APHC010369232026 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: 6043 OF 2026 Between: 1. Chitragar Tayanna,, S/o. Gopalayya, aged 61 years,R/o. D.No. 10-4-102/3, Marktapet,Raichur, Karnataka State - 584 101. 2. Chitragar Lalita, ,W/o. Tayanna, aged 58 years,R/o. D.No. 10- 4-102/3, Marktapet,Raichur, Karnataka State - 584 101. ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through Station House Officer, Patamata Police Station, Vijayawada, rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Amaravati. 2. Chitragaar Lakshmi Prathyusha, W/o. Nagarjuna, aged 28 years,R/o. F.No.77-1, First Floor, Pagadala Arcade, Rajula Bazar, Ramavarappadu, Vijayawada - 521 108. ...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 Court be 2 pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.8400 of 2025 on the file of the Court of the IV Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada 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 leased to stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.8400 of 2025 on the file of the Court of the IV Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada, till pending disposal of the above CrI.Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioners: YADAVALLI RAMESH Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO:6043 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 (A2 & A3) herein, seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.8400 of 2025 on the file of the learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada, for the offences punishable under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 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. 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 learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada, in CC No.8400 of 2025 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: 13.08.2026 PSA 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6043 of 2026 Date: 13.08.2026 PSA