nandigama, for the offences punishable under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 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. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that specific accusations have been made as against 4 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, 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 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 594 5 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 (Accused) before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Nandigama, in DVC No.28 of 2023 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 2 2025 Live Law (SC) 240 6 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: 13.08.2026 PSA 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 704 of 2024 Date: 13.08.2026 PSA