APHC010460952026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7687/2026 Between: 1. REVALLI SEKHAR, S/O. REVALLI PULLANNA, YEARS, HINDU, BUSINESS, R/O H.NO 3 NAGAR, KALLURU KURNOOL DIST. 2. REVALLI SUNKANNA, S/O. REVALLI ABOUT 34 YEARS, HINDU, SREENIVASA NAGAR, 3. SIRIGIRI RAMESWARI, W/0 BUDAGA JANGAM COLONY, MANDAL, NANDYALA DISTRICT, 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT AMARAVATI 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MAHILA P.S., KURNOOL 3. REVALLI SRAVANTHI REVALLI SEKHAR, S/O. REVALLI PULLANNA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, HINDU, SREENIVASA NAGAR, Petition under Section 482 of circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to quash IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE 3rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7687/2026 SEKHAR, S/O. REVALLI PULLANNA, AGED ABOUT 34 BUSINESS, R/O H.NO 3-10, NEW SREENIVASA KALLURU KURNOOL DIST.-518003.CELL NO. 9959299925. REVALLI SUNKANNA, S/O. REVALLI PULLANNA, LATE. ABOUT 34 YEARS, HINDU, BUSINESS, R/O H.NO 3, SREENIVASA NAGAR, KALLURU KURNOOL DIST.-518003. SIRIGIRI RAMESWARI, W/0 SIRIGIRI SEKHAR,H.NO 1 BUDAGA JANGAM COLONY, LAKSHMA PURAM, PAGIDALA NANDYALA DISTRICT, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MAHILA P.S., KURNOOL REVALLI SRAVANTHI REVALLI SEKHAR, S/O. REVALLI PULLANNA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, HINDU, BUSINESS, R/O H.NO 3 SREENIVASA NAGAR, KALLURU KURNOOL DIST.-518003 ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): der 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 ed to quash the on the File of CC No.2054 OF 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3504] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM AGED ABOUT 34 NEW SREENIVASA 518003.CELL NO. 9959299925. LATE. AGED R/O H.NO 3, NEW 518003. SEKHAR,H.NO 1-188B, PAGIDALA ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT REVALLI SRAVANTHI REVALLI SEKHAR, S/O. REVALLI PULLANNA, BUSINESS, R/O H.NO 3-10, NEW ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the 2054 OF 2026 2 MRK,J Crl.P.No.7687 of 2026 proceedings of the in the Court of the I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool., against the Petitioner’s / Accused No.1 to 3 in the interest of justice 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 stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioner’s / A1 to A3 in CC No.2045 / 2026 of the in the court of the I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool., pending disposal of the Criminal Petition before the Hon’ble Court and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. NAGA RAJU B K 2. B K Nagaraju Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 MRK,J Crl.P.No.7687 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 (A1 to A3), seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2045 of 2026 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool, wherein they were charged with the offences punishable under Section 85 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 & 2. 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 (A1 to A3) 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 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. 4 MRK,J Crl.P.No.7687 of 2026 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. 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 A3) before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 594 5 MRK,J Crl.P.No.7687 of 2026 Kurnool, in C.C.No.2045 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. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Dated: 03.09.2026 MDP